[OFF TOPIC]
Hmmm, if you cannot use moral considerations in deciding whether to attend a conference in country X or country Y, when can you use them? I am not convinced that the dangers of being a comic prude and hypocrit (by making pointless responses out of vague umbrage) are worse than the danger of not caring.
My thinking is that America is a democracy (hooray for that), and people, even people of goodwill, act largely out of self interest. So for outsiders to influence America, there needs to be an aggregate realization by US citzens that their self interest will indeed be effected adversely if their government acts in ways repugnant to what friends and neighbours consider hard-won international norms. This is not about punishment, nor antagonism towards America if course, it is to feed information into the democracy.
If outside countries had been stronger in my country (Australia)'s use of child abuse as an instrument of government immigration policy, for example, multiple lives may not have been destroyed. If there had been a concerted effort 'we will not holiday in Australia while there are children behind bars in tropical hellholes without review or processing, being denied prompt medical treatment, watching weekly suicide attempts and men sewing theor lips together' then the government would have extra pressure on it from the tourism industry. The 'get tough' policies that treat peopke as pawns is noxious, and US needs to avoid my county's success in it. (Supposedly, there are now no children in that kind of detention, btw, after years of govt stalling.)
Regards
Rick
(On the issue of 'solidarity' isnt it the attitude of the Good Samaritan?)
Rick,
I admire your taking the effort to avoid countries and hubs but
"solidarity" that adversely impacts my friends and not true villains
isn't on my agenda.
Rather than doing something, anything, I have fallen in with several
technology oriented groups who are working to have an impact. Whether
they will or not, being in the future, is always uncertain. But it is
more than praying (which I recommend) and being in "solidarity."
Hope you are at the start of a great week!
Patrick
On 01/29/2017 10:20 PM, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
> Good point, but there is no way for Michael to get 'in harm's way', so
> a boycott even if puny and ill-directed on a single-person level is
> about the only concrete action, added to our prayers.
>
> Along these lines, I have long avoided going anywhere that has an
> active capital punishment program or which locks up gays. I take
> flights to avoid certain hubs, even. Not because of 'that will show
> them' but because of solidarity.
>
> (By the way, any people who are thinking of adopting nominal Islam out
> of solidarity (like Mde Albrecht has mooted), should be aware that
> this will change the laws that apply to them in many countries, to
> much stricter standards: you cannot necessarily opt out again.)
>
> Regards
> Rick
>
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau