Pragmatics before politics, period.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Mar 17, 2008 6:16 AM EDT |
The Ken and Larry show!
This is what is called stepping up to the plate, putting it all on the line,
walking the talk, putting your money where your mouth is, etc. Read this, make a donation, hell, buy a ticket to California. Get some friends interested and maybe you can have an event somewhat like the one Ken and Larry are doing. |
| tracyanne Mar 19, 2008 1:09 PM EDT |
I posted a request for help with the K4K van on the Mandriva Forums and the Ubuntu Forums. The Unbuntu Forums response was to remove the posting. |
| Libervis Mar 20, 2008 5:14 AM EDT |
I for one don't necessarily see a conflict between pragmatics and politics. So I've always been the one to disagree with the policy of prioritizing pragmatics over the ideal. However, what Ken and Larry are doing is still quite extraordinary and provides a platform which everyone, including those who care of politics much more as well, can use. Hey, why not put gNewSense on the show in Felton? ;) I'm gonna ask them. |
| dinotrac Mar 20, 2008 7:03 AM EDT |
Politics and pragmatics do not conflict in any way shape or form.
Politics is, by definition, a pragmatic undertaking. Pragmatism may conflict with philosophy or, in some cases, self-proclaimed "idealism", but self-proclaimed idealists never like anything in the real world anyway, so who cares? |
| Libervis Mar 20, 2008 7:30 AM EDT |
Pity then that so many self proclaimed "pragmatists" call themselves apolitical and talk about having a political agenda as if it's equivalent to having a plan for deployment of weapons of mass destruction or something to that effect. Of course, they don't realize that by calling themselves apolitical they just made a political statement. :D > Pragmatism may conflict with philosophy or, in some cases, self-proclaimed "idealism", but self-proclaimed idealists never like anything in the real world anyway, so who cares? Generalizing usually conflicts with reality, and you don't even have to dislike it for that to happen. I don't dislike all things in reality, just some, and I wish those to be improved - which is indeed an ideal to strive for. And if pursuing a given ideal is your priority then of course sometimes what others may consider "pragmatic" (which is usually actually "expedient") comes in conflict with your ideal, and will be bypassed - unless you're being dishonest about your priorities. Your statement makes most sense as a snide comment though. :? |
| dinotrac Mar 20, 2008 9:01 AM EDT |
>Pity then that so many self proclaimed "pragmatists" call themselves apolitical and talk about having a political agenda as if it's equivalent to having a plan for deployment of weapons of mass destruction or something to that effect. Agree completely. There is no such thing as being apolitical. Funny thing is, most people I hear calling themselves apolitical really mean they prefer their political communications one-way: All their POV. They will spew political statements left and right, often very hateful ones, then object when you dare to disagree. >Your statement makes most sense as a snide comment though. :? Yes it does. It's why I put idealism in quotes. IMNSHO, true idealists struggle, think, and work harder than "idealists". A true idealist doesn't just want to talk about wonderful things, but wants to see wonderful things happen. In a world full of people, that means investing the angst to figure out which lines simply cannot be crossed and which trade-offs bring the world a little closer to ideal. Eyes are always on the prize, but feet sometimes have to step around obstacles and take little detours. Great example: Most people know about Thrugood Marshall and Brown vs. Board of Education, which ended (legally) public school segregation. Not so many know about Murray v. Pearson, a case Marshall argued 19 years earlier, in which the University of Maryland Law School was ordered to admit black students because it's offer of grants for out-of-state law schools was not considered equal to providing an in-state school. "Idealism", in contrast, is more a way to puff one's self up and maybe get laid. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 20, 2008 10:22 AM EDT |
I prefer "Principle before politics". It's like ethics, that is "doing the right thing, even when no one is looking." Politics has been defined as "The art of the possible", and I've even been corrected in noting that "politics" is merely one way for group decision making. And it is _always_ pragmatic, because political answers are answers that please people, _not_ solve problems. Principles, ethics, those are not pragmatic. They come before politics, when the decision is "do I want to do this at all", which should come before "can I get people to help me do it" which is politics. Sadly, the biggest problem with segregation in government services, something I don't think was ever bought up, is the matter of tax funding. A government program is not funded by taking money from only particular racial/ethnic/gender individuals. To then hand out government money on that basis is inherently discriminatory. (never mind the fact that I object to taxation _at_all_) |
| tracyanne Mar 20, 2008 12:48 PM EDT |
Some articles have disappeared, in particular thies one "FOSS Advocate Needs A Little Boost!" to which I reponded with the following post: I posted a request for assistance for Ken and K4K on the Ubuntu forums. In response I was banned and my post deleted. I sent the following to the Webmaster, as that is my only avenue of contact with the Ubuntu forums Quoting: I'm very disappointed with Ubuntu Forums. I post a request for help for a higlhy visible Linux Advocate - Ken Stark, also known as Helios - who runs a charity known as Komputers4 Kids, and your response is to delete my post and then Ban me. What happened? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!