Wal-Mart As A Category

--------
TITLE: Wal-Mart as a category
STATUS: Publish
ALLOW COMMENTS: 1
CONVERT BREAKS: 1
ALLOW PINGS: 1
PRIMARY CATEGORY: Wal-Mart
CATEGORY: Wal-Mart

DATE: 01/20/2004 11:04:06 AM
-----
BODY:
I'm not usually an "activist" per se, but I've pretty much decided that I'm going to use some of my entries on Obsidian Potency to campaign against Wal-Mart.  

So, given how much negative news you guys have unearthed about the retailing giant/evil empire (including <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk//world/americas/story.jsp?story=482566">this article</a> today), I've created a new category called "Wal-Mart."  Any Obsidian Potency author should feel free to post whatever dirt you find on Wal-Mart in this category, since there seems to be no shortage of it.  

Let's make people aware!
-----

-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: pissingmonkey
DATE: 01/25/2004 02:37:32 AM
hubris
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jcabana
EMAIL:
DATE: 01/23/2004 12:17:34 PM
I've "wasted my time" for the following reasons:

1. It's fun to argue.
2. The views expressed here by pissingmonkey are socially irresponsible, and almost nauseating. (Again, I hope he's just giving me shit for kicks).  

If it makes you sad, then go away.  But don't forget to bow down before my superior intellect.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Your Mama
DATE: 01/23/2004 12:02:28 PM
My oh my.
At the beginning of this thread, you said that you would like people to be “aware”, even though you’re not really an “activist”. You’ve more than proved this by spending so much time and energy carefully deconstructing the arguments of a pissing monkey that’s getting a real kick out of breaking your balls. It’s funny, but also sad. It seems that the only thing you would like people to be “aware” of is that they must bow down before your superior intellect. Puh-lease.

For people that actually care about worker’s rights in America, I suggest you check out “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America” by Barbara Ehrenreich.

For people that are more concerned with proving they were the best debate team captain that ever lived, I suggest you smoke a joint and calm yourself down.  

-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jcabana
DATE: 01/23/2004 01:11:21 AM
It's amazing how you glossed over so much of what I wrote, while I glossed over nothing that you wrote.  It must be very convenient to disagree with my incomplete thoughts.  So let's break down ALL of what you just said, piece by piece. While we're at it, I'll loop this chat back into our ORIGINAL DISCUSSION.

"First off, you used the words "choice" and "athiest". Let's stick to the subject at hand and not bring god, free will, and fate into the ring."

I don't think my decision to use the words "choice" and "atheist" change or distract from my argument at all.  It's sad that you would try to hide behind them and accuse me of trying to broaden the scope of the subject.  I didn't.  Those words were used as examples of people who follow the philosophies we were discussing.  I hope that's not too much for you to handle.  

(Virve once accused me of doing something similar in an entirely different context.  She was right.)

"Secondly, you need to read what I wrote. I say this because you basically repeated one of my points: "Darwin didn't apply his theories to social interactions...". See the last sentence of my previous post."

The last sentece of your previous post means nothing.  Your ellipses again simply snip off the part of my argument you have glaringly failed to address: the fact that Darwin DID CONSIDER the appplication of his theories to the social world, and found that they don't make sense there.  Again, it must be convenient to argue against pieces of my argument, instead of the whole thing.  

"Third, you contradicted yourself. "Social interaction...is driven by our thoughts and ideas, not by our instincts." You go on in the next paragraph, "It is NATURAL for humans to default towards helping other humans..." So what is the nature of humans? Controlled by our thoughts, or is it just natural?"

I knew you'd try to catch me on this point.  First of all, you again chop up my statements using the oh-so-convenient ellipses, thereby distorting what I said.  As it turns out, what I said doesn't need much distorting, because it does come out a bit garbled (it's really late over here, and I'm fucking tired).  

My FULL statement was meant to be read in two parts: In the first, I described why social darwinism makes no sense based on evolutionary theory itself - or, based on the disconnect between reason and evolution.  In the second, I described why evolutionary theory actually supports the very ideals that social darwinists cry out against.  Perhaps I should have said "On the other hand, social darwinism is TOTALLY directed...".  Most people got my point - except, it seems, for you.  

Yet again, it must be easy to point out and tear down my argument based on contradictions that I didn't make.  But in case you misconstrued my points as contradictory, I'll explain it again in terms you can (hopefully) understand.

Most humans' default behavior is to help other humans.  This ability helps humans to survive as a species, and oftentimes manifests itself without the person even thinking about it.  Ever see a person dive into a dangerous river to save a total stranger's life?  Or watch people try to get help for an accident victim they don't have any connection to?  It's because in the long run, if all humans behave like this towards one another, it helps us to survive.

On the other hand, there is very little instinctual, or natural, about choosing to harm or not help people.  Perhaps you can explain to me how failing to help other humans would assist the survival of the human race as a species.  

What's that?  You can't?  Okay, then social darwinism makes no sense.  There, is that more clear?  I hope so, because I'm not going to repeat myself.

"Fourth, in your last post, you responded to my question by asking a question. That's just plain rude. In fact, you asked two questions in response to my question. I'm doubly offended."

I answered a silly question with two more silly questions, just to illustrate that your silly question was not phrased in a manner that made sense in the context of the true meanings behind the terms we are discussing.  I'm sorry if this approach offended you.

"Finally, in your last paragraph of your last post you said, "We may have particular rules set up to manage these processes. But they are still human rules, not evolutionary ones." No matter which way you slice it, humans are a product of evolution, and therefore bound by its rules. Human rules are nothing more than a subdivision of evolutionary rules."

Now you're repeating yourself.  I have always agreed that humans are bound by evolutionary rules.  However, humans are capable of reason.  Reason is a handy byproduct of evolution.  It allows humans to solve problems, and is a boon to our survival.  However, that ability also allows us to pursue deranged thoughts and actions that actually threaten to destroy the species as a whole.  Quite the double-edged sword, wouldn't you say?

This means: those who believe is social reciprocity actually help to ensure the survival of humanity.  Ironically, those who believe in social darwinism are actually mankind's biggest threat, and must be contained or eliminated to prevent their selfish ideals and destructive tendencies from destroying humanity (see also Hitler, Adolph).  

The key difference between social darwinism and reciprocity is that social darwinism basically asserts that we can THINK TOWARDS AN EVOLUTIONARY GOAL.  Can we?  Does that even make sense?  My previous comment was an attempt to say, "No."  then again, some reciprocity involves reason and planning.  Maybe I was wrong.

You know what? I think we are both rather senselessly arguing the same point, but from two separate perspectives.   The truth is that both both reciprocity and social darwinism ARE byproducts of evolution. Unfortunately, only reciprocity is a beneficial adaptation.  If we were totally selfish, we would all end up dead.  If we only helped ourselves and our families, we would all end up dead.  If we only helped people of a certain class or race, we would be limiting our genetic material and thus our potential for positive adaptation, and eventually we would all end up dead.  Social darwinism is what you might call a 'genetic defect.'

NOW, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION:

Your original point was: "Democracy was never intended to be fair. It's an extension of social darwnism which basically dictates that the stronger species will survive." (Notice the lack of ellipses.)

You also said, "If you are going to throw the argument that it treats its employees poorly, save your breath. America itself was built on slavery from the cotton plantations (blacks), to the railroads (chinese), to our farms and slaughterhouses (mexicans), to the internet (indians (from india)). We didn't become such a powerful nation by treating our "employees" fairly. If you like your cheese to be affordable, don't be a hypocrite and bash Wal-mart."

My ORIGINAL POINT was that standards change over time, and the ideals that reated labor laws and social welfare programs are far more beneficial to life in 21st-century U.S.  America used to keep slaves and allow its factory workers to be butchered, and I'm not anxious to return to anything resembling those days just because people like you enjoy buying cheap cheese.

My SECOND POINT was that your use of 'social darwinism' constitutes the appropriation of a flimsy (and even maladaptive) social construct to justify shopping at a discount store that violates labor laws.  That hasn't changed.  

Finally, just because people made up 'social darwinism' doesn't make that concept MORE natural than social reciprocity -- and even if it IS AS natural, it doesn't necessarily benefit our species.  That hasn't changed.

Flawless victory.  

Oh, and I don't look forward to our next go-round...because I just eliminated any need for one.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: pissingmonkey
DATE: 01/22/2004 09:49:18 PM
First off, you used the words "choice" and "athiest".  Let's stick to the subject at hand and not bring god, free will, and fate into the ring.

Secondly, you need to read what I wrote.  I say this because you basically repeated one of my points: "Darwin didn't apply his theories to social interactions...".  See the last sentence of my previous post.

Third, you contradicted yourself.  "Social interaction...is driven by our thoughts and ideas, not by our instincts."  You go on in the next paragraph, "It is NATURAL for humans to default towards helping other humans..."  So what is the nature of humans?  Controlled by our thoughts, or is it just natural?

Fourth, in your last post, you responded to my question by asking a question.  That's just plain rude.  In fact, you asked two questions in response to my question.  I'm doubly offended.

Finally, in your last paragraph of your last post you said, "We may have particular rules set up to manage these processes. But they are still human rules, not evolutionary ones."  No matter which way you slice it, humans are a product of evolution, and therefore bound by its rules.  Human rules are nothing more than a subdivision of evolutionary rules.

Check and mate.  I'm gonna go take a victory lap around your head and have some milk.  Thank you for playing, and I look forward to our next battle of nonsensical banter.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Virve
DATE: 01/22/2004 09:10:11 AM
Recommended reading: "Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies", by Jared Diamond.

I'm only about 1/2 of the way through but its pretty interesting so far and seeks to answer questions about why different societies/racial groups became what they did.  What makes his theories interesting is that he combines evolutionary, economic and social factors in his answers.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jcabana
DATE: 01/22/2004 12:00:22 AM
I'll add a couple more things.  You asked, "Who do we think we are as a species to deny Darwin's theories?"

My response is, "Who do social darwinists think they are to pretend that evolution has goal-involved concepts such as success and failure?  And why would they pretend that evolution bears any resemblance to the human decision-making process?"

Now that we're back in the real world, it's time for everyone to acknowledge a simple fact: people choose who becomes rich and who remains poor.  People choose who receives food and who starves.  We may have particular rules set up to manage these processes.  But they are still human rules, not evolutionary ones.  
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jcabana
DATE: 01/21/2004 11:26:03 PM
I'm really trying to turn the other cheek, but some of you make it hard.

Darwin didn't apply his theories to societal interactions, because they simply don't make sense in that realm.  It was not an oversight on his part.

The whole point of natural selection is that it is NATURAL.  Social welfare programs, or the fight against them, isn't 'natural' at all.  It's directed.  We CHOOSE to help other people or we CHOOSE not to help other people.  But regardless of what choices we make, NONE OF THAT CONSTITUTES NATURAL SELECTION!

Thus, "Social Darwinism" is nothing more than a self-serving oxymoron.  

If you are a pure atheist, and you are a proponent of Darwin's theories, you believe that evolution is a 'phenomenon.'  In the scope of true evolutionary theory, no greater power plans anything - shit just happens, and the most adaptable survive.  On the other hand, social interaction is TOTALLY directed; it is driven by our thoughts and ideas, not our basic instincts.  Social Darwinists want it both ways: they want to believe in evolution, yet they also want to believe that humans control human evolution socially.  Nonsense.

Social welfare programs are an attempt to help those who have less.  It is NATURAL for humans to default towards helping other humans; Darwin himself wrote that humans have ONLY survived through GROUP SELECTION.  We wouldn't be here without other people, and we tend to group together.  Even for you heathens, there are perfectly logical reasons for morality and altruism.  Reciprocity helps us to survive.

Thus, reciprocity is far more natural than social darwinism.

Any questions?  
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: pissingmonkey
DATE: 01/21/2004 09:17:13 PM
hey, j...SHAT UPA YA FACE!!  Darwin's theories apply to everything.  We are nothing more that biological machines bound by biological rules.  Socially, we've evolved way too fast a pace for biology to keep up.  Who do we think we are as a species to deny Darwin's theories?  Just because we have "feelings" and "emotions" should we have programs like welfare and no child left behind help the weak?  I don't think so.  Whether it be business, academia, the movie industry, sibling rivalry, relationships or any social event, the stronger species will prevail.  Maybe my buddy Chuck never meant for his theories to be applied to anything but biology, but I didn't mean to shit my pants just now...it just happened that way.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jcabana
DATE: 01/21/2004 12:40:30 PM
I can totally see how Wal-Mart has aided certain areas where businesses and jobs are scarce.  That's all well and good.  But...

...hiring illegal immigrants, locking people in stores and refusing to allow them to have breaks, and taking out insurance policies on employees while naming the company as the beneficiary sounds more like a South African diamond mine or a pre-Civil War plantation than an acceptable American company.  

These practices have been widespread enough to generate class action lawsuits, so I shudder to think what else Wal-Mart's been up to.  The question that should be asked is: Are the benefits of bringing economic improvements to stagnant pockets of the country worth the aforementioned costs?
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Virve
DATE: 01/21/2004 12:27:19 PM
I'm not so sure about the last paragraph of that person's argument but I do agree with the first sentiment...Its hard for a lot of people to argue with cheaper prices. There are two sides to Walmart's presence in a lot of places. I lived in a city where Walmart's arrival was negative, they trampled small boutiques and closed businesses. But then, there are rural areas where other industries have failed and they rejuvenate the local economy. Walmart isn't a perfect company but they do have programs for their employees that encourage going back to school etc.

Its a hypocrisy, the way things work with capitalism- succeed! grow! Whoa, wait a sec, not *that* successful. Not *too large*.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jcabana
DATE: 01/21/2004 12:16:05 AM
So because "America" was built on the backs of slaves, that justifies what Wal-Mart is doing...in the year 2004?  America was built over 200 years ago.  I'm black, and I'd prefer not to  relive the 18th century, if it's all the same to you.  

Microsoft is an oft-criticized company.  But one thing Microsoft cannot be accused of is violating labor laws, or treating its employees like slaves.  By your rationale, shopping at Wal-Mart would be okay even if they used slave labor.  

Since you're obviously living a very disturbing dream, allow me to apply the smelling salts: "social darwinism" is a lie.  Darwin never intended his theories to be applied to intra-human relations.  It was perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, David Duke and many other fine upstanding gents who I'm sure we'd all love to invite over for the holidays.  Humans have long adhered to a policy of cooperation within groups, and even sometimes across groups, to survive.    

I'll show my kinder, gentler side and leave it at this: I really, really hope you're kidding.    
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: pissingmonkey
DATE: 01/21/2004 12:01:15 AM
Wal-mart has the lowest prices...always.  If I can save 50 cents on a piece of cheese, it is my perogative to do so, and if Wal-mart has the lowest price on cheese, then I shall shop there.  Regardless of my personal income, I as the consumer would be a fool to spend more elsewhere.  

One of the foundations of democracy is market competition, and the retailer that sells its products for the best price is going to win.  Democracy was never intended to be fair.  It's an extension of social darwnism which basically dictates that the stronger species will survive.  And I praise Wal-mart for being the strongest of retailers, and I praise them for providing me with the lowest price in town.

If you are going to throw the argument that it treats its employees poorly, save your breath.  America itself was built on slavery from the cotton plantations (blacks), to the railroads (chinese), to our farms and slaughterhouses (mexicans), to the internet (indians (from india)).  We didn't become such a powerful nation by treating our "employees" fairly.  If you like your cheese to be affordable, don't be a hypocrite and bash Wal-mart.  
-----

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit