he boycott even reached elected officials, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeting about googling an adobo recipe, implying her personal breakup with Goya. No matter how delicious Goya products are, the treachery cannot go unpunished. Latinos deserve better. Everyone deserves better. The beans
News Peg
can negatively impact both the customer experience and creativity
what does netflix get out of not having quotas
the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. more than tripled in 20 years--from 3.5 million in 1990 to 10.8 million in 2008.
so obviously the increased budget isnt doing anything
Environmentalists say they believe that the coal industry, having dealt with a sharp downturn in recent years and facing an aggressive investor divestment movement, may be shifting its views on climate change more for its own business interests than any newfound love for the environment.
oh 100% percent obviously
the technology performs as well as clinicians with more than 20 years’ experience.
this is impressive but also a little terrifying because of its potential to outperform humans,,, also the potential to take jobs
also
this is super interesting -- I never saw public school as an equalizer in education because of his segregated it is (in New York at least). Its kind of unheard of for rich people to send their kids to public school and I think that must have na effect on the govt. decision to defund or ignore the needs to public schools.
prestige
it all starts with political priorization
philanthropists
facts, no one but the people in the schools really know the best way to spend that money
means
truly - I know wealthy people who put their kids in free specialized high schools even though they could afford really nice private schools simply off the reputation of these schools (i.e Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, etc. )
now
change can only come if people focus their attentions to the needs of public schools
functions as an indirect school-choice system, with pricing built into the real-estate market
facts many areas are marketed with the "great schools"
very very true - most people with lots of money that could help public education send their kids to private and independent schools so they have much stake in public education
institutions
these work when people are heavily dependent on the resource, have leadership or other assets, and when authorities provide substantial autonomy
nd a focus on protecting oneself—when the crumbling walls scream that no one else cares—displaces learning
so true, this is very evident in my public elementary school: 30 kids to a class, old textbooks, fights were regular
When the poor immigrants and free African Americans who raised hogs and grew vegetables there needed firewood, they simply cut down trees, according to The Park and the People
Seneca Village
It sorts people into the helpers and the helped, which reinforces prevailing beliefs about the best way to generate and distribute wealth instead of questioning what led us here in the first place.
word - the clearly demarcated roles continues stereotypes/stigmas, ignores what got everyone/thing to that point
donors
effective altruism pushes responsibility from the govt. to take care of its citizens, wage earning offers a better relationship & taxes can fund public goods and services
the benefits of wage earning to include reduced incentives for labor and sex trafficking; reduced birth rates and rates of child marriage and teen pregnancy; participation in banking, savings, and insurance programs; and the growth of taxation systems.
more evidence of wage earning as a very effective long term solution
Samasource hires poor people in northern Uganda and trains them to provide services to these firms, moving women and youth above the poverty line with money that would otherwise have gone to a different vendor without a social mission
see this seems like more of an effective, long term goal...setting people up with jobs
business
also begs the question, which is more effective short term solutions or long term? probably long term tho because pumping money consistently wont do much good if that country is always dependant on some charity
net
but an effective altruist would still see this as "good" because of the income of that person that is going to help the poor, regardless of the fact that that money is coming from the exploitation of that same community or ones just like it
we should think beyond short-term gains for the poor, a trap many effective altruists fall into.
effective altruists tend to think of the short term gains for the poor - as in money
evaluate
social investing is hard to quantify
altruism
well, i would like to see it... what is that important role that corporations play
treating its symptoms rather than its root causes, then we should not forget that sometimes we don’t know what the root causes of poverty are, and even should we come to know what some of them are, we may still be unable to change them.
but wouldnt an effective altruist try to find solutions because that would be the most effective soluton, while on the other hand, if its not possible then maybe funding the most viable option would be the effective altrustis solution
ffective altruism cannot be refuted by evidence that some other strategy will be more effective than the one effective altruists are using, because effective altruists will then adopt that strategy
I think Singer is trying to say that effective altruist arent just about donating their money to the most worthy cause - and that they adopt whatever strategy is the most effective
if large-scale reform offers some prospect of reducing poverty, then effective altruists will try to assess its chance of doing good, and if the expected value of such action is higher than the expected value of more limited interventions, they will advocate working for the large-scale reform
Singer is saying that effective altruist are, in fact, concerned with large scale reform - but it doesnt seem like it is one of their values
more
Singer is saying charity isnt a zero sum game and that people can donate to charities that they have an emotional connection with and the more effective charities as well
” Such altruism isn’t the opposite of egoism, Singer argues, nor does it require self-sacrifice, for in lending meaning and fulfillment to one’s life, it leads indirectly to one’s happiness and flourishing. In this conflict-free ethical zone, it is a win-win.
effective altruism is a win win but only for effective altruist
a proto-theory of the private sector’s relationship to the state—as a second, lesser choice to his own gospel of noblesse oblige.
im having a hard time understanding these words - what this mean?
staggering
sharing his wealth would have been more effective than building thousands of libraries - which working peole could have done
powerful
what would you call this emotion? why not just label it empathy? what is she saying about the fact that they got emotional? -- also interesting that they got emotional seeing as EA seems so defunct of emotion
dollar
true -- and it seems a bit cold. EA seems defunct of any emotional ties
it reduces the targets to abstraction
it dehumanizes the target
Emotion, they believe, tends to misdirect help to dramatic crises and heart-tugging victims rather than those who need it most.
emotion gets in the way of the "effective" part of altruism according to Ea
you should choose logic
according to EA, logic outweighs the emotional connection of helping someone in your community
supporters
not worth it for EA to try to justify their not caring about exploitation/justice
So long as they fail to do so, their citizens profit from an international regime that foreseeably and avoidably harms the poor.
EA argue that employees work under these harsh conditions but fail to recognize the exploitation that wealthy nations put on their poor countries .. "choose between exploitation and destitution".
However, human beings also have a right to adequate protection from dangerous working conditions. Sweatshop labor therefore involves a dubious trade-off. It makes some people better off, but at the expense of those who are injured or killed in workplace accident
EA would view sweatshop as good because it gives work to people in poor countries, irregardless of the terrible conditions
there is no question that sweatshops benefit those in poor countries.
what is the effective altruist's logic behind this?
overlook the weakest and most vulnerable members of a population, who are frequently illiterate, victims of discrimination, and consigned to geographically remote places. Many of them also suffer from disabilities that place out of reach the welfare gains able-bodied people can achieve
woah they ignore the people that cant really be "saved"/"helped"
lack of money is not killing people. The true villains are the chronically disorganized and underfunded health care systems about which governments care little,
similar to the idea someone else said about how effective altruism shouldnt replace the things that government should be doing for their people
It is an illusion that lives can be bought like cars.
i think Angus is saying that effective altruism does not actually humanize the people whos lives theyre supposedly saving
volunteered to be the objects of the “effective” altruism he endorses
is Angus wondering if the recipients of these effects are okay being the object of effective altruism
but the underlying logic applies as well to an anonymous $100 gift to buy a violin for a needy music student
well is this a valid comparison - the violin might do more for that music student like maybe leding to a job in which they could eventually donate and be an effective altruist vs a 100 million donation to renovate an already established concert hall that maybe didnt really "need" it
and responds that it might in a world that has overcome extreme poverty, but not in ours: where there are lives to be saved, other goods are not worth pursuing.
Singer believes that arts arent worthing promoting since there are more valuable things like people's lives to help
These two efforts come together in the effective altruism movement.
the ideas that giving should be dedicated solely improving the lives of the most disadvantaged & also that funds should be effectively deployed
ffective altruism is in tension with the commonplace philosophy that identifies in democracy a powerful normative force
rob is arguing that effective altruism rejects democracy...not sure how that be
Effective altruists see the best state of affairs, I think, as that in which good-maximizing technocrats are in charge
i think i need a better understanding of what a technocrat is
if effective altruism aspires to endorse causes that aim to bring about political or institutional change,
then it is political because the mission is political change
Now Singer endorses a more moderate approach—tithing, for example—presumably seeking to appeal to a broader audience.
yeah i feel like giving until youre poor would not appeal to many people
Its greatest advocates, such as Peter Singer, must be savvy about coalition-building, mobilizing public support, crafting appealing messages, and so on
effective altruism is inherently political because it is a social movement
What about civic duty—being an informed citizen, an active political participant ready to speak out against injustice, and a member of society willing to help others directly? Is that not part of a meaningful life?
what is truly meaningful in society - why is this important to effective altruism though?
Why should we pay for police when others protect us?
confusedby this example
it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent
how do we know this..?
To prove politically progressive, it must avoid the familiar philanthropic problem of giving donors too much power over beneficiaries.
i didnt realize this was a problem -- what kind of issues does this lead to
In that sense, effective altruism can be credited with making both ethical and empirical progress
what does she mean by empirical progress
objectively better than others
how do you decide who is more/what is more worthy (besides the obvious)
$100 million for the renovation of the Avery Fisher Hall at New York’s Lincoln Center (now to be renamed David Geffen Hall)
Okay i can agree 100 million dollars for a music hall isnt worth it but arts are worthy they do something for the soul
to
what counts as the most good?
So they don’t give to whatever cause tugs strongest at their heartstrings. They give to the cause that will do the most good, given the abilities, time, and money the
this is a tad heartless - you should be able to give to what makes you happy
One year after graduating, Wage was donating a six-figure sum—roughly half his annual earnings
woah...