The Great Google cave-in to the PRC- was it hypocrisy
Up until a month or so ago, Google's corporate slogan was "Don't be Evil." This corporate slogan has been withdrawn contemporaneously with Google's provision of a PRC compatible version that is blocked for certain search terms that the PRC doesn't like.
Here is an article on it:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138404334789&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
a section of this article is below:
----------------------------
Internet searches via the Chinese website to be established by Google will be censored by the company itself. They will, therefore, exclude results on such sensitive topics as democratic reform, Taiwanese independence and the banned Falun Gong movement.
-----------------------------
Google admits that this policy is inconsistent with its corporate ideals but defends its action by noting that Chinese will still be able to search millions of sites that they would otherwise not easily find. Although Google doesn't use this as a defense, the fact is that other search engines affiliated with MSN, Yahoo, etc. also allow a form of search censorship.
I actually find Google's defense somewhat reasonable. It seems to me that it is quite likely a Chinese iternet search might well find acticles on, say, Democracy or Falun Gong by slightly circuitous paths (in fact once they discover Wikipedia, the censorship becomes very difficult for the PRC govt.).
But the reasonableness of Google's defense isn't the question. Hypocrisy is. Here, again, however, if we look closely we find Google has changed its mind as witness its deletion of its old corporate slogan. That is to say, since they've changed their mind, they can't be accused of doing what they say not to do. In addition, the corporate slogan was "Don't do Evil" and they could reasonably say they haven't done evil, they've merely caved in to evil's request which is similar but not exactly the same thing.
BTW, I certainly don't approve of everything Google does and I suspect they do a lot of stuff I don't like but don't even know about.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Is the Hypocrisy in the Sunday Comics?
A letter to the editor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701354.html
accuses the cartoonist Aaron McGruder of developing a rascist comic strip and accuses the Washington Post of hypocrisy in running it; at least I think that is what the letter writer says. Here is an excerp of the letter to the editor:
------------------
In the Dec. 28 "Boondocks," the grandfather compares black slaves to the title character in the remake of "King Kong": "A giant black jungle monkey put in chains, brought to America, and killed for lovin' a white woman!" Of course, we are supposed to laugh and chuckle, but I'd like to know how many letters of outrage The Post would get if word got out that a white supremacist had written the strip.
-------------------
Unfortunately for me I am not sure if the cartoonist is making fun of a fictional (black) character in his comic strip or making fun of the movie or what. Thus I can't tell if he is really being rascist or merely being ironic or being sarcastic.
As far as the Washington Post running the comic strip, they were, I think, faced with the same problem as I am. Thus I don't see how they can be called hypocrites for running the strip. Indeed, I think I have heard academics state their theory that the movie King Kong appeals to the white fear of black sexuality. My opinion of such theories is basically: Its a movie! Chill.
Bottom line: no opinion can be rendered on hypocrisy.
A letter to the editor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701354.html
accuses the cartoonist Aaron McGruder of developing a rascist comic strip and accuses the Washington Post of hypocrisy in running it; at least I think that is what the letter writer says. Here is an excerp of the letter to the editor:
------------------
In the Dec. 28 "Boondocks," the grandfather compares black slaves to the title character in the remake of "King Kong": "A giant black jungle monkey put in chains, brought to America, and killed for lovin' a white woman!" Of course, we are supposed to laugh and chuckle, but I'd like to know how many letters of outrage The Post would get if word got out that a white supremacist had written the strip.
-------------------
Unfortunately for me I am not sure if the cartoonist is making fun of a fictional (black) character in his comic strip or making fun of the movie or what. Thus I can't tell if he is really being rascist or merely being ironic or being sarcastic.
As far as the Washington Post running the comic strip, they were, I think, faced with the same problem as I am. Thus I don't see how they can be called hypocrites for running the strip. Indeed, I think I have heard academics state their theory that the movie King Kong appeals to the white fear of black sexuality. My opinion of such theories is basically: Its a movie! Chill.
Bottom line: no opinion can be rendered on hypocrisy.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Slate author accuses Supreme Court Justice Scalia of Hypocrisy
Slate author William Saletan says that the priciples used by Scalia in abortion cases is at odds with the principles used by Scalia in a recent assisted suicide case.
The Slate post is a long one. I found it difficult to read. It is at: http://www.slate.com/id/2134452/?nav=tap3
As I understand it, the gist is that Scalia assets that Roe v Wade was wrongfully decided because abortion isn't in the constitution (a strict constructionist approach) and requires value judgement whereas his opinion in the recently decided Oregon assisted suicide case (Scalia was in the minority) takes an expansive view of a 1970s era federal law, requires a value judgement and would overturn a twice enacted State law (approved by voters in two referenda).
One problem with this thesis is that I think you can be a strict constructionist regarding the constitution while having a more expansive view of legislation passed by Congress. Similarly, one can have a strict constructionist viewpoint on what rights are and are not in the constitution while having a expansive view of how to construe phrases found in legislation passed by Congress.
I'm not familiar with the 1970s era law (Saletan says it was about recreational drugs) that was the basis for the Oregon SCOTUS decision and I don't want to read up on it, so I'm not going to be able to comment further on this.
Slate author William Saletan says that the priciples used by Scalia in abortion cases is at odds with the principles used by Scalia in a recent assisted suicide case.
The Slate post is a long one. I found it difficult to read. It is at: http://www.slate.com/id/2134452/?nav=tap3
As I understand it, the gist is that Scalia assets that Roe v Wade was wrongfully decided because abortion isn't in the constitution (a strict constructionist approach) and requires value judgement whereas his opinion in the recently decided Oregon assisted suicide case (Scalia was in the minority) takes an expansive view of a 1970s era federal law, requires a value judgement and would overturn a twice enacted State law (approved by voters in two referenda).
One problem with this thesis is that I think you can be a strict constructionist regarding the constitution while having a more expansive view of legislation passed by Congress. Similarly, one can have a strict constructionist viewpoint on what rights are and are not in the constitution while having a expansive view of how to construe phrases found in legislation passed by Congress.
I'm not familiar with the 1970s era law (Saletan says it was about recreational drugs) that was the basis for the Oregon SCOTUS decision and I don't want to read up on it, so I'm not going to be able to comment further on this.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Another Wrinkle or two in Type 1 Hypocrisies
Julian Silk has pointed out to me that, while most people do not mean "How are you?" when they say "How are you", some people do (e.g., in the case where the questioner already has some detailed knowledge of an ailment in the person being addressed). For this person (the questioner), the widespread practise of the "How are you" type 1 hypocrisy is actually somewhat annoying.
I would grant this, but since the vast majority of people use the phrase "How are you?" when they mean "Good to see you." and since the phrase "How are you?" is so embedded in culture, I consider the relatively small number of people discomforted to be unimportant. In fact, I would think the small number of people who want medical details would replace the "How are you?" greeting with something that more readily implies deeper inquiry, e.g., "How's your hernia today?", or "Still battling that nagging cold?".
Julian also notes that in the dating world, the proliferation of stock phrases to replace actual thought is annoying. For example, one person will say, after a date, "Can I see you again?" (lets ignore the logic and grammar problems with this) and the other person will say "Sure" even if that other person intends to always have another commitment whenever the first person has a date idea. Is this hypocrisy?
Obviously, it is hypocrisy to say "I like you." when one thinks "I don't like you."
However before judging the hypocrite you have to wonder how it came about that this hypocrisy became a dating template. Not being knowledgeable in this area my guess is that over time, people found the cost of triggering an incident by being brutally honest, although it occurred seldom, was too high to risk. If this is true, this hypocrisy, while being annoying to many is, nonetheless a type 1 hypocrisy.
Julian also points out that in rare conditions, e.g., when you are a doctor and you can diagnose a condition by listening to a verbal report of symptoms, it might be a good idea to ask for a better description of health than the standard, "doing OK" and it might be a good idea for the person being asked, "How are you?" to provide the verbal description of symptoms.
OK but that is a rare case indeed.
Julian Silk has pointed out to me that, while most people do not mean "How are you?" when they say "How are you", some people do (e.g., in the case where the questioner already has some detailed knowledge of an ailment in the person being addressed). For this person (the questioner), the widespread practise of the "How are you" type 1 hypocrisy is actually somewhat annoying.
I would grant this, but since the vast majority of people use the phrase "How are you?" when they mean "Good to see you." and since the phrase "How are you?" is so embedded in culture, I consider the relatively small number of people discomforted to be unimportant. In fact, I would think the small number of people who want medical details would replace the "How are you?" greeting with something that more readily implies deeper inquiry, e.g., "How's your hernia today?", or "Still battling that nagging cold?".
Julian also notes that in the dating world, the proliferation of stock phrases to replace actual thought is annoying. For example, one person will say, after a date, "Can I see you again?" (lets ignore the logic and grammar problems with this) and the other person will say "Sure" even if that other person intends to always have another commitment whenever the first person has a date idea. Is this hypocrisy?
Obviously, it is hypocrisy to say "I like you." when one thinks "I don't like you."
However before judging the hypocrite you have to wonder how it came about that this hypocrisy became a dating template. Not being knowledgeable in this area my guess is that over time, people found the cost of triggering an incident by being brutally honest, although it occurred seldom, was too high to risk. If this is true, this hypocrisy, while being annoying to many is, nonetheless a type 1 hypocrisy.
Julian also points out that in rare conditions, e.g., when you are a doctor and you can diagnose a condition by listening to a verbal report of symptoms, it might be a good idea to ask for a better description of health than the standard, "doing OK" and it might be a good idea for the person being asked, "How are you?" to provide the verbal description of symptoms.
OK but that is a rare case indeed.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
GPS for Child Molesters but not Murderers
My brother asked me if this was a case of hypocrisy and whether I approved of it. Apparently Florida has, since May 05, had a law requiring bracelet GPS for molesters (see - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p02s02-usju.html) Here is some of the story:
My brother asked me if this was a case of hypocrisy and whether I approved of it. Apparently Florida has, since May 05, had a law requiring bracelet GPS for molesters (see - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p02s02-usju.html) Here is some of the story:
------------The state will require those released from prison to wear GPS bracelets for life.
| Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor [May 4 ,2005 edition]
MIAMI – When convicted sex offender John Couey fled to Georgia in February after allegedly kidnapping, raping, and killing nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in northern Florida, it took authorities almost a month to track him down. Mr. Couey, a pedophile with a long history of abusing children, was one of almost 60 sex offenders whose whereabouts were unknown to authorities in Citrus County after he failed to comply with the requirement to inform them of a new address. He simply disappeared from the state's logs.... Satellite tracking, using the Global Positioning System (GPS) originally developed for the military, is not a new tool in the fight against crime. Many states routinely use ankle bracelets and similar devices to keep tabs on parolees. But Florida, which has about 30,000 registered sex offenders, is one of a growing number of states to embrace the technology to track their every move. A number of states already require some form of lifetime supervision of sex offenders, including GPS tracking. But Florida is believed to be the first to mandate lifetime satellite monitoring for an entire group of people who commit a certain crime. ------------------------------------------------ My brother's point was if monitoring is a good idea for molesters (or sex offenders generally), why not for murderers.
Perhaps the reason to monitor sex offenders but not murderers is that, as the article implies, murderers are easier to reform. However, I doubt that is the reason. I suspect the real reason is that we want to believe that murderers will not be released. If that is the case, the hypocrisy is that we know murderers will be released but can't bring ourselves to admit it.
Furthermore, it is hard to believe there are more than a few dozen ex murderers in Florida and given the kind of sentences that murderers get, the ones released to society may be in their 60s or 70s by the time they get out.
Finally, there are plenty of car thieves, etc. who are released. Perhaps the reason not to place GPS bracelets on them is due to the thought that car theft and other crimes are thwarted by reasonable steps ordinary people can take while sex offenders look just like normal people and easily entrap new victims who are vulnerable simply by being friendly to someone who is friendly to them.
Of course, I'm speculating on all this. It may be simply that sex offense crimes are 'icky' and the public outrage (certainly in the case of Florida) made the legislature pass a law and made the governor sign it.
If the 'outrage' was the only operative fact, then that would have been hypocrisy assuming the legislature, governor, didn't convince themselves otherwise.
Some Hypocrisy that I favor
My friend Julian Silk asked me today if I really favor hypocrisy (beyond the highly technical hypocrisy that I noted back in August 2003 about the worker trying to get a new spec approved by an egomaniac boss who developed the current spec).
Here are some other hypocrisies I favor.
1. When a person says "How are you?", they are being hypocrites because they really aren't interested in your blood pressure, white cell count, respiration rate, etc. They are just being friendly. In fact the term "How are you?" means something like, "glad to see you". I don't mind this hypocrisy. Its what I would term type 1 (see the Aug 2003 typology).
2. A person gives lots of $ to a charity or Univ and who says something like "I'm not doing this to make myself liked or to get into heaven but I'm doing it for the greater good." This statement sometimes is immediately followed by information that the]] charity is naming a program for the giver or the University is naming a building. OK the giver is a hypocrite but if the charity is a good one or the University does good things, the hypocrisy is essentially a cost of doing business and so minor compared to the action that it is unimportant. In fact, in some cases, I would advocate the hypocrisy if it is a way to get the money to a worthwhile charity.
3. Say a State legislator sees a problem that can't be addressed except by a bill that is unconstitutional. Say that he believe passing a law that will be quickly overturned by the courts will nevertheless be a good thing. The legislature is to vote. He pretends to think the bill is constitutional because admitting it is unconstitutional is too hard to explain to constituents. I can't blame the guy for being a hypocrit in this case. By the way, I can't think of a case that goes with this set of hypotheticals but that's mostly because I can't see into the mind of the legislators.
My friend Julian Silk asked me today if I really favor hypocrisy (beyond the highly technical hypocrisy that I noted back in August 2003 about the worker trying to get a new spec approved by an egomaniac boss who developed the current spec).
Here are some other hypocrisies I favor.
1. When a person says "How are you?", they are being hypocrites because they really aren't interested in your blood pressure, white cell count, respiration rate, etc. They are just being friendly. In fact the term "How are you?" means something like, "glad to see you". I don't mind this hypocrisy. Its what I would term type 1 (see the Aug 2003 typology).
2. A person gives lots of $ to a charity or Univ and who says something like "I'm not doing this to make myself liked or to get into heaven but I'm doing it for the greater good." This statement sometimes is immediately followed by information that the]] charity is naming a program for the giver or the University is naming a building. OK the giver is a hypocrite but if the charity is a good one or the University does good things, the hypocrisy is essentially a cost of doing business and so minor compared to the action that it is unimportant. In fact, in some cases, I would advocate the hypocrisy if it is a way to get the money to a worthwhile charity.
3. Say a State legislator sees a problem that can't be addressed except by a bill that is unconstitutional. Say that he believe passing a law that will be quickly overturned by the courts will nevertheless be a good thing. The legislature is to vote. He pretends to think the bill is constitutional because admitting it is unconstitutional is too hard to explain to constituents. I can't blame the guy for being a hypocrit in this case. By the way, I can't think of a case that goes with this set of hypotheticals but that's mostly because I can't see into the mind of the legislators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)