> it’s on me to imagine the infinite variety of ways you might interpret my statement and vet them for possible insensitivity before making it, which is obviously impossible.
This is the crux of the matter for me.
It seems to me that an American professor teaching Chinese should be well aware that repeating a word that sounds like “nigger” might cause offence, and that therefore it would be wise to discuss this beforehand.
Its far from “impossible” to imagine that this situation would arise.
Of course, we have no idea of the context. But if it was anything like the linked video - and it could have been worse - it’s perfectly understandable why students would be surprised and perhaps upset.
If you disagree, its worth asking yourself, what reaction would you expect if you were a chinese professor enunciating the word “cunt” during a lecture, with no prior warning?
> Not only does this barely resemble the racial slur, it is indistinguishably used in a context where it's implicitly clear and even explicitly stated that it's a term from another language.
In the linked video it sounds exactly like the slur, To a surprising extent.
It was introduced with no warning and I’m not surprised people were shocked if this was the same context as the class - although we don’t know the full details!
I’d be surprised just to hear a word sounding like “fuck” in the middle of a chinese class, although it’s probably not considered as offensive.
It doesnt surprise me at all that some people were upset and it seems very unwise on the part of the professor, who would surely know that this would provoke a reaction. A suspension from teaching his one class for a term will defuse the situation and perhaps he can return to teaching after.
Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there?
Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.
> That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market.
I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either:
1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society
Or
2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability.
One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?
OP didn't say "work for free", they said "work for peanuts".
I agree that freelancer sites have some problematic aspects, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that you need to start small and build a reputation/profile. This applies to any bootstrapped business, not just when working via freelancer sites.
> Nobody needs kale or skateboards either... Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"?
Because alcohol and tobacco have "negative externalities" to society. These would be mainly health related but I guess the discussion on this post is also around behavioural issues.
By adding a tax to a product, you can make the consumers and manufacturers together share the burden of paying off the externality, (e.g. care for lung cancer patients) and/or the tax will often discourage consumption in the first place. (The second being more applicable in the US where there is limited/no universal healthcare)
The reason you probably wouldn't tax kale, is because it's good for you, and if anything; you could say it has a "positive externality" in that consuming it makes you healthier, and thus benefits society. So it might make sense to actual SUBSIDISE kale production... although this may have very different effects from taxing unhealthy food.
This is called a "Pigouvian tax" or "externality tax" and a common example is a tax on fuel:
"In the United States, the federal gas tax was $0.183 per gallon in 2019... The revenue goes into the federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for roadway maintenance."
> Now you've shipped your thing that lasts forever. If it's a mechanical object, maybe you can get continuing revenue from spare parts, but those will bring in less than the original purchase.
This might be bad for a tractor manufacturer; but an everlasting tractor would be great for society, right?
The incentive now is to innovate in order to create a better more efficient product. E.g.; a more fuel efficient tractor which increases productivity - then you'll get another sale.
Deliberately hobbling your product so that it needs repair or replacement disincentives innovation and is a form of rent-seeking https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp and as such should be treated as a market failure. (I.e., legislated against)
Great comment - the concept you speak of can be described as an "information asymmetry" or more broadly as "bounded rationality" as opposed to econ 101 theories which often assume "perfect information" or perfect rationality.
I think really only a rabid free-marketer (as opposed to all economists as you imply in the first sentence) would expect the market to self correct on something like this.
I understood from a Microsoft conference I attended (regrettably I forget the speaker) that their decision to incorporate new features so rapidly was a very conscious decision, based on what I thought to be a quite perceptive look at the landscape - to some extent C# has always been a reaction to Java; a language that often comes under fire for its extremely slow and cautious incorporation of features.