Tell it to Steven Hawking. A person's physical stature does not limit his/her potential for work that does not rely on his/her physical stature (e.g., English teaching, as well as physics). The cultural attitude that those who are discriminated against because they do not fit the culturally desired norm should be outcast or should be provided for by special environments that can be sold as entertainment venues to those who will not deal with their own prejudices is a cultural attitude that perpetuates discrimination against all who are 'different'. The problem here, as elsewhere, is a matter of dehumanizing those who are 'different' - prejudicial culture that regiments anything that deviates from its standards, rather than dealing with the prejudice itself. Why not have a theme park within which 'foreigners', with all their funny habits, can be kept, so that they do not disturb the 'normality' of cultural prejudices? Actually, there could be many: one for 'black people', one for Tibetans, one for Japanese, one for gay people, one for Han Chinese people who have given up their 'traditional' clothing for 'western-style' clothing (e.g., the great majority of Chinese, over the past century or so) - in fact we could subdivide and subdivide until nothing was left but mutual nonrecognition. All these would help to maintain the narrow identities of 'normality' that can be relied upon to advance support the cultural attitudes that promote the continuing inability of people to recognize each other as human, and to celebrate and accept their differences - not as entertainment items, no matter how 'cute', but as full human beings. How different is all this from apartheid?
This effort to maintain prejudice can, of course, be profitable to those who invest in it, and convenient for social engineers and political elites who want to maintain an elite power status by reliance on it.
The place is an insult to our common humanity and a spotlight on cultural attitudes of exclusion. Those who find that they enjoy such displays should take a good look at the nature of the culture that has formed them so narrowly. Cultures change; cultures have always changed; cultures are presently changing and will continue to do so; there is nothing sacred about cultural attitudes. Our common humanity is an ongoing project, and those who imagine they are not part of such a project are simply contributing their own blindness to it, and limiting themselves in the process. It's not the 'dwarves' who are the problem, its the people who will not accept them as within the boundaries of 'us'.
A look at Yunnan's evolving anti-drug strategy
Posted by@vicar: Where is it that people snatch handbags to get weed? And who told you that it is addictive?
I like to drink, but it's probably healthier to smoke weed than to drink, at least to drink to excess.
Belt and Road pushing Yunnan companies international
Posted by55 years seems to me to be a helluva long time for a foreign private(?) company from an economically and politically powerful country to run an airport in a weak one.
A look at Yunnan's evolving anti-drug strategy
Posted by@dudeson: weed leads to addiction - I think not, though it may become habitual, but that is not the same thing. As for leading to hard drugs, alcohol - which, in fact, IS a harder drug - might also, but if weed statistically does so more often it's because both weed and certain harder drugs are all thrown into the same category: illegal. Then you have the naive kid told not to do 'drugs', one day he sneaks & does weed, no problems; his next experiment may well be with hard drugs.
That's why, above, I say the way 'drugs' are categorized - miscategorized, actually - is dangerous.
I think we agree, maybe I've just read you wrong.
A look at Yunnan's evolving anti-drug strategy
Posted byNobody snatches handbags to buy weed either.
A look at Yunnan's evolving anti-drug strategy
Posted byThe point is that using the term 'drugs' for anything that happens to be illegal is dangerous. Weed is closer to beer than it is to heroin.
Somebody define 'drugs', clearly. Should we outlaw tea?