4 ms·

_you_ don’t know what it means to be under material poverty. Look up farmer suicides in India an you can understand how material poverty leads to even more sui

_you_ don’t know what it means to be under material poverty. Look up farmer suicides in India an you can understand how material poverty leads to even more suicides statistically. These people don’t even have food to sustain. One of the biggest problems is that poor people in India have low IQ because they literally can’t afford food with vitamins. Low IQ leads to irrational decisions, low productivity and they get equal vote so they vote in idiots that slow progress. These jobs are the best deal for overall progress of India. Sure they have to struggle in the middle but at least they have good food on the plate. Some safety net to make long term decisions and vote for better leaders. You wouldn’t get it. You would just show concern. But Indians have to deal with the problems.

pinnochio 9mo ago
_you_ don't seem to understand what I wrote, or are not attempting to genuinely respond to it. But you've demonstrated a certain thickheadedness, potentially willful, so I can't say I was expecting better.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - permo-w 9mo ago
    They're suggesting that you listen to and address the points they made rather than simply rephrase your original viewpoint. I'd suggest you try to understand that psychological problems are real and that you only get one brain. You may say "you don't understand poverty", but it equally sounds like you don't understand trauma and psychological issues. You only get one brain and life is about being happy. If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better? It sounds like it is for you as long as they stop voting for candidates you don't like. It's easy to not care about people's happiness if they don't vote for the candidates you like, right?
    - simianwords 9mo ago
      Can you address the point I made where farmers suicides happen because of material poverty? If you saw that my main point was that metaphysical concerns of “trauma” and “psychological issues” are a non issue for people who don’t have food on their plate. > If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better? Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise? They took that decision voluntarily. I’m also suggesting that it’s the best decision. You seem to think you have a better alternative for those people. Pray tell me, what is it that you are suggesting? What would you have rather done if you were the poor mother in middle of nowhere India and you had 6 children with complete lack of material stability. You would have rejected it? If it were me or my friends or family- I would have definitely taken the job or adviced my friends to take it.
      - pinnochio 9mo ago
        > Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise? Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away. > They took that decision voluntarily. As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off. Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
        simianwords 9mo ago
        You’ve ignored my point on material poverty leading to suicides again. This means you can’t appreciate that Indians suffer mostly from people lack of money than anything else. > As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off I’m suggesting that it’s the best decision for them. They’ve clearly taken the decision so they also think the same. I asked you for alternatives, or what you could have rather done but you’ve not answered. Maybe consider that it’s the best option for them? > In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do. This shows clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s mostly because of US that India has great IT jobs. It’s also because of products and services made in the US that we use in India that India enjoys some prosperity. Think of all the pharmaceutical innovations. Think of the internet, iPhones and everything. The USA has a massive part in reducing poverty in India. What you are doing is clear: moral grandstanding without suggesting any clear alternative. It’s always nice to show easy empathy.
s_trumpet 9mo ago
I know what it means to be under material poverty in this hell of a country. Even so I think this is another poisoned chalice. We are where you export your garbage to, whether material or digital. I spit on your false charity.

pinnochio 9mo ago

_you_ don't seem to understand what I wrote, or are not attempting to genuinely respond to it. But you've demonstrated a certain thickheadedness, potentially willful, so I can't say I was expecting better.

simianwords 9mo ago
[flagged]
- permo-w 9mo ago
  They're suggesting that you listen to and address the points they made rather than simply rephrase your original viewpoint. I'd suggest you try to understand that psychological problems are real and that you only get one brain. You may say "you don't understand poverty", but it equally sounds like you don't understand trauma and psychological issues. You only get one brain and life is about being happy. If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better? It sounds like it is for you as long as they stop voting for candidates you don't like. It's easy to not care about people's happiness if they don't vote for the candidates you like, right?
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    Can you address the point I made where farmers suicides happen because of material poverty? If you saw that my main point was that metaphysical concerns of “trauma” and “psychological issues” are a non issue for people who don’t have food on their plate. > If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better? Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise? They took that decision voluntarily. I’m also suggesting that it’s the best decision. You seem to think you have a better alternative for those people. Pray tell me, what is it that you are suggesting? What would you have rather done if you were the poor mother in middle of nowhere India and you had 6 children with complete lack of material stability. You would have rejected it? If it were me or my friends or family- I would have definitely taken the job or adviced my friends to take it.
    - pinnochio 9mo ago
      > Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise? Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away. > They took that decision voluntarily. As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off. Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
      - simianwords 9mo ago
        You’ve ignored my point on material poverty leading to suicides again. This means you can’t appreciate that Indians suffer mostly from people lack of money than anything else. > As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off I’m suggesting that it’s the best decision for them. They’ve clearly taken the decision so they also think the same. I asked you for alternatives, or what you could have rather done but you’ve not answered. Maybe consider that it’s the best option for them? > In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do. This shows clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s mostly because of US that India has great IT jobs. It’s also because of products and services made in the US that we use in India that India enjoys some prosperity. Think of all the pharmaceutical innovations. Think of the internet, iPhones and everything. The USA has a massive part in reducing poverty in India. What you are doing is clear: moral grandstanding without suggesting any clear alternative. It’s always nice to show easy empathy.

s_trumpet 9mo ago

I know what it means to be under material poverty in this hell of a country. Even so I think this is another poisoned chalice. We are where you export your garbage to, whether material or digital. I spit on your false charity.