Saying: "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS" is not terribly productive overall.
You're bad at reading. No one's been saying "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS EVER UNDER AND CIRCUMSTANCES". To say otherwise would be to battle with an army of scarecrows. What we're saying is: "IF YOU WANT TO BUY USELESS PRETTY STONES WITH NO REAL VALUE OUTSIDE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, BUY CANADIAN, OR BUY SYNTHETIC. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF WHAT YOU'RE BUYING IS CONFLICT FREE OR NOT SO IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK."
Better?
Now you're just being a dick for no reason. Whatever, this whole thread is going nowhere, as it's maybe 1/4 people trying to have a discussion about this and 3/4 "You're a bad person".
I do tie in. To find out where, I suggest reading glasses.
-.-
The only thing close to a 'tie in' is this paragraph:
In my mind, the solution to that nasty situation is neither Choice A or Choice B. Neither does anything. Whether I buy or I don't buy, bad things happen. His situation remains static (and can vary from static to worse). I feel this diamond situation is very similar. I do not feel that I or the diamonds are actual factors. Some people are brutally exploited for diamonds, and some people are brutally exploited for 2 rupee toys. If it's not one thing, it will certainly be another. For this reason, I tend to care less about the buy/sell portion of the problem and more about what can be done completely outside that system. The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
And it doesn't tie anything together. It just states what your 'feelings' are, and makes some off-the-cuff remark about how since boys in India are exploited for toys and boy elsewhere are exploited to mine diamonds, somehow the exploitation is magically the same, and since 'if it's not one thing, it will certainly be another', I guess we may as well do jack shit!
You've said nothing at all, in fact, to suggest you know anything about DeBeers, Mugabe's administration, the economy in Zimbabwe (and it's relationship to South Africa, and by extension the United Kingdom), or any of the other factors tied to ethnic cleansing, diamond mining, poverty & slave labor in Southern Africa.
The product is absolutely part of the problem, and while there is certainly disagreement about how much of the problem is strictly related to diamonds, no (honest) person that understands the issue thinks that some nebulous 'other factors' or 'African culture' or 'human nature' are more directly involved, or can be more directly attacked to alleviate suffering, than the diamond trade.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
This seems to be a meaningless truism.
Carbon, itself, is not a problem. Yes. But we aren't talking about carbon, itself. We're talking about persons who exchange money for carbon, and the degree to which that money is used to exploit persons and cause them harm.
I will agree that in a world in which unicorns shit out diamonds, then diamond acquisition is not problematic, provided that the money paid for diamonds goes to the care and well-being of the unicorns, and the unicorns are not fed, say, African babies.
But we don't live in that world.
We live in a world in which SKFM's diamond money goes to support human suffering.
I'm not sure you got my point.
My experience is that people will be exploited for diamonds or wheat or mere pennies, and the brutality level does not change in any meaningful way from one to the other. The constant variable is not diamonds or toys or crops, it's the bastards perpetrating it.
Of course, my logic here is based on the assumption that there is always a market to be found as long as these sorts of people are free and lively. The idea "but what if everyone...." has no place here, because they won't. Like you said, we do not live in a world of unicorns.
If I can determine that my buying or not buying does nothing, then I will not worry about it and will focus my energy on other things. Perhaps, dare I say, useful thing?
Good luck propping up a regime with mere pennies. It couldn't possibly be the enormous value of diamonds that keeps warlords in cash and thus power? No, that's absurd. Must just be that SOMEONE has to be oppressed in the world, and I guess it's Africa's lot to get screwed.
Go ahead and keep buying conflict diamonds, I really don't care, but trying to rationalize it as totally fine is just silly.
+1
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
My experience is that people will be exploited for diamonds or wheat or mere pennies, and the brutality level does not change in any meaningful way from one to the other. The constant variable is not diamonds or toys or crops, it's the bastards perpetrating it.
Well, you're wrong.
If I can determine that my buying or not buying does nothing
One customer will not impact DeBeers (although, on an individual level, you still need to make the moral judgement regarding where your money is going). A collective boycott of diamonds would more or less totally wipe-out DeBeers.
That's why you'll be told by people who are informed about the issue not to buy diamonds (unless they are from specialized sources, already discussed).
I do tie in. To find out where, I suggest reading glasses.
-.-
The only thing close to a 'tie in' is this paragraph:
In my mind, the solution to that nasty situation is neither Choice A or Choice B. Neither does anything. Whether I buy or I don't buy, bad things happen. His situation remains static (and can vary from static to worse). I feel this diamond situation is very similar. I do not feel that I or the diamonds are actual factors. Some people are brutally exploited for diamonds, and some people are brutally exploited for 2 rupee toys. If it's not one thing, it will certainly be another. For this reason, I tend to care less about the buy/sell portion of the problem and more about what can be done completely outside that system. The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
And it doesn't tie anything together. It just states what your 'feelings' are, and makes some off-the-cuff remark about how since boys in India are exploited for toys and boy elsewhere are exploited to mine diamonds, somehow the exploitation is magically the same, and since 'if it's not one thing, it will certainly be another', I guess we may as well do jack shit!
You've said nothing at all, in fact, to suggest you know anything about DeBeers, Mugabe's administration, the economy in Zimbabwe (and it's relationship to South Africa, and by extension the United Kingdom), or any of the other factors tied to ethnic cleansing, diamond mining, poverty & slave labor in Southern Africa.
The product is absolutely part of the problem, and while there is certainly disagreement about how much of the problem is strictly related to diamonds, no (honest) person that understands the issue thinks that some nebulous 'other factors' or 'African culture' or 'human nature' are more directly involved, or can be more directly attacked to alleviate suffering, than the diamond trade.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
This mentality seems to be a manifestation of the Sorites paradox.
This paradox has to do with vagueness. Suppose a heap of sand. Now, remove one grain of sand. Is it still a heap? If so, remove another grain of sand. Is it still a heap? Repeat.
Previously, persons in the thread agree that if "everyone" stopped buying diamonds, then the situation with respect to the sufferring and exploitation involved in the diamond industry would be decreased. That seems to present the heap of "everyone". One person's not purchasing a diamond is not "everyone", so, from your perspective, it's negligible.
How many one persons not buying diamonds need to be heaped together to enact some significant change to the diamond industry? Presumably, there is a point at which the group of persons abstaining from diamond purchases is influential. What is that point? And why mustn't we act towards actualizing that point?
Said another way: You and SKFM seem to be saying, "I'm just one grain of sand. I can't make a heap. So, fuck it!" (this despite SKFM's usual narcissism and hubris) I'm wondering why you are reluctant to strive to manifest a heap, by joining those who refrain from diamond purchases.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
This isn't even logically consistent. I mean, if you do or don't do anything, people will suffer, so why do anything at all? I mean, it at least would be consistent if you said something like, "Fuck it, I'm a narcissist, and everyone's gonna die anyway so I'm buying them diamonds."
If I don't buy the diamonds, and if there is an effective boycott I participate in to reduce the demand for diamonds, change would occur. I would make a bet on it being really positive change.
That 'people would still suffer' is a non-starter, and an extremely uninteresting little factoid.
For those of so very concerned that their spouses will not forgive them if they are not presented with possible conflict diamonds, try this:
ASK
Something like "Hello love of my life, today I would like to ask your opinion on where we should get our gems from. Did you know that some diamonds help despicable regimes, while others do not? Some of these are mined in Canada, while others are grown in a lab. There are also other gems which very nearly resemble diamonds, which also lack this risk. The riskless gems are not as easy to find in jewelry, so there are fewer options, but the option exists. Would you prefer that we kept getting the usual diamonds, which carry the risk of helping despicable regimes, but with more variety, or would you like to try the fewer but non-risky variety from now on?"
Saying: "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS" is not terribly productive overall.
You're bad at reading. No one's been saying "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS EVER UNDER AND CIRCUMSTANCES". To say otherwise would be to battle with an army of scarecrows. What we're saying is: "IF YOU WANT TO BUY USELESS PRETTY STONES WITH NO REAL VALUE OUTSIDE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, BUY CANADIAN, OR BUY SYNTHETIC. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF WHAT YOU'RE BUYING IS CONFLICT FREE OR NOT SO IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK."
Better?
Now you're just being a dick for no reason. Whatever, this whole thread is going nowhere, as it's maybe 1/4 people trying to have a discussion about this and 3/4 "You're a bad person".
Maybe try reading what I wrote and conceding the point. I'm right. You're wrong. Accept it. Acknowledge it.
We weren't arguing the same points. I never said you were wrong, and you're being a complete goose about it. My points were around solutions to the real problems, whereas you were still on "WARGARBL CANADIAN DIAMONDS".
Seriously done with this, and I hope you stop raging.
I do tie in. To find out where, I suggest reading glasses.
-.-
The only thing close to a 'tie in' is this paragraph:
In my mind, the solution to that nasty situation is neither Choice A or Choice B. Neither does anything. Whether I buy or I don't buy, bad things happen. His situation remains static (and can vary from static to worse). I feel this diamond situation is very similar. I do not feel that I or the diamonds are actual factors. Some people are brutally exploited for diamonds, and some people are brutally exploited for 2 rupee toys. If it's not one thing, it will certainly be another. For this reason, I tend to care less about the buy/sell portion of the problem and more about what can be done completely outside that system. The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
And it doesn't tie anything together. It just states what your 'feelings' are, and makes some off-the-cuff remark about how since boys in India are exploited for toys and boy elsewhere are exploited to mine diamonds, somehow the exploitation is magically the same, and since 'if it's not one thing, it will certainly be another', I guess we may as well do jack shit!
You've said nothing at all, in fact, to suggest you know anything about DeBeers, Mugabe's administration, the economy in Zimbabwe (and it's relationship to South Africa, and by extension the United Kingdom), or any of the other factors tied to ethnic cleansing, diamond mining, poverty & slave labor in Southern Africa.
The product is absolutely part of the problem, and while there is certainly disagreement about how much of the problem is strictly related to diamonds, no (honest) person that understands the issue thinks that some nebulous 'other factors' or 'African culture' or 'human nature' are more directly involved, or can be more directly attacked to alleviate suffering, than the diamond trade.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
This mentality seems to be a manifestation of the Sorites paradox.
This paradox has to do with vagueness. Suppose a heap of sand. Now, remove one grain of sand. Is it still a heap? If so, remove another grain of sand. Is it still a heap? Repeat.
Previously, persons in the thread agree that if "everyone" stopped buying diamonds, then the situation with respect to the sufferring and exploitation involved in the diamond industry would be decreased. That seems to present the heap of "everyone". One person's not purchasing a diamond is not "everyone", so, from your perspective, it's negligible.
How many one persons not buying diamonds need to be heaped together to enact some significant change to the diamond industry? Presumably, there is a point at which the group of persons abstaining from diamond purchases is influential. What is that point? And why mustn't we act towards actualizing that point?
Said another way: You and SKFM seem to be saying, "I'm just one grain of sand. I can't make a heap. So, fuck it!" (this despite SKFM's usual narcissism and hubris) I'm wondering why you are reluctant to strive to manifest a heap, by joining those who refrain from diamond purchases.
I like to keep a certain degree of logic in my actions. Actions that make no sense and effect no change are not attractive to me. Assuming that there is no St. Peter writing this down in a book, I'm comfortable acting practically as opposed to acting on an artificial construct of morality that accomplishes nothing. Really not into grand gestures.
My personal stance on buying diamonds doesn't have too much to do with it. I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
I like to keep a certain degree of logic in my actions. Actions that make no sense and effect no change are not attractive to me. Assuming that there is no St. Peter writing this down in a book, I'm comfortable acting practically as opposed to acting on an artificial construct of morality that accomplishes nothing. Really not into grand gestures.
My personal stance on buying diamonds doesn't have too much to do with it. I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
It sure doesn't sound like it, given that you came in here to complain about how people are 'guilting you' about buying diamonds. If you're fine with financing genocide, well, I guess you're fine with it; but being content with an immoral action doesn't make the action better, and you're not making a worthwhile contribution to the discussion by saying, "Well, I spend my money on diamonds, so neener-neener watcha gonna do?"
I like to keep a certain degree of logic in my actions. Actions that make no sense and effect no change are not attractive to me. Assuming that there is no St. Peter writing this down in a book, I'm comfortable acting practically as opposed to acting on an artificial construct of morality that accomplishes nothing. Really not into grand gestures.
My personal stance on buying diamonds doesn't have too much to do with it. I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
It sure doesn't sound like it, given that you came in here to complain about how people are 'guilting you' about buying diamonds. If you're fine with financing genocide, well, I guess you're fine with it; but being content with an immoral action doesn't make the action better, and you're not making a worthwhile contribution to the discussion by saying, "Well, I spend my money on diamonds, so neener-neener watcha gonna do?"
No one is guilting me, neither am I complaining about people doing so. I think some perspective being put forth are hypocritical and illogical, and therefore I enjoy arguing against it.
As an aside, I do believe there is a significant gap between buying a diamond and financing genocide. But if there's one thing I've learned about social issues on Penny Arcade, it's that some people have a hard time thinking in degrees.
Frankiedarling on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Saying: "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS" is not terribly productive overall.
You're bad at reading. No one's been saying "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS EVER UNDER AND CIRCUMSTANCES". To say otherwise would be to battle with an army of scarecrows. What we're saying is: "IF YOU WANT TO BUY USELESS PRETTY STONES WITH NO REAL VALUE OUTSIDE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, BUY CANADIAN, OR BUY SYNTHETIC. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF WHAT YOU'RE BUYING IS CONFLICT FREE OR NOT SO IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK."
Better?
Now you're just being a dick for no reason. Whatever, this whole thread is going nowhere, as it's maybe 1/4 people trying to have a discussion about this and 3/4 "You're a bad person".
Maybe try reading what I wrote and conceding the point. I'm right. You're wrong. Accept it. Acknowledge it.
We weren't arguing the same points. I never said you were wrong, and you're being a complete goose about it. My points were around solutions to the real problems, whereas you were still on "WARGARBL CANADIAN DIAMONDS".
Seriously done with this, and I hope you stop raging.
The fact that you think I'm raging is delicious.
Nice strawmanning/failure to acknowledge my point, by the way.
Oh, and congratulations on joining the ranks of Frankiedarling in the League of Collective Action Problems Denial. I'm sure your inclusion among their number won't tarnish your intellectual credibility.
But if there's one thing I've learned about social issues on Penny Arcade...
You haven't learned a Goddamn thing. Learning requires admitting to errors when you're wrong, and a willingness to scrutinize your beliefs. Posting glib one-liners about the meta-politics of Penny Arcade's forums isn't a good indicator of a higher education.
With Love and Courage
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
Saying: "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS" is not terribly productive overall.
You're bad at reading. No one's been saying "DON'T BUY DIAMONDS EVER UNDER AND CIRCUMSTANCES". To say otherwise would be to battle with an army of scarecrows. What we're saying is: "IF YOU WANT TO BUY USELESS PRETTY STONES WITH NO REAL VALUE OUTSIDE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, BUY CANADIAN, OR BUY SYNTHETIC. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF WHAT YOU'RE BUYING IS CONFLICT FREE OR NOT SO IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK."
Better?
Now you're just being a dick for no reason. Whatever, this whole thread is going nowhere, as it's maybe 1/4 people trying to have a discussion about this and 3/4 "You're a bad person".
Maybe try reading what I wrote and conceding the point. I'm right. You're wrong. Accept it. Acknowledge it.
We weren't arguing the same points. I never said you were wrong, and you're being a complete goose about it. My points were around solutions to the real problems, whereas you were still on "WARGARBL CANADIAN DIAMONDS".
Seriously done with this, and I hope you stop raging.
The fact that you think I'm raging is delicious.
Nice strawmanning/failure to acknowledge my point, by the way.
Oh, and congratulations on joining the ranks of Frankiedarling in the League of Collective Action Problems Denial. I'm sure your inclusion among their number won't tarnish your intellectual credibility.
Hacksaw, your point is that stones cannot be guaranteed conflict-free unless from Canada or synthetic. This point was agreed-on in light of the new information like 3 or 4 pages ago, so while you have a wonderful triumph of driving home a point we all already agreed to, I really don't know where your going with this. If you want me to say "YES HACKSAW, YOUR READING COMPREHENSION AND ABILITY TO RESTATE WHAT I HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO IS AMAZING", then I'll sing it to the heavens.
For clarification:
My point was that the nature of diamonds make the "just don't buy those" a very hard thing to couch, especially in light of conflict diamonds being banned in the US anyhow (which any merchant can argue), so you should aim to address the root of the problem, not just making oneself feel good about their purchase. A better certification process, taxation or tariffs on diamonds of non-high standard producers such as Canada; these things could create more barriers to these diamonds being used.
As Wal-Mart proves, unless you can insert legal or price barriers for the right choice, especially on such an expensive luxury item, you can't stop it from a social perspective. In addition, you have the added incentive for people in the "approved" countries to funnel in conflict diamonds for additional profits. I'm not interested in talking about feel-good social boycotts, as they rarely work on seldom-purchased items, especially ones with such societal pressures around them. Not to mention the fact that without legislation or blockages, people will forget about it in 6 months anyhow. If you're interested in presenting REAL solutions to the problem of child labor and exploitation in Africa and elsewhere, we have further discussion, but if you'd rather post more about why you're right and I'm wrong, it is a free country we both live in (unlike the one where many diamonds come from).
I do tie in. To find out where, I suggest reading glasses.
-.-
The only thing close to a 'tie in' is this paragraph:
In my mind, the solution to that nasty situation is neither Choice A or Choice B. Neither does anything. Whether I buy or I don't buy, bad things happen. His situation remains static (and can vary from static to worse). I feel this diamond situation is very similar. I do not feel that I or the diamonds are actual factors. Some people are brutally exploited for diamonds, and some people are brutally exploited for 2 rupee toys. If it's not one thing, it will certainly be another. For this reason, I tend to care less about the buy/sell portion of the problem and more about what can be done completely outside that system. The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
And it doesn't tie anything together. It just states what your 'feelings' are, and makes some off-the-cuff remark about how since boys in India are exploited for toys and boy elsewhere are exploited to mine diamonds, somehow the exploitation is magically the same, and since 'if it's not one thing, it will certainly be another', I guess we may as well do jack shit!
You've said nothing at all, in fact, to suggest you know anything about DeBeers, Mugabe's administration, the economy in Zimbabwe (and it's relationship to South Africa, and by extension the United Kingdom), or any of the other factors tied to ethnic cleansing, diamond mining, poverty & slave labor in Southern Africa.
The product is absolutely part of the problem, and while there is certainly disagreement about how much of the problem is strictly related to diamonds, no (honest) person that understands the issue thinks that some nebulous 'other factors' or 'African culture' or 'human nature' are more directly involved, or can be more directly attacked to alleviate suffering, than the diamond trade.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
This mentality seems to be a manifestation of the Sorites paradox.
This paradox has to do with vagueness. Suppose a heap of sand. Now, remove one grain of sand. Is it still a heap? If so, remove another grain of sand. Is it still a heap? Repeat.
Previously, persons in the thread agree that if "everyone" stopped buying diamonds, then the situation with respect to the sufferring and exploitation involved in the diamond industry would be decreased. That seems to present the heap of "everyone". One person's not purchasing a diamond is not "everyone", so, from your perspective, it's negligible.
How many one persons not buying diamonds need to be heaped together to enact some significant change to the diamond industry? Presumably, there is a point at which the group of persons abstaining from diamond purchases is influential. What is that point? And why mustn't we act towards actualizing that point?
Said another way: You and SKFM seem to be saying, "I'm just one grain of sand. I can't make a heap. So, fuck it!" (this despite SKFM's usual narcissism and hubris) I'm wondering why you are reluctant to strive to manifest a heap, by joining those who refrain from diamond purchases.
I like to keep a certain degree of logic in my actions. Actions that make no sense and effect no change are not attractive to me. Assuming that there is no St. Peter writing this down in a book, I'm comfortable acting practically as opposed to acting on an artificial construct of morality that accomplishes nothing. Really not into grand gestures.
My personal stance on buying diamonds doesn't have too much to do with it. I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
So long as you accept your financing genocide, that's fine.
Okay, I see a few things going on here, and again, they feed my claim of hyperbole and I'm gonna start listing some problems I'm finding to understand the morality angle:
It's a fallacy to assume that Mugabe and only diamond barons benefit from the price of diamonds and the market from them. You're impacting an entire chain of 'stakeholders' by choosing to devalue diamonds as much as possible for aesthetics, and then once you do this they'll still have a use in their practical purposes. Gold is a similar item with a prohibitively high aesthetic/mental value for it's practical purposes. So, even if diamonds value was reduced completely, the diamonds would still be mined and sold for whatever they could get; given they're the most profitable way the warlords or Junta's choose to exploit said minorities (fostering an international sex tourism State cartel comes to mine as well..).
Another major factor I see just tossed aside is the current holders of diamonds. Antwerp, honest jewlers, people outside of the crude/true wholesale side of things. Again, not all diamonds are blood diamonds. Even heirloom diamonds possibly could be blood diamonds one way or another, but do you think a girl wearing her grandmother's brooch or earrings she inherited is some sort of moral impurity?
Diamonds will always be a commodity, and I'm not even sure if the majority of diamonds are still in the control of the cartels.. They also have considerable oil reserves, and that'd just be the next battlefield, and that's one where I would be on the side of those arguing for a boycott.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I do tie in. To find out where, I suggest reading glasses.
-.-
The only thing close to a 'tie in' is this paragraph:
In my mind, the solution to that nasty situation is neither Choice A or Choice B. Neither does anything. Whether I buy or I don't buy, bad things happen. His situation remains static (and can vary from static to worse). I feel this diamond situation is very similar. I do not feel that I or the diamonds are actual factors. Some people are brutally exploited for diamonds, and some people are brutally exploited for 2 rupee toys. If it's not one thing, it will certainly be another. For this reason, I tend to care less about the buy/sell portion of the problem and more about what can be done completely outside that system. The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
And it doesn't tie anything together. It just states what your 'feelings' are, and makes some off-the-cuff remark about how since boys in India are exploited for toys and boy elsewhere are exploited to mine diamonds, somehow the exploitation is magically the same, and since 'if it's not one thing, it will certainly be another', I guess we may as well do jack shit!
You've said nothing at all, in fact, to suggest you know anything about DeBeers, Mugabe's administration, the economy in Zimbabwe (and it's relationship to South Africa, and by extension the United Kingdom), or any of the other factors tied to ethnic cleansing, diamond mining, poverty & slave labor in Southern Africa.
The product is absolutely part of the problem, and while there is certainly disagreement about how much of the problem is strictly related to diamonds, no (honest) person that understands the issue thinks that some nebulous 'other factors' or 'African culture' or 'human nature' are more directly involved, or can be more directly attacked to alleviate suffering, than the diamond trade.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
This mentality seems to be a manifestation of the Sorites paradox.
This paradox has to do with vagueness. Suppose a heap of sand. Now, remove one grain of sand. Is it still a heap? If so, remove another grain of sand. Is it still a heap? Repeat.
Previously, persons in the thread agree that if "everyone" stopped buying diamonds, then the situation with respect to the sufferring and exploitation involved in the diamond industry would be decreased. That seems to present the heap of "everyone". One person's not purchasing a diamond is not "everyone", so, from your perspective, it's negligible.
How many one persons not buying diamonds need to be heaped together to enact some significant change to the diamond industry? Presumably, there is a point at which the group of persons abstaining from diamond purchases is influential. What is that point? And why mustn't we act towards actualizing that point?
Said another way: You and SKFM seem to be saying, "I'm just one grain of sand. I can't make a heap. So, fuck it!" (this despite SKFM's usual narcissism and hubris) I'm wondering why you are reluctant to strive to manifest a heap, by joining those who refrain from diamond purchases.
The whole reason that collective action problems are problems at all is because the winning move is to act self interested until you're action tilts the balance towards the group interest. This is why a problem like diamond sourcing is best solved by government restrictions, no individual boycotts. I for one refuse, as a general proposition, to be among those disadvantaging myself while others are benefitting, when I know I will come out ahead by pursuing my own interest (in this case, buying diamonds while costs are lower then they presumably would be in a post-government action works) until the government or the majority of people act to fix it. I think Frankie is also on my side here.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
This seems disingenuous.
If persons are not willing to ensure that their money does not go towards the purchase of blood diamonds, then they are, practically, accepting a possibility that their money is spent on blood diamonds.
I've never purchased a diamond, ever. So, 0% of my money has gone towards the purchase of blood diamonds.
You have purchased some diamonds. Some of your money may have been spent on blood diamonds.
If you are not prepared to guarantee that none of your money goes towards blood diamonds, then you are stating that you are comfortable accepting the possibility of purchasing a diamond that has the prefix of "blood". This is, to a degree, accepting that unintentional blood diamond purchases are acceptable, insofar as you are accepting that you may have purchased a blood diamond, and don't seem to be too concerned about that.
And that's fine. Just admit to it. Continue buying diamonds for your wife, and buy a T-shirt that says "I may have financed African genocide, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Because there's no behavior to be changed for any reason other than succumbing to peer pressure. We aren't going out of our way to source our diamonds from Joseph Kony.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
Frankie specifically posted:
I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
This is a really narcissistic outlook. It's an expression of malicious apathy, even if you might say, "Well, he's not endorsing it, per se," he certainly isn't talking about risk/reward. In fact, it's implicit in his comments that risk/reward are hardly a factor - even if it's a very high risk to little reward, ultimately 'human nature' or whatever bullshit is to blame, so there's no sense in fingering the product or it's purchasers.
At any rate, the risk is stupidly high, and the reward is basically non-existent. You're buying a cut vanity gemstone with no function other than to placate someone that demands they be given one.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Because there's no behavior to be changed for any reason other than succumbing to peer pressure. We aren't going out of our way to source our diamonds from Joseph Kony.
You also aren't going out of your way to avoid sourcing your diamonds from Joseph Kony.
I am 100% certain that none of my diamond purchases have financed African genocide, because I have never purchased a diamond.
Can you make the same claim?
If not, then you may have financed African Genocide by means of diamond acquisition.
And that's fine. Just admit it.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Because I like buying things for my wife that she likes and she likes diamonds. Sammy pointed me to a website I may use in the future, but in general I prefer to buy jewelry in person instead of online. If every piece in a store was available in certified conflict free and unsourced diamonds, I would likely buy the former, but that is not the case. I would not buy a diamond I knew was a blood diamond, but then that will never be the case in America.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Because there's no behavior to be changed for any reason other than succumbing to peer pressure. We aren't going out of our way to source our diamonds from Joseph Kony.
Um peer pressure not to support an industry that involves humans suffering to bring you the product?
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Because I like buying things for my wife that she likes and she likes diamonds. Sammy pointed me to a website I may use in the future, but in general I prefer to buy jewelry in person instead of online. If every piece in a store was available in certified conflict free and unsourced diamonds, I would likely buy the former, but that is not the case. I would not buy a diamond I knew was a blood diamond, but then that will never be the case in America.
So you accept that you may have financed African Genocide by means of a diamond purchase in order to accomodate your wife's preferences.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
Frankie specifically posted:
I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
This is a really narcissistic outlook. It's an expression of malicious apathy, even if you might say, "Well, he's not endorsing it, per se," he certainly isn't talking about risk/reward. In fact, it's implicit in his comments that risk/reward are hardly a factor - even if it's a very high risk to little reward, ultimately 'human nature' or whatever bullshit is to blame, so there's no sense in fingering the product or it's purchasers.
At any rate, the risk is stupidly high, and the reward is basically non-existent. You're buying a cut vanity gemstone with no function other than to placate someone that demands they be given one.
Yes, but most people are more selfish than they are altruistic, therefore any attempt at large scale social mobilization for a diamond boycott of "questionable" diamonds will result in failure. As far as rewards, I'm guessing neither of us are big appearance people, so the utility argument is lost on us. Others value the look and appearance of diamond very useful for personal and social reasons.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
no one is arguing that they are good or bad really. I'm more curious why you don't plan to really change your behavior.
Because there's no behavior to be changed for any reason other than succumbing to peer pressure. We aren't going out of our way to source our diamonds from Joseph Kony.
Um peer pressure not to support an industry that involves humans suffering to bring you the product?
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
Frankie specifically posted:
I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
This is a really narcissistic outlook. It's an expression of malicious apathy, even if you might say, "Well, he's not endorsing it, per se," he certainly isn't talking about risk/reward. In fact, it's implicit in his comments that risk/reward are hardly a factor - even if it's a very high risk to little reward, ultimately 'human nature' or whatever bullshit is to blame, so there's no sense in fingering the product or it's purchasers.
At any rate, the risk is stupidly high, and the reward is basically non-existent. You're buying a cut vanity gemstone with no function other than to placate someone that demands they be given one.
Yes, but most people are more selfish than they are altruistic, therefore any attempt at large scale social mobilization for a diamond boycott of "questionable" diamonds will result in failure. As far as rewards, I'm guessing neither of us are big appearance people, so the utility argument is lost on us. Others value the look and appearance of diamond very useful for personal and social reasons.
Hey hacksaw, another person who doesn't believe in collective action
I do tie in. To find out where, I suggest reading glasses.
-.-
The only thing close to a 'tie in' is this paragraph:
In my mind, the solution to that nasty situation is neither Choice A or Choice B. Neither does anything. Whether I buy or I don't buy, bad things happen. His situation remains static (and can vary from static to worse). I feel this diamond situation is very similar. I do not feel that I or the diamonds are actual factors. Some people are brutally exploited for diamonds, and some people are brutally exploited for 2 rupee toys. If it's not one thing, it will certainly be another. For this reason, I tend to care less about the buy/sell portion of the problem and more about what can be done completely outside that system. The product itself is not the problem, the problem is that there are people who are both willing and able to brutally exploit other human beings for their own benefit.
And it doesn't tie anything together. It just states what your 'feelings' are, and makes some off-the-cuff remark about how since boys in India are exploited for toys and boy elsewhere are exploited to mine diamonds, somehow the exploitation is magically the same, and since 'if it's not one thing, it will certainly be another', I guess we may as well do jack shit!
You've said nothing at all, in fact, to suggest you know anything about DeBeers, Mugabe's administration, the economy in Zimbabwe (and it's relationship to South Africa, and by extension the United Kingdom), or any of the other factors tied to ethnic cleansing, diamond mining, poverty & slave labor in Southern Africa.
The product is absolutely part of the problem, and while there is certainly disagreement about how much of the problem is strictly related to diamonds, no (honest) person that understands the issue thinks that some nebulous 'other factors' or 'African culture' or 'human nature' are more directly involved, or can be more directly attacked to alleviate suffering, than the diamond trade.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
This mentality seems to be a manifestation of the Sorites paradox.
This paradox has to do with vagueness. Suppose a heap of sand. Now, remove one grain of sand. Is it still a heap? If so, remove another grain of sand. Is it still a heap? Repeat.
Previously, persons in the thread agree that if "everyone" stopped buying diamonds, then the situation with respect to the sufferring and exploitation involved in the diamond industry would be decreased. That seems to present the heap of "everyone". One person's not purchasing a diamond is not "everyone", so, from your perspective, it's negligible.
How many one persons not buying diamonds need to be heaped together to enact some significant change to the diamond industry? Presumably, there is a point at which the group of persons abstaining from diamond purchases is influential. What is that point? And why mustn't we act towards actualizing that point?
Said another way: You and SKFM seem to be saying, "I'm just one grain of sand. I can't make a heap. So, fuck it!" (this despite SKFM's usual narcissism and hubris) I'm wondering why you are reluctant to strive to manifest a heap, by joining those who refrain from diamond purchases.
The whole reason that collective action problems are problems at all is because the winning move is to act self interested until you're action tilts the balance towards the group interest. This is why a problem like diamond sourcing is best solved by government restrictions, no individual boycotts. I for one refuse, as a general proposition, to be among those disadvantaging myself while others are benefitting, when I know I will come out ahead by pursuing my own interest (in this case, buying diamonds while costs are lower then they presumably would be in a post-government action works) until the government or the majority of people act to fix it. I think Frankie is also on my side here.
Pretty much. I really dislike the concept of these collection action problems. The premise is very much like the Care Bears: "What if everyone, everywhere, *really* cared?" Well, that'd be lovely. But if the reality of the world tells me that an insignificant portion is going to get on board with you, and you require a significant portion to do anything, then my actions do nothing to further your collective solution. And as a result, I personally suffer (however little or much) for no goddamn reason.
And then those involved have the gall to hold me accountable for the nonactions of others.
I find the whole thing illogical. Good on those of you who do, though. We all gotta do something.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
Frankie specifically posted:
I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
This is a really narcissistic outlook. It's an expression of malicious apathy, even if you might say, "Well, he's not endorsing it, per se," he certainly isn't talking about risk/reward. In fact, it's implicit in his comments that risk/reward are hardly a factor - even if it's a very high risk to little reward, ultimately 'human nature' or whatever bullshit is to blame, so there's no sense in fingering the product or it's purchasers.
At any rate, the risk is stupidly high, and the reward is basically non-existent. You're buying a cut vanity gemstone with no function other than to placate someone that demands they be given one.
Yes, but most people are more selfish than they are altruistic, therefore any attempt at large scale social mobilization for a diamond boycott of "questionable" diamonds will result in failure. As far as rewards, I'm guessing neither of us are big appearance people, so the utility argument is lost on us. Others value the look and appearance of diamond very useful for personal and social reasons.
Hey hacksaw, another person who doesn't believe in collective action
Collective action works when the majority of the population is actively purchasing or utilizing a given item being discussed on a regular basis. Diamonds are, for most, a very rare purchase that does not stay in ones daily thoughts.
Noone in this thread has argued in favor of buying blood diamonds. Not a single person. The argument has always been whether the risk that (despite laws to the contrary) you will wind up with an illegal blood diamond outweigh the benefits if buying diamonds without detailed sourcing information. Can we please stop pretending that this is about whether blood diamonds are a good thing?
This seems disingenuous.
If persons are not willing to ensure that their money does not go towards the purchase of blood diamonds, then they are, practically, accepting a possibility that their money is spent on blood diamonds.
I've never purchased a diamond, ever. So, 0% of my money has gone towards the purchase of blood diamonds.
You have purchased some diamonds. Some of your money may have been spent on blood diamonds.
If you are not prepared to guarantee that none of your money goes towards blood diamonds, then you are stating that you are comfortable accepting the possibility of purchasing a diamond that has the prefix of "blood". This is, to a degree, accepting that unintentional blood diamond purchases are acceptable, insofar as you are accepting that you may have purchased a blood diamond, and don't seem to be too concerned about that.
And that's fine. Just admit to it. Continue buying diamonds for your wife, and buy a T-shirt that says "I may have financed African genocide, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
This is ridiculous. You are equating a refusal to purchase insurance against the risk that a diamond I bought in a legally operated store has been illegally imported into the US with me being comfortable with the worst case scenario, but perfect insurance does not even exist against this risk. Even if you only buy what you believe to be Kimberly stones, you run the risk you have been lied to, or that the stone was actually a blood diamond anyway (the system is not infallible). Unless you are prepared to say that even a Kimberly stone buyer is comfortable with funding genocide, you have to acknowledge that people act under the threat of some degree of minute risk all the time without being comfortable with the bad outcome. I am not comfortable with hitting another driver on the road and killing them, but this is a risk I take everytime I drive a car. Under your work view, I should never drive again. I am also uncomfortable with the risk of falling down the stairs to my death. Must I be comfortable with the possibility of death to leave my bedroom? Perhaps, but this really stretches the definition of comfort to its absolute limits, to the point where it does not seem appropriate to even use that word anymore.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
you should aim to address the root of the problem, not just making oneself feel good about their purchase.
I like how you handwave away ethical consumerism as if it weren't A Thing. Of course, in the light of your dismissal of collective action problems, it's hardly a surprising revelation. "You shouldn't poo poo people for driving SUVs! There are better ways to combat the effects of Global Warming, like at the source!"
For the "root of the problem" stuff, literally the best thing your average person can do, aside from write their Congressional Representative/Senator/the President, is not buy unsourced diamonds. This means buying Canadian, or synthetic. I mean, talking about the root of the problem is all well and good, but it doesn't excuse your culpability in this situation, nor does it forgive your moral laziness.
And then those involved have the gall to hold me accountable for the nonactions of others.
Just to be clear: I'm only holding your accountable for your own actions.
You spent $X on a diamond. Q% of that money went to an African Warlord.
That's your realm of responsibility.
Which is kind of you, I guess. I'm talking about collective action as a concept, however.
Of course ], you know how I feel about actions that do nothing. I mean, if I gave Hitler $10 I guess I would technically be financing the Nazi War Machine. Would I care? No. My actions = no effect. And I don't just mean no measurable effect, I mean "dipping toe in the ocean raises the water level" effect.
There's a point where theoretical technicalities simple disagree with how the world is, and this is that point.
...Damn, I Godwinned myself.
EDIT: I'm not certain, but you may want to separate SKFM and my arguments. I'm not completely sure we're working on all the same premises here, even if our conclusion is pretty much the same.
It's a fallacy to assume that Mugabe and only diamond barons benefit from the price of diamonds and the market from them. You're impacting an entire chain of 'stakeholders' by choosing to devalue diamonds as much as possible for aesthetics, and then once you do this they'll still have a use in their practical purposes. Gold is a similar item with a prohibitively high aesthetic/mental value for it's practical purposes. So, even if diamonds value was reduced completely, the diamonds would still be mined and sold for whatever they could get; given they're the most profitable way the warlords or Junta's choose to exploit said minorities (fostering an international sex tourism State cartel comes to mine as well..).
Gold is actually a very poor comparison. For starters, it's actually rare (on Earth, anyway) - the scarcity isn't being imposed by one multinational corporation. Second, the value of gold as a trading commodity has a rather long history; I'm quite ignorant of it's beginnings, but it's rarity was a large part of the English Empire using it as an anchor to their currency.
Both the rarity & demand of diamonds were solely constructed by DeBeers, and the demand has really only been around for about a century or so.
Because I like buying things for my wife that she likes and she likes diamonds. Sammy pointed me to a website I may use in the future, but in general I prefer to buy jewelry in person instead of online. If every piece in a store was available in certified conflict free and unsourced diamonds, I would likely buy the former, but that is not the case. I would not buy a diamond I knew was a blood diamond, but then that will never be the case in America.
...But you do already know that the majority of diamonds in the U.S., unless specially marked, are trafficked by DeBeers. I mean, I'm pretty sure DeBeers isn't even shy of stamping their brand all over the damn things.
Are diamonds the only things that your wife likes? You can't buy her other things that aren't vanity gemstones mined out of Africa?
I mean, if you're buying a DeBeers diamond, you're buying a blood diamond. So I don't think you're being honest by claiming that you'd never buy a diamond you 'knew' was a blood diamond.
Posts
@schuss
Maybe try reading what I wrote and conceding the point. I'm right. You're wrong. Accept it. Acknowledge it.
Remember, my position was not "do jack shit". My position is that you buying or not buying is not actually a factor. You merely perceive it to be, and thus assign a moral value to the action. But you're mistaken. If you buy, people will suffer. If you do not buy, the same people will suffer. Deduction: in this particular equation, you do not matter.
From my perspective, whether you buy or don't buy, you're still doing jack shit. And I do not find it logical to be concerned about the morality of my role in a situation I cannot effect.
Good luck propping up a regime with mere pennies. It couldn't possibly be the enormous value of diamonds that keeps warlords in cash and thus power? No, that's absurd. Must just be that SOMEONE has to be oppressed in the world, and I guess it's Africa's lot to get screwed.
Go ahead and keep buying conflict diamonds, I really don't care, but trying to rationalize it as totally fine is just silly.
"Collective actions problems are a fiction." -Frankiedarling, January 2013
Well, you're wrong.
One customer will not impact DeBeers (although, on an individual level, you still need to make the moral judgement regarding where your money is going). A collective boycott of diamonds would more or less totally wipe-out DeBeers.
That's why you'll be told by people who are informed about the issue not to buy diamonds (unless they are from specialized sources, already discussed).
This mentality seems to be a manifestation of the Sorites paradox.
This paradox has to do with vagueness. Suppose a heap of sand. Now, remove one grain of sand. Is it still a heap? If so, remove another grain of sand. Is it still a heap? Repeat.
Previously, persons in the thread agree that if "everyone" stopped buying diamonds, then the situation with respect to the sufferring and exploitation involved in the diamond industry would be decreased. That seems to present the heap of "everyone". One person's not purchasing a diamond is not "everyone", so, from your perspective, it's negligible.
How many one persons not buying diamonds need to be heaped together to enact some significant change to the diamond industry? Presumably, there is a point at which the group of persons abstaining from diamond purchases is influential. What is that point? And why mustn't we act towards actualizing that point?
Said another way: You and SKFM seem to be saying, "I'm just one grain of sand. I can't make a heap. So, fuck it!" (this despite SKFM's usual narcissism and hubris) I'm wondering why you are reluctant to strive to manifest a heap, by joining those who refrain from diamond purchases.
This isn't even logically consistent. I mean, if you do or don't do anything, people will suffer, so why do anything at all? I mean, it at least would be consistent if you said something like, "Fuck it, I'm a narcissist, and everyone's gonna die anyway so I'm buying them diamonds."
If I don't buy the diamonds, and if there is an effective boycott I participate in to reduce the demand for diamonds, change would occur. I would make a bet on it being really positive change.
That 'people would still suffer' is a non-starter, and an extremely uninteresting little factoid.
ASK
Something like "Hello love of my life, today I would like to ask your opinion on where we should get our gems from. Did you know that some diamonds help despicable regimes, while others do not? Some of these are mined in Canada, while others are grown in a lab. There are also other gems which very nearly resemble diamonds, which also lack this risk. The riskless gems are not as easy to find in jewelry, so there are fewer options, but the option exists. Would you prefer that we kept getting the usual diamonds, which carry the risk of helping despicable regimes, but with more variety, or would you like to try the fewer but non-risky variety from now on?"
We weren't arguing the same points. I never said you were wrong, and you're being a complete goose about it. My points were around solutions to the real problems, whereas you were still on "WARGARBL CANADIAN DIAMONDS".
Seriously done with this, and I hope you stop raging.
I like to keep a certain degree of logic in my actions. Actions that make no sense and effect no change are not attractive to me. Assuming that there is no St. Peter writing this down in a book, I'm comfortable acting practically as opposed to acting on an artificial construct of morality that accomplishes nothing. Really not into grand gestures.
My personal stance on buying diamonds doesn't have too much to do with it. I simply do not discriminate. My money is spent effectively, and (like rain) falls on the just and unjust alike. I'm fairly comfortable with that, and I believe I elaborated on this in another thread.
It sure doesn't sound like it, given that you came in here to complain about how people are 'guilting you' about buying diamonds. If you're fine with financing genocide, well, I guess you're fine with it; but being content with an immoral action doesn't make the action better, and you're not making a worthwhile contribution to the discussion by saying, "Well, I spend my money on diamonds, so neener-neener watcha gonna do?"
No one is guilting me, neither am I complaining about people doing so. I think some perspective being put forth are hypocritical and illogical, and therefore I enjoy arguing against it.
As an aside, I do believe there is a significant gap between buying a diamond and financing genocide. But if there's one thing I've learned about social issues on Penny Arcade, it's that some people have a hard time thinking in degrees.
"Collective actions problems are a fiction." -Frankiedarling, January 2013
The fact that you think I'm raging is delicious.
Nice strawmanning/failure to acknowledge my point, by the way.
Oh, and congratulations on joining the ranks of Frankiedarling in the League of Collective Action Problems Denial. I'm sure your inclusion among their number won't tarnish your intellectual credibility.
Oh my. I am cut to the bone.
You haven't learned a Goddamn thing. Learning requires admitting to errors when you're wrong, and a willingness to scrutinize your beliefs. Posting glib one-liners about the meta-politics of Penny Arcade's forums isn't a good indicator of a higher education.
Hacksaw, your point is that stones cannot be guaranteed conflict-free unless from Canada or synthetic. This point was agreed-on in light of the new information like 3 or 4 pages ago, so while you have a wonderful triumph of driving home a point we all already agreed to, I really don't know where your going with this. If you want me to say "YES HACKSAW, YOUR READING COMPREHENSION AND ABILITY TO RESTATE WHAT I HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO IS AMAZING", then I'll sing it to the heavens.
For clarification:
My point was that the nature of diamonds make the "just don't buy those" a very hard thing to couch, especially in light of conflict diamonds being banned in the US anyhow (which any merchant can argue), so you should aim to address the root of the problem, not just making oneself feel good about their purchase. A better certification process, taxation or tariffs on diamonds of non-high standard producers such as Canada; these things could create more barriers to these diamonds being used.
As Wal-Mart proves, unless you can insert legal or price barriers for the right choice, especially on such an expensive luxury item, you can't stop it from a social perspective. In addition, you have the added incentive for people in the "approved" countries to funnel in conflict diamonds for additional profits. I'm not interested in talking about feel-good social boycotts, as they rarely work on seldom-purchased items, especially ones with such societal pressures around them. Not to mention the fact that without legislation or blockages, people will forget about it in 6 months anyhow. If you're interested in presenting REAL solutions to the problem of child labor and exploitation in Africa and elsewhere, we have further discussion, but if you'd rather post more about why you're right and I'm wrong, it is a free country we both live in (unlike the one where many diamonds come from).
So long as you accept your financing genocide, that's fine.
It's a fallacy to assume that Mugabe and only diamond barons benefit from the price of diamonds and the market from them. You're impacting an entire chain of 'stakeholders' by choosing to devalue diamonds as much as possible for aesthetics, and then once you do this they'll still have a use in their practical purposes. Gold is a similar item with a prohibitively high aesthetic/mental value for it's practical purposes. So, even if diamonds value was reduced completely, the diamonds would still be mined and sold for whatever they could get; given they're the most profitable way the warlords or Junta's choose to exploit said minorities (fostering an international sex tourism State cartel comes to mine as well..).
Another major factor I see just tossed aside is the current holders of diamonds. Antwerp, honest jewlers, people outside of the crude/true wholesale side of things. Again, not all diamonds are blood diamonds. Even heirloom diamonds possibly could be blood diamonds one way or another, but do you think a girl wearing her grandmother's brooch or earrings she inherited is some sort of moral impurity?
Diamonds will always be a commodity, and I'm not even sure if the majority of diamonds are still in the control of the cartels.. They also have considerable oil reserves, and that'd just be the next battlefield, and that's one where I would be on the side of those arguing for a boycott.
The whole reason that collective action problems are problems at all is because the winning move is to act self interested until you're action tilts the balance towards the group interest. This is why a problem like diamond sourcing is best solved by government restrictions, no individual boycotts. I for one refuse, as a general proposition, to be among those disadvantaging myself while others are benefitting, when I know I will come out ahead by pursuing my own interest (in this case, buying diamonds while costs are lower then they presumably would be in a post-government action works) until the government or the majority of people act to fix it. I think Frankie is also on my side here.
This seems disingenuous.
If persons are not willing to ensure that their money does not go towards the purchase of blood diamonds, then they are, practically, accepting a possibility that their money is spent on blood diamonds.
I've never purchased a diamond, ever. So, 0% of my money has gone towards the purchase of blood diamonds.
You have purchased some diamonds. Some of your money may have been spent on blood diamonds.
If you are not prepared to guarantee that none of your money goes towards blood diamonds, then you are stating that you are comfortable accepting the possibility of purchasing a diamond that has the prefix of "blood". This is, to a degree, accepting that unintentional blood diamond purchases are acceptable, insofar as you are accepting that you may have purchased a blood diamond, and don't seem to be too concerned about that.
And that's fine. Just admit to it. Continue buying diamonds for your wife, and buy a T-shirt that says "I may have financed African genocide, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Because there's no behavior to be changed for any reason other than succumbing to peer pressure. We aren't going out of our way to source our diamonds from Joseph Kony.
Frankie specifically posted:
This is a really narcissistic outlook. It's an expression of malicious apathy, even if you might say, "Well, he's not endorsing it, per se," he certainly isn't talking about risk/reward. In fact, it's implicit in his comments that risk/reward are hardly a factor - even if it's a very high risk to little reward, ultimately 'human nature' or whatever bullshit is to blame, so there's no sense in fingering the product or it's purchasers.
At any rate, the risk is stupidly high, and the reward is basically non-existent. You're buying a cut vanity gemstone with no function other than to placate someone that demands they be given one.
You also aren't going out of your way to avoid sourcing your diamonds from Joseph Kony.
I am 100% certain that none of my diamond purchases have financed African genocide, because I have never purchased a diamond.
Can you make the same claim?
If not, then you may have financed African Genocide by means of diamond acquisition.
And that's fine. Just admit it.
Because I like buying things for my wife that she likes and she likes diamonds. Sammy pointed me to a website I may use in the future, but in general I prefer to buy jewelry in person instead of online. If every piece in a store was available in certified conflict free and unsourced diamonds, I would likely buy the former, but that is not the case. I would not buy a diamond I knew was a blood diamond, but then that will never be the case in America.
Um peer pressure not to support an industry that involves humans suffering to bring you the product?
So you accept that you may have financed African Genocide by means of a diamond purchase in order to accomodate your wife's preferences.
Yes, but most people are more selfish than they are altruistic, therefore any attempt at large scale social mobilization for a diamond boycott of "questionable" diamonds will result in failure. As far as rewards, I'm guessing neither of us are big appearance people, so the utility argument is lost on us. Others value the look and appearance of diamond very useful for personal and social reasons.
Apparently all peer pressure is bad.
This thread taught me something.
Hey hacksaw, another person who doesn't believe in collective action
Pretty much. I really dislike the concept of these collection action problems. The premise is very much like the Care Bears: "What if everyone, everywhere, *really* cared?" Well, that'd be lovely. But if the reality of the world tells me that an insignificant portion is going to get on board with you, and you require a significant portion to do anything, then my actions do nothing to further your collective solution. And as a result, I personally suffer (however little or much) for no goddamn reason.
And then those involved have the gall to hold me accountable for the nonactions of others.
I find the whole thing illogical. Good on those of you who do, though. We all gotta do something.
I think we reached the end here.
Collective action works when the majority of the population is actively purchasing or utilizing a given item being discussed on a regular basis. Diamonds are, for most, a very rare purchase that does not stay in ones daily thoughts.
Just to be clear: I'm only holding your accountable for your own actions.
You spent $X on a diamond. Q% of that money went to an African Warlord.
That's your realm of responsibility.
This is ridiculous. You are equating a refusal to purchase insurance against the risk that a diamond I bought in a legally operated store has been illegally imported into the US with me being comfortable with the worst case scenario, but perfect insurance does not even exist against this risk. Even if you only buy what you believe to be Kimberly stones, you run the risk you have been lied to, or that the stone was actually a blood diamond anyway (the system is not infallible). Unless you are prepared to say that even a Kimberly stone buyer is comfortable with funding genocide, you have to acknowledge that people act under the threat of some degree of minute risk all the time without being comfortable with the bad outcome. I am not comfortable with hitting another driver on the road and killing them, but this is a risk I take everytime I drive a car. Under your work view, I should never drive again. I am also uncomfortable with the risk of falling down the stairs to my death. Must I be comfortable with the possibility of death to leave my bedroom? Perhaps, but this really stretches the definition of comfort to its absolute limits, to the point where it does not seem appropriate to even use that word anymore.
I like how you handwave away ethical consumerism as if it weren't A Thing. Of course, in the light of your dismissal of collective action problems, it's hardly a surprising revelation. "You shouldn't poo poo people for driving SUVs! There are better ways to combat the effects of Global Warming, like at the source!"
For the "root of the problem" stuff, literally the best thing your average person can do, aside from write their Congressional Representative/Senator/the President, is not buy unsourced diamonds. This means buying Canadian, or synthetic. I mean, talking about the root of the problem is all well and good, but it doesn't excuse your culpability in this situation, nor does it forgive your moral laziness.
Which is kind of you, I guess. I'm talking about collective action as a concept, however.
Of course ], you know how I feel about actions that do nothing. I mean, if I gave Hitler $10 I guess I would technically be financing the Nazi War Machine. Would I care? No. My actions = no effect. And I don't just mean no measurable effect, I mean "dipping toe in the ocean raises the water level" effect.
There's a point where theoretical technicalities simple disagree with how the world is, and this is that point.
...Damn, I Godwinned myself.
EDIT: I'm not certain, but you may want to separate SKFM and my arguments. I'm not completely sure we're working on all the same premises here, even if our conclusion is pretty much the same.
Gold is actually a very poor comparison. For starters, it's actually rare (on Earth, anyway) - the scarcity isn't being imposed by one multinational corporation. Second, the value of gold as a trading commodity has a rather long history; I'm quite ignorant of it's beginnings, but it's rarity was a large part of the English Empire using it as an anchor to their currency.
Both the rarity & demand of diamonds were solely constructed by DeBeers, and the demand has really only been around for about a century or so.
...But you do already know that the majority of diamonds in the U.S., unless specially marked, are trafficked by DeBeers. I mean, I'm pretty sure DeBeers isn't even shy of stamping their brand all over the damn things.
Are diamonds the only things that your wife likes? You can't buy her other things that aren't vanity gemstones mined out of Africa?
I mean, if you're buying a DeBeers diamond, you're buying a blood diamond. So I don't think you're being honest by claiming that you'd never buy a diamond you 'knew' was a blood diamond.