"Disgusting... what kind of political ideology is it that drives someone to want to take away the dignity of the most vulnerable in society?"That's so funny, it'd almost be worth a lol - if it wasn't so tragic.
Update: Look what Turton says in response to a comment that "at least [the money] ... goes to the intended beneficiaries":
"...the people who took the money had no proven need.."You got that Taiwan 人? Your "needs" have to be "proven" to would-be commissars like this presumptuous hive-node up in Taichung before anyone else may freely give you their own money. How's that for having your dignity "taken away"?
Yes, it sure is wonderful that particular people can decide what others need. Turton's not a bad guy--but even Marx had good intentions.
ReplyDeleteYour earlier post about this being a face-losing issue for Taiwan, which is much richer and more developed per capita, than the PRC. This is one major problem I have with the current administration: the people of Taiwan, hard-working and industrious (and continuously put down by outsiders and stepped upon by their "brothers") continue to be denied dignity. Personally, I don't care about the state question--I think you know what I think about the state. But I do care about individuals; and it appears that many of the individuals around me are rightfully disgusted by not only this PRC douche and his ROC douche counterparts in office. Only particular groups and particular individuals deserve dignity--isn't the the essence of the state? (And isn't that the essence of Turton's post?) And it's decided that way by others--for your own good.
Turton "not a bad guy"?
ReplyDeleteI may have been tempted to offer you heavily qualified agreement on this about a year ago... now, however, I must say that I think he is unquestionably "a bad guy" - and I say that for several reasons supported by experience. Just like the members of the CPC, his ethics arises directly from the premise of collectivism, and unlike Martin Luther King, Turton may not be excused.
"...the people of Taiwan...continue to be denied dignity."
Are they really being denied dignity or are they simply not being treated with dignity (and by whom?)? The two are not the same; I presume you mean the latter?
" Only particular groups and particular individuals deserve dignity... isn't that the essence of Turton's post?"
No - since that particular comment from Turton himself actually contradicts any support he might claim for the "dignity of individuals". His wish that acts of charity from one individual to another be mediated by the State reflects his utter contempt for the dignity of the individual.
Forgive me: since I've only read what you have posted here, I did not see that he "wish[ed] that acts of charity from one individual to another be mediated by the State." But to me, to allow this Chinese "philanthropist" to even come here already presupposes state mediation--it would have to. This was the meaning of my comment (that some groups would benefit, and some of those groups benefit from mediation, essentially).
ReplyDeleteI think actually it is both being denied dignity and not being treated with dignity. I think you're probably relatively well-versed in Taiwanese history, but I would suggest you go back to the years, oh, say, 1941-1952, and focus especially on the 1944-1949 years and then consider my statement.
To not be treated with dignity = to be treated another way. By analogy, even though argument by analogy may be weak, to need water but to be given urine is to be given one thing and not be given what one needs--one could say, be denied such a need. To ask for water again and to be given urine again is to be denied again that need but it begins to show a pattern of treatment, especially if those giving you urine instead of water are your oppressors. For me, this strikes more at the heart of the issue than does any separation between the two. But I will say that from 1944-1949 especially one sees a certain (and rather strong) denial of anything but servitude and a noticeable pattern of treatment. And by my analogy, if you and I can agree that every individual deserves dignity, what is the difference between being denied and not being treated with (i.e., not being given) it? It seems to be a precondition, this possessing dignity, and it can be taken away. I would argue that an individual needs dignity as well. And I would say that much of that comes from within; however, it can be stripped away and not returned. It's stripped away by certain forms of treatment--true. It is not returned due to certain forms of treatment--true. But at this point does it really matter what term one uses?
Just my idea. You're the philosopher and I'm a mere observer. But I would find it difficult, standing naked in a prison and being pissed and shat upon while beaten bloody, to distinguish between whether I was not being treated with dignity by my captors or whether my captors were denying me my dignity.
"Forgive me: since I've only read what you have posted here, I did not see that he "wish[ed] that acts of charity from one individual to another be mediated by the State."
ReplyDeleteGiven that Turton is in favour of State social welfare, that was not only a reasonable, but an obvious inference to make from his comment that "...the people who took the money had no proven need..". Proven to whom?
"But I would find it difficult, standing naked in a prison and being pissed and shat upon while beaten bloody, to distinguish between whether I was not being treated with dignity by my captors or whether my captors were denying me my dignity."
Well perhaps that's because you mistook the distinction I was alluding to for a mere stylistic quibble over terms - which it was not, to wit: the quality of being worthy of respect as against being treated disrespectfully by others. The crucifixion of Jesus may be regarded as an act of ultimate "disrespect" (or 'contempt' if you prefer) toward him by the Romans, but that did not rob Jesus of his quality of being worthy of respect. The distinction is, in part, what gives rise to the recognition that this and other such instances of disrespectful treatment are injustices.
Going back to your earlier assertion:
"...the people of Taiwan, hard-working and industrious (and continuously put down by outsiders and stepped upon by their "brothers") continue to be denied dignity."
Of course it is true that Taiwanese people were (and often still are) treated disrespectfully, or to put it differently, that recognition of their dignity was (and is) often denied, but I don't think it is possible for one person to deny (i.e. remove from "within" as you put it) another's dignity, unless perhaps through enforced ignorance.
Your point about the mistreatment of the Taiwanese now and at the hands of the KMT is entirely valid simply on the grounds of the denial of recognition of dignity, rather than the denial of dignity as such - which is a far stronger claim and which would carry the implication that such people subsequently cannot feel pride and outrage, since pride and outrage derive from a grasp of one's own dignity.
I admit that I didn't make this distinction clear in my last comment, but nonetheless, this is a second case, Nathan, of you flying off the handle on my blog without carefully thinking about what I was saying.
Oh, contrare, I was not flying off the handle. I was of the understanding we were having a discussion. I've only flown off the handle one time on your blog, and I think that was because I misinterpreted your response to an earlier article I wrote and I think because you may have misinterpreted my use of your name and reference to that response (to my article).
ReplyDeleteI'm merely stating that to listen to people around me speak about such issues, native Taiwanese, it seems to be more an issue about denying than simply treating. Working for something--statehood, for example, even though I personally think this is unimportant--is an issue of respect and recognition--and, thus, in some ways denial of dignity and equality--than mere treatment. Of course treatment adds to this feeling, but when you hear Taiwanese talk about Japanese products being superior to Taiwanese products (even though most are usually manufactured in China), for example, you begin to realize it is psychological. There is also resentment towards the United States for not simply granting statehood, as another example.
Forgive me if you thought I was flying off. I wasn't. I'm merely an observer and I cannot claim to have the same feeling said people feel. I'm merely commenting on observations and my somewhat different interpretation from your own. That is all.
"I was not flying off the handle. I was of the understanding we were having a discussion."
ReplyDeleteWell alright then I'll retract it, but since this is my blog, I ask you to take more care over disambiguating the tone in which you make your points in future.
"...to listen to people around me speak about such issues, native Taiwanese, it seems to be more an issue about denying than simply treating."
Well if that were the case, then I'd expect to find little sense of pride or outrage by Taiwanese people against the CCP and KMT, but since I do find that*, I say you've got this wrong. Taiwanese people have not had their dignity completely denied**, but they have suffered from the denial of recognition of that dignity in international politics and other contexts. If you disagree, and if you would stand by the assertion that Taiwanese people (particularly here in the South) have had their sense of self-worth denied or extinguished, then how do you account for their sense of outrage at the CCP and the KMT? I think this outrage is mostly due to how they have been treated.
"Working for something--statehood, for example, even though I personally think this is unimportant--is an issue of respect and recognition--and, thus, in some ways denial of dignity and equality--than mere treatment."
Sure that's one way in which independence supporters conceive of their drive toward statehood, as an issue of face and recognition and, partly, an expression of their need to absolve others of blame for not treating them with the recognition and respect they feel they deserve. But it is important - and for several reasons - not least among which is that the strength of this feeling is potentially very dangerous and something which ought to be tempered by the realization of the consequences to those ethics that statehood necessarily demands.
"Of course treatment adds to this feeling, but when you hear Taiwanese talk about Japanese products being superior to Taiwanese products (even though most are usually manufactured in China), for example, you begin to realize it is psychological. There is also resentment towards the United States for not simply granting statehood, as another example."
Well first, let's be clear, there may sometimes be factual reasons behind that sort of comment; it is no mere accident, for example, that Cannon and Nikon are world leaders in the manufacture of camera lenses. Second, although sometimes that 'foreign-is-better' attitude may be unjustified, the appearance of more high-end Taiwanese goods may signify that this is beginning to change.
As for popular resentment that the U.S. hasn't 'granted' statehood to Taiwan - that is extremely ironic, given that the putative legitimacy of Statehood is said to derive from the 'consent of the governed'. If I hear a Taiwanese person actually say that, I'll have no choice but to take it as a sign of immature political thought, but I will try to correct them and hold back the laughter - because it ain't no laughing matter.
*Perhaps somewhat less so among the young (i.e. University students), or particularly among the young from families in which the parents tend to be KMT voters or supporters, but even there I know of many young people sincerely angry at the CCP and the KMT.
**I say 'completely' because I think part of that dignity, that sense of their own self-worth, may have been partially denied by the enforced ignorance of the schooling system and partially by the cultural tilt toward deference to elders and those of higher status.