I just thought it would be funny to feign outrage on behalf of the Stunning, Petite Sinead O "Cultural Treasure" Connor. Actually I've no opinions on her. Just- just - just forget the whole thing!! *hurls books to floor and runs out of kitchen past startled earlchip*
warpped charity is kool but it doesn't happen in a vacuum and you should decide for yourself whether or not you think the immediate benefits of it outweigh the more pernicious role it can have in acting as a kind of apologia for systems that are in themselves exploitative and oppressive (consumer electronics are cool and can help us give back to the disenfranchised!! help whats a coltan) or as a safety valve offering a heavily circumscribed release from the feelings of guilt and privilege that come from being complicit in said systems without actually changing or challenging them in any way or as a covert way for THE MAN to redefine the limits of political activity (the passive, voiceless, impotent, usually-far-away "good victim" implicit in the idea of charity has a kind of converse in the loud, pushy, active "bad victim" who seems so ungrateful for all the fine things being done and holds obtrusive strikes right in the city center and makes everyone feel on edge with angry assertions (maybe feminism would be more popular if you'd all be more polite to men??) - compare the officially-sanctioned charity of the last few years with the preposterously brutal police shut-down of marches, strikes, occupy events etc that happened at the same time). it's up to you where u draw the line..... follow your heart................
follow your heart...................
I actually don't necessarily think charities are the most effective at what they aim to do. But I think its asinine to bash them when they are USUALLY a group of people trying to help. Though, whether they are doing a good job is important in a charities individual continued existence, but not in all charities continued existence. Its odd though that I'm even defending charities/crowdfunding when I've never actually given money to one.
Anyway, like I said the most important thing here is to remember that TED Talks are about 80% technology and how technology can fix some of our problems. (or introduce new ones) Not how we can help the poor (though that is a semi-common element in some speeches)
And I DO think technology is more likely to solve our problems than a complete overhaul of our economic and political systems. Not because I think our current systems are good or even acceptable, but because it seems more likely (since technology has so many backers, social and financially and of the entire spectrum) while such massive changes in they way things are done basically seems impossible to me. Furthermore, its not as if these 2 forces can't work in parallel (Technology and economic change) rather than be viewed as competitors.
Gaming World Forums
Happy New Salt + What's on your mind 2012: CHILL YOUR HEAD
