HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

One interesting point is made by Slavoj Zizek on our society[0] about the "good" billionaires that give with one hand what they destroyed with the other. This what it feels like about all of what is happening over there, 1st world countries give "aid" to cover the problem themselves did over there.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

>I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products.

Good, quick talk by Zizek on this phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

I don't necessarily agree with you, but another interesting take on this is by Slavoj Zizek, who argues that charitable giving perpetuates the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

⬐ DoreenMichele

There's a place for charity in the world. But charity doesn't you give you a middle class life. When a man worth many billions can't be arsed to pay his employees a living wage, but wants to kick a few bucks towards "helping the homeless", something smells very rotten.

Žižek on green consumerism is quite good as well, I find myself constantly thinking of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g.

⬐ pizza

Yes! I agree with him a lot that environmentalists today are too conservative - in the insistence that preternatural human effects on the environment can only be disturbing or jeopardize ecosystems. But, like Žižek likes to say: what if the opposite were true? What if we should instead aim for more radical reinterpretations of our relationship with nature, and to instead make ourselves more artificial, while also better stewards of nature - like Elon Musk's vision of humans as being a multiplanetary civilization, or getting people to realize that junk is not a disease, but a symptom of a system that enables mass rearranging of junk-substrate.

I think you meant this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

⬐ meej

weird, i wonder how that happened. thank you.

This charity-as-part-of-consumerism is the topic of Zizek's talk First as Tragedy, Then as Farce; well worth a watch (10 minutes) and approachable by those without philosophical backgrounds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

⬐ wcarss

Apart from the linked video, do you have any suggestions for approaching Zizek as a philosopher, or for giving context to his works?

First as tragedy, then as farce... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

⬐ None

None

⬐ dnautics

The video has the hidden presumption that capitalism is a problem and then goes on to prove that capitalism is a problem. It's circular logic at its ugliest. So what if some charity gets associated with profit? No one is stopping you from giving charity for its own sake, unattached to the profit motive, AND there is a marginally increased amount of good being done in the world, AND there is a marginally increased amount of awareness of important issues.

What, exactly is the moral alternative that Zizek would have us live by if not trade? Marxism for example, which runs under the philosophy "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" sounds great. But then, who decides what constitutes ability, and what constitutes need. And how can I make me and my friends that committee?

⬐ skaevola

It's not circular logic. Zizek is operating from the assumption that capitalism is oppressive, and arguing that "socially responsible" capitalism is equally as problematic. This criticism is aimed at leftists who dislike capitalism, but feel like it's okay to engage in "socially responsible" capitalism. It's completely legitimate to disagree with that assumption, just keep in mind that is not the point he's trying to argue in this video.

He's also an unapologetic Marxist, so I suppose that'd be his alternative. You might start looking for answers to your questions in his books.

⬐ dnautics

Fair enough. Given that I'm a libertarian that thinks that "social responsibility" is a personal virtue, I'm clearly not his audience, since I have some pretty serious quarrels with his starting assumptions.

Slightly off-topic, but your post reminded me of Slavoj Zizek's fiery verbal attack on charity[1], especially the line at the very end:

"It's horrible to see a child whose life is ruined because of an operation that costs 20$. .. (but) If you operate the child, they will live a little bit better, but in the same situation that produced them"

Just an interesting side-note on this debate.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

On fair trade coffee (and cultural capitalism): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

The manufactures that put Android on their devices are not mom and pop electronics firms. So the implication that this is somehow shifting money to poorer people is kind of ridiculous. Unless you mean the top 1% richest people in those countries. Because I don't think the manufacturers will go to their labourers and pay them any more money just because some hardware was designed in house (hardware design doesn't employ many people either).

It's not Tom's shoes. In fact I find it hard to believe that even Tom's shoes are Tom's shoes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

⬐ rbanffy

> The manufactures that put Android on their devices are not mom and pop electronics firms

And this has no effect on treeface's reasoning

> the implication that this is somehow shifting money to poorer people is kind of ridiculous.

Again, there is no implication money is shifting hands.

What treeface said is that a massive amount of value is being generated by lowering the cost of building smartphones, thus reducing prices and allowing more people to use them and (he/she didn't say that) by offering a convenient standard software writers can write against, creating a market larger and less fragmented than any other player had managed to create.

⬐ napierzaza

Are consumers in third world countries really saving tons of money on android? Anyone with subsistence living won't buy a smart phone. You're inevitably implying that you're saving the money of someone middle class somewhere. Hardly as noble as you might have thought originally.

These companies are much more ethically inert than you think. It's just a new sort of marketing that uses the lifestyles of the CEO's or the employees as a selling point. The change in economics, or straight out charitable donations as a selling point.

Android is shifting things for certain, but it's not one laptop per child.

⬐ cageface

Here in Vietnam I see tons of people with smartphones, and more Android than iPhone. Most of these people are living on well under $1000 USD a month.

⬐ rbanffy

There is a lot of middle-class people in the third world. Also, don't forget every market benefits from cheaper smarter phones and a software stack everyone can contribute to and benefit from is a huge gain in efficiency.

⬐ gautamc

Here in India, I was able to get an Android smart phone for half the price of an iPhone. I can also build Android apps on my Debian Linux machine without incurring any additional costs.

The fact that the devices cost lesser(even before the phone company subsidizes it) and yet have GPS and an accelerometer enables me to at least attempt certain kinds of applications that target the mass market here in India.

Also, the ability to read the source code allows me to learn about a smartphone operating system in the same way I got know about a PC operating system by reading Linux's source code.

I would never want Android to be like OLPC. Android is more like a free market. OLPC was charity.

Apple has every right to protect its intellectual property. I think it is equally important for Americans to debate about, and review, the American patent system (where required).

Overall, if HTC can pay royalties to MS, then I guess they can do the same with Apple.

⬐ fpgeek

If it gets that far, the question is whether Apple will let HTC pay royalties or will they refuse to sell a license at any price?

⬐ GHFigs

Again, there is no implication money is shifting hands.

"It's actually a transfer of wealth from the coffers of Apple, RIM and MS to mostly developing-nation consumers..." --http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777354

⬐ rbanffy

That's not the comment you replied to.

⬐ chc

Wealth is not money. Money is just a store of wealth.

http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

⬐ chopsueyar

Money is a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Functions

This video sums up (in a beautiful way), what I would like to say about such initiatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g