< 就像第二位老师,她自己也不明白,本来社会底层的人,换了一个环境,歧视就天上地下了。> I would think there could be an objective measure: mobility of continuous improvements on both personal (employment opportunities) and societal (legal framework) aspects. My guess is, when leaders of a society plan and design to have a fair and equitable society that they want, the racism issue would become minor. As long as the objective measures (employment opportunities and legal framework) can be maintained due to the great efforts and creativity contributed by the leaders, now and in the past. In other words, the UK might also change, one day. 我认为可能有一个客观的衡量标准:个人(就业机会)和社会(法律框架)方面的持续改进的流动性。 我的猜测是,当一个社会的领导人计划和设计一个他们想要的公平公正的社会时,种族主义问题就会变得无关紧要。 只要能维持客观措施(就业机会和法律框架),无论是现在还是过去,都是领导人付出的巨大努力和创造力。 换句话说,英国也可能有一天会发生变化。
< 就像第二位老师,她自己也不明白,本来社会底层的人,换了一个环境,歧视就天上地下了。> I would think there could be an objective measure: mobility of continuous improvements on both personal (employment opportunities) and societal (legal framework) aspects. My guess is, when leaders of a society plan and design to have a fair and equitable society that they want, the racism issue would become minor. As long as the objective measures (employment opportunities and legal framework) can be maintained due to the great efforts and creativity contributed by the leaders, now and in the past. In other words, the UK might also change, one day. 我认为可能有一个客观的衡量标准:个人(就业机会)和社会(法律框架)方面的持续改进的流动性。 我的猜测是,当一个社会的领导人计划和设计一个他们想要的公平公正的社会时,种族主义问题就会变得无关紧要。 只要能维持客观措施(就业机会和法律框架),无论是现在还是过去,都是领导人付出的巨大努力和创造力。 换句话说,英国也可能有一天会发生变化。 EvenOdd 发表于 2021-08-18 02:00
< mobility of continuous improvements > imo, a 2-party political system would easily produce hesitations therefore to reduce and slow down potentially most of the required mobility of continuous improvements. Complacent! It seems mobility of continuous improvements is a built in feature for CCP system. Whether and how this feature can be maintained peacefully is another question.
< mobility of continuous improvements > imo, a 2-party political system would easily produce hesitations therefore to reduce and slow down potentially most of the required mobility of continuous improvements. Complacent! It seems mobility of continuous improvements is a built in feature for CCP system. Whether and how this feature can be maintained peacefully is another question.
EvenOdd 发表于 2021-08-18 02:27
"It seems the mobility of continuous improvements is a built-in feature for the CCP system. Whether and how this feature can be maintained peacefully is another question." As a person who used to work in the quality field, I think every system has built-in continuous improvement modules. However, the main difference is how quickly you can detect the problem and make the right correction. There is another crucial step between problem identification and correction -- root cause analysis. Unfortunately, the two-party system quickly blames the other party or the previous leader as the root cause, and the correction is usually a bandaid fix, not a permanent cure. One advantage of the two-party system? They can always find problems (some may not even exist!) On the other side, CCP got no one else to blame. Somehow it helps them fix the problem better. But if they lose the capability to identify problems, they can go so wrong before any correction can save them.
"It seems the mobility of continuous improvements is a built-in feature for the CCP system. Whether and how this feature can be maintained peacefully is another question." As a person who used to work in the quality field, I think every system has built-in continuous improvement modules. However, the main difference is how quickly you can detect the problem and make the right correction. There is another crucial step between problem identification and correction -- root cause analysis. Unfortunately, the two-party system quickly blames the other party or the previous leader as the root cause, and the correction is usually a bandaid fix, not a permanent cure. One advantage of the two-party system? They can always find problems (some may not even exist!) On the other side, CCP got no one else to blame. Somehow it helps them fix the problem better. But if they lose the capability to identify problems, they can go so wrong before any correction can save them.
molyvivi魔力薇薇 发表于 2021-08-18 14:22
Initially I was curious why CCP would have such a saying that the US system would not work well in long run, by now I understand much more after seeing evidences these years. A system must have a systemic goal for the subsystems to follow, otherwise the subsystmes can only perform suboptimisations individually before the overall system collapse due to malfunctions. The CCP system does have a clear goal - people"s livelihood, but what are that systemic goals usually for the western style systems? More money for wealthy individuals?! Personally I do not hold much optimistic view for the western system(s) if they cannot respond well to the realistic impact by the complex changes of our world. Afghan could be an example. I think.
这个老师大部分随了她娘,虽然是混血儿,其实和白人已经差不多了。不过呢, 你只要有一丁点黑人血统,你就是黑人,更何况她还是50%。 按理说,这样的淡皮肤,应该不会受到太多歧视吧,不过她也一样没有逃过。 有一次她在图书馆里,听下载的课程录音,戴着大的bose耳机,闭上眼睛极其投入地听课,被图书馆管理员,认为她在听音乐,并没有在看书,因此被赶出图书馆。
另外一个老师,纯黑,是小时候从南非移民到美国的。 刚落地美国的时候,住在非洲人的社区,很一帮黑小孩疯玩,她也没有觉得啥。等到父母站稳脚跟,要让她受更好教育的时候,她家搬到一个白人为主的小镇,结果悲剧了,从上学第一天一直到毕业,一直处于被歧视的阴影当中。那些白人小孩给她各种外号,以至于长大后,她看了许久的心理医生才逐渐康复。
可是有意思的是,当她后来因为工作搬到伦敦去的时候,她和其他在伦敦的美国黑人女性有一个小圈子。因为大部分都是美国外派,她们过得不错,经常一起疯。当她看到在英国本地的黑人,和从非洲偷渡过来的黑人女性,突然意识到,即便是黑人,也是不一样的。她作为从美国来的黑人,仅仅因为有不同的口音,体面的工作,就能受到更多的尊敬。她也反思,为啥我这个在美国已经是社会阶层底部的黑人女性,到了伦敦突然还有了优越感了呢?
有一句话说得好,歧视,就是大脑的懒惰行为,或者说好听一点,大脑节能的运作方式。当我们对一些群体产生一种思维定势的时候,大脑就形成了shortcut, 遇到类似的人或事,我们就会简单地做出习惯反应。 然而,这些都是缺乏深度思考的。比如说,我们华人被其他种族习惯性认为是忍辱负重,我们对其他种族,或者某个地域的人也有各种标签。其实,这些标签,都不是经不起推敲的。就像第二位老师,她自己也不明白,本来社会底层的人,换了一个环境,歧视就天上地下了。
但是可怕的是,现在的社会已经没有条件让你去深刻思考,浅薄和极端的思想正大行其道。媒体为了收视率点击率,不惜剑走偏锋,迎合特定群体。当个人的偏见,形成了一个群体的偏见,那么极端行为就会产生,纳粹集中营也就不远了。
有空的话,可以看看Ben Sasse的书, THEM,其中对媒体娱乐化揭露颇深。 作者也是共和党里面为数不多的批判Trump的议员。
原来这里是认知平台啊,我以为是ETC平台呢
< 就像第二位老师,她自己也不明白,本来社会底层的人,换了一个环境,歧视就天上地下了。>
I would think there could be an objective measure: mobility of continuous improvements on both personal (employment opportunities) and societal (legal framework) aspects.
My guess is, when leaders of a society plan and design to have a fair and equitable society that they want, the racism issue would become minor.
As long as the objective measures (employment opportunities and legal framework) can be maintained due to the great efforts and creativity contributed by the leaders, now and in the past.
In other words, the UK might also change, one day.
我认为可能有一个客观的衡量标准:个人(就业机会)和社会(法律框架)方面的持续改进的流动性。 我的猜测是,当一个社会的领导人计划和设计一个他们想要的公平公正的社会时,种族主义问题就会变得无关紧要。 只要能维持客观措施(就业机会和法律框架),无论是现在还是过去,都是领导人付出的巨大努力和创造力。 换句话说,英国也可能有一天会发生变化。
< mobility of continuous improvements >
imo, a 2-party political system would easily produce hesitations therefore to reduce and slow down potentially most of the required mobility of continuous improvements. Complacent!
It seems mobility of continuous improvements is a built in feature for CCP system. Whether and how this feature can be maintained peacefully is another question.
"It seems the mobility of continuous improvements is a built-in feature for the CCP system. Whether and how this feature can be maintained peacefully is another question."
As a person who used to work in the quality field, I think every system has built-in continuous improvement modules. However, the main difference is how quickly you can detect the problem and make the right correction.
There is another crucial step between problem identification and correction -- root cause analysis.
Unfortunately, the two-party system quickly blames the other party or the previous leader as the root cause, and the correction is usually a bandaid fix, not a permanent cure. One advantage of the two-party system? They can always find problems (some may not even exist!)
On the other side, CCP got no one else to blame. Somehow it helps them fix the problem better. But if they lose the capability to identify problems, they can go so wrong before any correction can save them.
Initially I was curious why CCP would have such a saying that the US system would not work well in long run, by now I understand much more after seeing evidences these years.
A system must have a systemic goal for the subsystems to follow, otherwise the subsystmes can only perform suboptimisations individually before the overall system collapse due to malfunctions. The CCP system does have a clear goal - people"s livelihood, but what are that systemic goals usually for the western style systems? More money for wealthy individuals?!
Personally I do not hold much optimistic view for the western system(s) if they cannot respond well to the realistic impact by the complex changes of our world.
Afghan could be an example. I think.
https://www.6parknews.com/newspark/view.php?app=news&act=view&nid=501168
李淳分析,贫富不均常是历史上动乱来源之一,习近平为何要从聚焦式的富有改成“共同富裕”作为下一阶段经济重点可以理解。日前中国政府整顿补教业,希望增加社会阶级流动性,以免形成有钱人才有机会利用教育体制翻转的畸型社会现状。这次是财经会议,提出的解方集中在财税、租税、所得分配等,相信接下来的政策手段只会更多不会更少。