I think journalists have opinions - and sharing those opinions is a big part of 'news' - whether you like it or not, that's constantly done, either through direct words, or through more subtle means. That's why you have 'conservative' and 'liberal' entities of the news.
Moreover, the media also decides what's important - think about how they've covered Trump vs. Sanders - Trump is selling ratings, they are promoting his message in a way that's unequal to other candidates, and then saying 'oh, we're being neutral.'
I agree with you that Trump gets a ridiculously disproportionate amount of news -- not a surprise, considering how much money covering him makes -- but that's not how I interpreted the article's complaints. It read to me like the author was upset that the media weren't actively denouncing him, like they had some moral obligation to. If I've misinterpreted that then that's my error.
Yeah, don't know. Agree w/ you that journalists/ reporters do not need to have moral obligations, though [unless they make moral statements, and are not electing to do so in certain cases] - but even that's a slightly different issue.
In any case, I thought the final paragraph was the most important: "So by all means: unleash the contempt and the righteous indignation for Trump. It’s well-deserved. But that should not obscure everything that led to this moment, nor exonerate those who for years have been spewing unadorned anti-Muslim animus from multiple corners and under various banners. They’re more subtle and diplomatic (and thus more insidious) than Trump, but they’re reading from the same script."
'What is this low level journalism doing on HN?' is a bizarre way to phrase a question that's really saying 'I disagree with the assertion/characterization' - which is one that is made routinely, over the course of many years, both through news outlets and in various forums of more substantive debate.
Popular as it is [most popular Atlantic article of all time], the essay is deeply flawed - both in form [singular academic source, confirmation bias throughout, conceptual inconsistency] and function [dangerous fear-mongering, promoting racist undertones, serving as fodder for the far-right].
It has been criticized far and wide by other publications [besides The New Yorker, also in the New Republic, Salon, etc] as well as a number of academics in the U.S. including Princeton professor used as the main source in the article.
Israeli universities are known for having great programs, I would imagine this program at the Technion is going to be very good.
That said, a huge part of business school is networking, so unless you're planning on being in Israel for your career, which, given it's policies is actually quite difficult for most demographics, it may not be the most practical move.
Finally, I think one needs to carefully decide for themselves where they land on the boycott debate. In the U.S., the shift is beginning, especially in academia. And academic boycotts have been supported internally in Israel. The Technion's connection to Israel's military complex is strong in absolute terms, and to come from abroad to attend such an institution is a very deliberate decision that probably implies where one lands on an intense political debate. A recent Israeli documentary expands on the broader issue: http://www.gumfilms.com/projects/lab
Here's an MBA on startups: join an early startup and go along for the ride.
The corporate management / organizational concepts don't apply to tiny new companies. Financial analysis and accounting? You can learn to read cash flow statements after a quick online tutorial. Other than that delegate to a trusted and reputable CPA advisor.
In his own words, “You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.”
> You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.
As a statement, it sounds poetic at first, and the first two sentences are absolutely perfect; however, there's something very wrong about the notion of "preserving the balance", and I've seen that notion show up elsewhere as well. Evil should not persist out of any sense of balance, and nothing goes horribly wrong with the world if evil ceases altogether.
> Evil should not persist out of any sense of balance
I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good.
Its the only interpretation I can see which makes sense in the context of the sentences that the one on balance follows. What is preserved is not the balance in the state of the world between the sides (or between good and evil), but the balance you recognize between the good and evil in each side, a balance that is lost when you commit to one as "good" and ignore the evil it contains, and the good contained in the other.
> I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good.
That much is absolutely true; conflicts and war are evils in themselves, even when some would consider them "necessary".
The quote itself is somewhat vauge, but I think the movies exemplify more clearly the viewpoint.
Take The Lord Of the Rings - the good and the evil is very clearly defined. Sauron and the Orcs are objectively evil, and you can kill as many orcs as you want without feeling any remorse. Sarumans industrialization is pure evil. Aragorn is the rightfully ruler purely by virtue of being a "good guy" and having the right ancestors.
Now compare to Princess Mononoke. Obviously the corruption of the nature is an evil thing, but Eboshi is not "evil", she saves the outcasts of society, lepers and prostitutes and gives them life and dignity, but as part of her plan she upsets the balance of nature. This is much more complex conflict as in Tolkien, and the solution is not as easy, since you cannot just kill all the bad guys.
I believe the idea is that human notions of 'evil' are based on imperfect knowledge, at best. Therefore, quite often one person's 'evil' is another's 'justice' and letting people rampage in pursuit of it does not make for a peaceful society. Rather, people have to be able to work together in spite of their differing ideals, instead of hoping to be able to eliminate or marginalize everyone who might not believe the same thing.
On the other hand, if what other people believe is outlined in Mein Kampf, the attitude that you should work together with those people in spite of your differing ideals is quite wrong. We know this because of what happened in the Holocaust. Today, we have the luxury to judge this tree by its fruits. Even if someone else believes that the Holocaust was justice, there has to be some line of appeasement we won't cross, where we say "no, this really is evil" or we become complicit in worse things than just war, and will only be able to recognize that in retrospect.
This becomes concrete when we are talking about a state which formally supported the Nazis.
The Nazis would be a good example of a group that rampaged in pursuit of their ideal of "justice"--they believed that a group of rich people (Jews) were the source of all misery, however removed from reality that might be--then rampaged, not just in a figurative sense, but also a very literal one (e.g. kristallnacht).
I quite explicitly said that this was both an undesirable thing and something to put a stop to.
This is only true if you are the only one to follow that rule. Someone whose belief is outlined in Mein Kampf, but nonetheless follows the same rule, will seek other means than the historical of resolving his differences.
No, it's more a matter of the problem not being their ideals, but what they're willing to do in pursuit of those ideals. I mean, you can find plenty of commonality between Nazi ideals and plenty of other beliefs, but most of them aren't trying to carry out mass murder. And of the few groups that are trying to commit mass murder, like Isis, I think we all agree that they're terrible.
I think his statement is talking about people, factions, and sides. Not abstract concepts like "murder" or "eating babies".
So it's not that he's saying we need to defend the balance with evil; rather, we should defend the balance with the people we see as evil. Because their side sees us as evil, and unless we seek balance, the only solutions are extermination of one side or the other, or eternal war.
If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of, then yes, you might believe that balance is the healthier option. Belief in either extreme can lead you to a dehumanizing view of people, and a lot of evil has been done in the world in the name of ridding it of a greater evil, for the sake of an unquestioned good.
> If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of
A world of "no"; that's a kind of "balance" I want no part of.
Arguably, from that point of view, it's a part of you whether or not you want to be a part of it. Every human life suffers, and brings suffering to others, that can't be avoided. We're limited by hate, fear, greed, hunger, mortal terror, the need to survive and see our children survive, and our own point of view.
But perhaps the center path is itself evil if you refuse to stray from it. That would lead many Western minds to the parable of the Good Samaritan, after all. Who would refuse to feed the hungry because hunger is just part of human nature, or refuse to clothe the poor because poverty is just the result of bad luck and bad decisions?
Well... plenty of people who fall prey to the just world fallacy, but that's digressing.
All of the suffering of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done in the name of good, and people were slaughtered until it was decided good was done, because the greater evil had to be opposed at any cost, and it was thought to be the lesser of all conceivable evils. But when you oppose evil with evil, where is the good to be found?
> Arguably, from that point of view, it's a part of you whether or not you want to be a part of it. Every human life suffers, and brings suffering to others, that can't be avoided. We're limited by hate, fear, greed, hunger, mortal terror, the need to survive and see our children survive.
I have no idea what message you're trying to convey here. No, none of those qualities (other than survival) are innate, and if you believe they are, you'll do less to stop them. We can be better.
Consider things more abstractly, greed is generally thought of as an evil. Bur trying to distroy it is counter productive, but wuty care it can be useful. The drug war is a great example of taking an ideology past the point of usefulness.
But what is evil ? What you decide it to be ? What if I happen to disagree with your notion of evil, am I now evil as well ? You seem to make fundamental mistake in assuming that evil is something concrete and fixed in some sort of absolute moral framework. Realise that both the framework and the "place of evil" are, within very relaxed bounds almost arbitrary, is the point that's being made.
Some things really are evil. Not nearly as many as people call "evil", but some things genuinely, objectively, are evil.
Take Pol Pot, for example. He deliberately killed one quarter of his country's population. If you think it's just my decision to call that evil, then you are from a place that is so morally different from me that I don't know how to even begin having a conversation with you.
But Pol Pot thought he was doing good. The only response I can imagine is to try to resist that with arms. I don't know what else is possible. But in doing so, I have to make very sure that I don't become some kind of monster myself, rationalizing the evil that I do and calling it good.
Let's not forget the context in which poor and unsophisticated people decided that was a good idea, and the names of the international aggressors whose crimes encompass the evil of the whole conflict:
However, in the context of moral outlooks that people form in that sort of environment, Pol Pot's values are quite normal. Many German soldiers formed similar views during the First World War; they were very well informed compared to the Cambodians, and in a position to know better.
The point is that what you consider evil, somebody else considers good, and vice versa. Furthermore, we define good in terms of evil and evil in terms of good. The existence of one necessitates the existence of the other, whether in the past, present, or future.
That's weak. You can go down a definitional hole and say someone might consider anything good. Fact remains that things like, I dunno, torturing children and slaughtering villages are things that we'd be perfectly fine eliminating. We'd be A-OK without having people that have, as the near entirety of their existence, hunger and pain.
Even in nature, there isn't a real balance. Any perceived balance is simply the result of ongoing fighting and current stalemates. When things go "out of balance", groups or species go extinct and things move on. Absolutely nothing in nature is stopping a species from taking over the entire planet, consuming all resources, then going extinct.
And personally, I don't define good in terms of evil. Like a silly saying of defining light in terms of darkness (uh, no, I'll define it as certain energy bands or something, thanks).
Unless you meant this on a conceptual level, like, if we had never heard of the concept of insanity, it might be hard to say we value sanity since it'd just be an unquestioned state of affairs. I don't find that a very useful definition as far as a course for action goes; we'd be quite fine eliminating "evil".
I mean at the conceptual level. So many things are defined in terms of their opposite. If we have no knowledge, understanding, definition, experience of evil, we don't have a benchmark against which to compare our actions and make sure they are different. Hopefully once understood, it stays remembered but in the past.
That much is true; we shouldn't forget what evil is, lest we painfully rediscover it, but even if we define good as its absence, there's no reason we can't maintain that absence. Much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio... , we can talk about things without enacting them.
But then why should we try to "preserve the balance"? We've got evil things recorded. Apart from that, it does not feel like we're at any risk at all of forgetting what evil is truly, let alone conceptually.
> We'd be A-OK without having people that have, as the near entirety of their existence, hunger and pain.
That's exactly the kind of thing I meant, yes. Some things are universally wrong no matter where or how they happen, who is doing them, or what "side" they're on.
Here is the full quote, "When I say 'hero' do not picture someone with the strength to fight and conquer Evil -because Evil is not something that can ever be conquered or defeated, Evil is natural. It is innate in all humans. But while it can't be defeated, it can be controlled. In order to control it, and live the life of a true hero, you must learn to see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two."
Source: "The Whisper Within: Zen and Self" (p. 150)
How does one "preserve the balance"? Could you provide an example action you might take that is preserving this balance? I'm having trouble turning this into anything useful, other than a generic, general sort of "don't be hateful and rash; think things through; sides aren't perfect" kinda thing.
The word 'balance' is vague and overused, to be sure. Here's my suggestion for a kind of action: if you have to respond to aggression, make the response targeted and limited to what is necessary. For example, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the right thing to do was use the military force necessary to kick him out. It should have stopped there. It should not have continued with twelve years of economic sanctions that condemned hundreds of thousands of civilians to death followed by an invasion and regime change that created a power vacuum leading to the rise of one of the worst regimes since the Nazis.
Well, Saddam's was one of the worst regimes since the Nazis. We really can't do anything right as far as intervention, at some point we have to accept we can't make things work out in other people's countries and there will always be evil rulers we can't do anything about.
> Well, Saddam's was one of the worst regimes since the Nazis.
Saddam was a villain to be sure, but as far as people actually living in Iraq were concerned, his regime was nowhere near as bad as what followed. For some reasons why, check out http://riverbendblog.blogspot.ie/
> We really can't do anything right as far as intervention, at some point we have to accept we can't make things work out in other people's countries and there will always be evil rulers we can't do anything about.
If the author had portrayed the Imperial Japanese government as an innocent victim, I would be the first to despise the article. But he didn't. He mentioned the campaign of mass murder in China, the insane stupidity of the decision to attack Pearl Harbor and then to fight the war to the bitter end. In no way does he suggest any of these things are excusable. The people he portrays as innocent victims are the civilians of every nationality who are burned to death in bombing raids or starved by blockades - 'economic sanctions' if you want to use the current euphemism.
And he's right. The economic sanctions against Iraq that condemned hundreds of thousands of children to starve to death were an atrocity just about exactly as bad as the rape of Nanking. Just about exactly as inexcusable. We need to get to the point where we stop looking for excuses for such actions.
> Nobody is more familiar with what a curse airplanes can be when deployed for evil than the Japanese. Airplanes dropped the canisters that burned their cities, the mines that starved their children, and the nukes that instantly made vast irradiated graveyards out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — for the first time in history visiting solar-temperature hell upon human habitations, and hinting at mankind’s full capacity for suicidal madness. But their intimate familiarity with the “cursed dream” of airplanes also stems from the Japanese state’s own misuse of the great invention for its imperial dreams.
So the bombing of Japan was "evil", Japan's own bombings were just a "misuse" in pursuit of a "dream". How very neutral.
> The economic sanctions against Iraq that condemned hundreds of thousands of children to starve to death were an atrocity just about exactly as bad as the rape of Nanking. Just about exactly as inexcusable. We need to get to the point where we stop looking for excuses for such actions.
Economic sanctions are an alternative to war. Are you suggesting we should have bombed Iraq instead at the time? Or just let Saddam do what he pleased? Ironically, when the USA does nothing (Rwanda, Pol Pot, North Korea, Srebrenica) they are accused of complicity in inaction, yet when they do something, they are war criminals. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And frankly one of the reasons I think they should be taken off the table entirely is because they are far too easy an alternative. At least in war, some of the victims have their faces broadcast on television. The victims of economic sanctions are never heard of except as dry statistics.
> Are you suggesting we should have bombed Iraq instead at the time? Or just let Saddam do what he pleased?
Saddam had already been stopped from doing what he pleased. He had been comprehensively kicked out of Kuwait. It should have stopped there.
> Ironically, when the USA does nothing (Rwanda, Pol Pot, North Korea, Srebrenica) they are accused of complicity in inaction, yet when they do something, they are war criminals. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This is only a contradiction if the two kinds of accusations come from the same people.
That's probably because you live in a relatively wealthy country that would not be harmed so much by economic sanctions. One way to look at it is that that the economic sanctions against Iraq killed two or three orders of magnitude more civilians than the bombing campaigns of 1991 and 2003 put together. Another way to look at it is that if you were starving to death because of economic sanctions, you would probably change your preference very quickly.
In any case, I wasn't proposing to spend twelve years bombing Iraq instead of the economic sanctions. I was proposing that after Saddam had been kicked out of Kuwait, that should have been the end of the matter.
I was looking for general commentary. My specific situation would be someone who was always interested in technology in a meaningful way since childhood but did not pursue computer science/engineering in any serious capacity.
Maybe a more specific question would be how to get engineers to take you seriously [and subsequently ideas one may have around marketing, design, etc]?
