Philosophy Now Forum

Recently I was imagining myself in a role. I can't really name anything concrete, such as hiring manager. Whatever the role was, it involved me compensating a woman for her work.

Women are exploited, we are repeatedly told. There is a gender wage gap, we are repeatedly told. So maybe I was working on some issue with some aspect of feminist theory.

What I do know is that the rational/intellectual part of me that was thinking about objective matters was overwhelmed by a sudden, unexpected eruption of the compassionate / empathetic / sense of fairness part of me: if a woman was exceptionally talented (or if a server at a restaurant provided exceptional service; or a man instead of a woman; or whatever other roles and actors you want to use), why would I, or anybody, not want to compensate her with the full value of her work?

I suddenly, correctly or incorrectly, had a new image/understanding of myself: I do not have it in me to exploit others.

I guess my ultimate concern behind that experience was economic justice.

Therefore, I have since then worked every now and then on thinking more about exploitation.

Exploitation, it seems to me, is basically getting as much as you can out of others at as little cost to you as you can get away with.

But why would anybody want to exploit others? Does he/she lack empathy and does not feel others' need and desire to be fairly compensated? Or does he/she not feel any need or desire to be fairly compensated in the first place, let alone others' needs and desires?

When we think of people being exploited we think of things like Third World sweatshops. I have that habit as much as anybody else. But if you think about it, even millionaire professional athletes in affluent places like the U.S. are being exploited. The National Football League knew for a long time that they were destroying players' brains. But only now after the floodgates of truth about concussions and CTE have opened wider and wider to the public has the NFL taken action on player safety. And I think that it is safe to say that NFL players have never been paid by their employer at a level that matches the value of their work.

Is exploitation the human condition? Anybody who says that he/she will compensate others exactly according to the value of their work is a naive fool who will not survive very long in this life, let alone survive very long in business?

Is it a zero-sum game?

On the other hand, some people, such as college instructors I have had, go out of their way to make sure that people and their good work get the recognition they deserve. An exploitive approach would be, "How can I get as much credit for that work as I can while others get as little credit as possible?"

Whether you are looking at it rationally or emotionally, exploiting others seems so wrong in many ways. How do we explain its prevalance and acceptance?

In this world there is one fact that ultimately governs our behavior as social creatures, this fact is that power is the prime mover. If an individual is able to overcome the pseudo constraints of empathy, and any of the other inhibiting emotions, their immediate surroundings basically belong to them. No amount of empathy, prayer, democratic convolution, or separation of powers, will negate this properly basic law of nature(our social nature).

A lot of New Yorkers were willing to be exploited by Amazon, but the little socialist AOC drove away the exploiter.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/16/aoc-is-de ... democrats/


Is it true that Amazon is working with the government and social media giants to build the grand-daddy of all databases for each human being?

Walker wrote:...
Is it true that Amazon is working with the government and social media giants to build the grand-daddy of all databases for each human being?

No that's the Mormons.

Absolutist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:16 am In this world there is one fact that ultimately governs our behavior as social creatures, this fact is that power is the prime mover. If an individual is able to overcome the pseudo constraints of empathy, and any of the other inhibiting emotions, their immediate surroundings basically belong to them. No amount of empathy, prayer, democratic convolution, or separation of powers, will negate this properly basic law of nature(our social nature).

I would add that exploitation may be described as anti-altruism. Most would say that altruism is not a universal human trait. It seems, then, that exploitation is a common human characteristic. Certainly, this is related to the respect for, and use of, power. Exploitation and power fit together hand and glove.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:59 pm

Walker wrote:...
Is it true that Amazon is working with the government and social media giants to build the grand-daddy of all databases for each human being?

No that's the Mormons.

FBI plotting to keep DNA of ENTIRE population on file to create ‘nation of suspects’
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world- ... -whitehead

“President Donald Trump has signed the Rapid DNA Act into law which means the police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime.”

Commentary: In the future, people are going to pay closer attention to any garbage that carries their DNA. Someone will likely invent a pocket incinerator for clippings of hair and nails, so that DNA doesn’t end up where it shouldn’t, a distinct possibility that could leave anyone open to exploitation by cops who might find a fingernail, a cigarette butt, a piece of hair at a crime scene and say, this case is solved.

Much easier to frame someone* by planting DNA, than by planting fingerprints.

The entire population of the USA is being exploited.



*Such as a nominee for SCOTUS.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:50 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:59 pm

Walker wrote:...
Is it true that Amazon is working with the government and social media giants to build the grand-daddy of all databases for each human being?

No that's the Mormons.

FBI plotting to keep DNA of ENTIRE population on file to create ‘nation of suspects’
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world- ... -whitehead

“President Donald Trump has signed the Rapid DNA Act into law which means the police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime.”

It's worse than that. Much worse.

They plan to equalize everyone's DNA. This means that if Joe Blow robs a 7-11 in Middletown, Wisconsin, then all the Joe Blows will be automatically arrested, and convicted.

Similarly, you will be able to buy "advanced" dna structures for yourself and your family.

Similarly, you can get implants that protect you from stupidicity and from believing everything the media and social media says, save for cute kitten stories with pink ribbons, nice whiskers, and French ticklers. Especially French ticklers. "Don't leave home without them. (.)(.)" They are being manufactured as we speak, so to speak, by the millions in secret Chinese factories, forty-eight hundred stories below the Earth's surface, just for such an eventuality.

if you stop ploitation you get exploitation...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:08 pm if you stop ploitation you get exploitation...

-Imp

Does this anomolize incidents of imploitation?

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:50 pm It's worse than that. Much worse.

They plan to equalize everyone's DNA. This means that if Joe Blow robs a 7-11 in Middletown, Wisconsin, then all the Joe Blows will be automatically arrested, and convicted.

Similarly, you will be able to buy "advanced" dna structures for yourself and your family.

Similarly, you can get implants that protect you from stupidicity and from believing everything the media and social media says, save for cute kitten stories with pink ribbons, nice whiskers, and French ticklers. Especially French ticklers. "Don't leave home without them. (.)(.)" They are being manufactured as we speak, so to speak, by the millions in secret Chinese factories, forty-eight hundred stories below the Earth's surface, just for such an eventuality.

Awhile back, three scandals hit Virginia’s top three government officials, who are Democrats. The scandals were 2 blackfaces and 1 sex assault.

(Democrats) 2 + 1 = media ho hum

Result: no media crusade to oust the villains, which they would be if other than D.
Why?
Because, protecting the Democratic party trumps women’s rights and racism.

Do you feel the exploitation?

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:12 am Awhile back, three scandals hit Virginia’s top three government officials, who are Democrats. The scandals were 2 blackfaces and 1 sex assault.

(Democrats) 2 + 1 = media ho hum

Result: no media crusade to oust the villains, which they would be if other than D.
Why?
Because, protecting the Democratic party trumps women’s rights and racism.

Do you feel the exploitation?

I understand now that you are a top Virginia government official, Walker. Otherwise how would you have come about this item? You yourself said that no media crusade followed. So only sources close to the source could ever know about the three scandals.

Were they scandals actually? If no newspaper picked up the story, then why would you name them "scandals"? A scandal is per definition a public uproar over an immoral act by a person which has become public knowledge.

without papers, internet, tv, this wouldn't be a scandal, yet you claim that the media did not scandalize them, did not start a crusade to oust the villains.

???

You make no sense here, Walker.

Without newspaper or other media stories, there is no scandal.

So... exactly what is it that you are trying to say? That Democratic news reporting is biassed? Well, duh. If THAT is news for you, you missed your entire first grade of kindergarten and everything else that ensued since, in your education, formal and/or informal.

Democrapic news reporting IS biassed.

Republicant news reporting IS biassed.

By "bi-assed" I mean precisely that.

(Sorry, something ugly rubbed off on me by reading just one of the recent posts by Vegetariantaxidermy.)

That’s correct.

- There is a media campaign to oust Trump, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Progressives deny it.
- There was a media campaign to not just keep Kavanaugh off the SCOTUS, but to destroy him, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Progressives deny it.
- There has been no media campaign to oust these Dem. politicians from Virginia, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Progressives deny it.

However, the argument that all politicians are corrupt because Democrats are corrupt and Left-leaning media is corrupt, doesn’t wash.

- People know about the mentioned incidents of Democratic racism and sexual assault in Virginia because originally they were reported.
- With the elements of politicians, sex charges, and racism charges, the media initially went after the story like a honey badger after blood spoor.
- Republicans and some Democrats initially called for resignations and prosecution and the national liberal news was all over it.
- Now? Crickets.

People do know of current developments because of local news coverage that gets picked up and reported on the internet. For instance, the #2 man is black and since he has been accused of sexual assault, surprise, he is counter-charging racism because he was accused by a black woman. Go figure.

The scandal is that there is no national media campaign to remove these Democrats.

These things you know, or at least you should at your age.

How do we explain exploitation? Willful ignorance is one cause.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:08 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:08 pm if you stop ploitation you get exploitation...

-Imp

Does this anomolize incidents of imploitation?

it animalizes the botanicals

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:39 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:08 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:08 pm if you stop ploitation you get exploitation...

-Imp

Does this anomolize incidents of imploitation?

it animalizes the botanicals

-Imp

Certainly not at the imploration of the botanicals, unless the peaceful plant knows it exists only to become energy for the life of either micro-organisms or larger critters, which of course raises the eternal question of whether the final curtain call goes into the earth for food, or into the air as carbon emissions to warm the planet and destroy all life on earf.

Too fucking long and doesn't ask really clear points but vague things. Step up your game.