ceigered:As a result, the Indian accent on the phone became dreaded by some, and it turned into a frustration (some had more complex reasons for it being frustrating, like jobs going overseas rather than staying in the western country).

Add the frustration some people feel towards telemarketing, with having to understand a foreign accent they're not used to, and Indian telemarketers get treated like dirt in the end.

The whole thing with telemarketing is that it's all phoney*. Strangers ringing up, pretending to be nice, calling you by your first name, etc., all just to sell you something. It's all horrible. The Indian thing was more phoniness; often they those operators pretended to have names like 'Mike' or something. In Australia we now have a 'do not call' list, what a great idea! If you are on it, telemarketers don't call you!

Once I taught English to unemployed Germans as part of some EU initiative, the second phase of which was flying them over to Ireland to train up to be telemarketers... That would have been 6 years ago or so.

* 'Phoney'. Geddit?

3rdblade:The whole thing with telemarketing is that it's all phoney*. Strangers ringing up, pretending to be nice, calling you by your first name, etc., all just to sell you something. It's all horrible.

Indeed (and nice pun lol).

But there are some people who get much joy out of responding to telemarketing in completely socially unacceptable ways, and then everyone treats it like it's all good fun. Even if their job's annoying, the person on the other end is a human... Well with banks sometimes it's a machine (probably cheaper and less stress on the operator end).

ceigered:...Even if their job's annoying, the person on the other end is a human...

Are you certain of this? Make him pass Turing test just to be sure.

I suspect I'm arriving a bit late in this discussion, but I'd like to make a few remarks about this subject.

First of all, and the main point here, is whether the BRICS will actually last.

It's important to remember that these are all very different countries with very different policies. In fact, one could say that they could not be more different from each other. China is a brutal dictatorship, Russia is a "quasi-democracy", India has nuclear rivalries with Pakistan and Brazil has severe internal problems.

All of this shows how differently these countries would respond to an international issue. So, to put in simple terms, the BRICS are not yet a single political voice.

The only thing keeping them together is their strong economies and a desire for change in the status quo. Apart from that, they're on their own.

If they pull it off, there is a chance they could consider it (China is favourable to Esperanto, and in Brazil, pending legislation will allow Esperanto classes on public schools), although not very likely.

In my opinion, UEA should be more present as a lobbying actor around policymakers.

pikolas:In fact, one could say that they could not be more different from each other. China is a brutal dictatorship, Russia is a "quasi-democracy", India has nuclear rivalries with Pakistan and Brazil has severe internal problems.

All of this shows how differently these countries would respond to an international issue. So, to put in simple terms, the BRICS are not yet a single political voice.

Well, I'd agree, but I think 'China is a brutal dictatorship' is a bit... harsh. I mean, historically within recent history (if we go back a bit in time, yes, China was a brutal dictatorship under Mao, perhaps due to necessity, perhaps not), I can't see how China is any more brutal than Russia or America.

The problem is that minority groups that are seen as trying to subvert authority from Beijing are not appreciated, and there is questionable veracity to many criticisms, ranging from the "Free Tibet movement"*, to things like Brother Yun, which typically garner support in the west without proper appreciation of various issues and how controversial they are.

Another problem is that "dictatorship" doesn't quite do China justice - it's actually just a democracy* * with corruption problems, in a pyramid structure. Problem is that the corruption system interferes greatly with the "complaint system", which means if some guy has the power to "lose" complaints about him, well, you see what happens. So the democracy only works as well as the guys up the top can communicate with the guys down the bottom, which corruption screws up.

If China was still a dictatorship (relative to a western democracy mindset like ours), I think you'd see a much different China today.

So, basically, most BRICS nations tend to have equal amount of problems, and slightly similar mindsets, and are quite similar in many ways. I'm most hopeful for Brazil and China though, to be perfectly honest. And ironically, both like Esperanto.

=======

*(which has a lot of lobbying from the ex-aristocracy and not ordinary citizens, and ignores that Tibet never did only belong to the Tibetans (a minority in the land we name after them), and also ignores that reestablishment of Tibet as a nation would be reinstating a theocracy upon many people who wouldn't like it. China's ways of dealing with problems there can be likened to the US's way of dealing with social problems in the middle-east, arguably good and bad.)

* * By democracy, I mean the average person has a say in the way things work in the country. Of course, with no elections, there's no such thing as compulsory elections like in Australia, but also no polarity. But then, that means you need people to be active in having their say in the communist party... So, if everyone ignores a problem, combined with corruption, you can end up with all sorts of social issues. Multi-party politics on the other hand mean if you vote to solve one issue, you might create another since the party you vote for might have other agendas and might not be consistent with your views.

ceigered:I think 'China is a brutal dictatorship' is a bit harsh... China was a brutal dictatorship under Mao..I can't see how China is any more brutal than Russia or America.

Remember Tiananmen Square, 1989; this occurred long after Mao's death.

ceigered:The problem is that minority groups that are seen as trying to subvert authority from Beijing are not appreciated..

Quite.

ceigered:there is questionable veracity to many criticisms

I'm sure the Politburo's People's Republic appreciates your support.

ceigered:..from the "Free Tibet movement"..

Yes, people do like to be free of occupying powers.

ceigered:Brother Yun, which typically garner support in the west without proper appreciation of various issues

How much do you know about Brother Yun? There is an amazing biography The heavenly man, and a book of his teaching Living Water. Here is a good video of him.

ceigered:democracy

In sum: criticising the government can get you in serious trouble if you live in a dictatorship. That's the difference from democracy.

@ Miland, I'm too pooped to figure out how to cit your cits of my cits of... yeah, you get the picture, so I'll reply here

Firstly, I didn't wish to imply that after Mao things suddenly got rosy, but 1989 is now "a long time" as far as modern history is concerned. I mean, the Soviet Union was only just about to fall, and the Yugoslav wars were about to begin, but we don't treat Russia like it's still soviet and we don't treat the Yugoslavic countries like they're still locked in war (well, the Kosovo war didn't help). I think it's time the world moved on.

RE The Politburo appreciating my support, that wouldn't be wise I'm just the mere devils advocate

RE People liking to be free from occupying powers, that argument only holds up provided the "occupied" count as the majority. Even before the annexation of Tibet to China, many people living there weren't Tibetans, not to mention Tibet was a typical 3rd world country. China's intervention wasn't necessarily the most friendly or best way to do it, but in annexing the territory, they've made it so non-Tibetans, who outnumbered the tibetans yet lived there for just as long, were given more power.

In a sense, the annexation resulted in liberation and occupation at the same time. Too controversial for me to join any side, so I'll simply go with "I don't care who rules it, as long as they now do a good job". Nationalism for the sake of it is dangerous anyway.

Miland:In sum: criticising the government can get you in serious trouble if you live in a dictatorship. That's the difference from democracy.

Not necessarily - the problem is the aforementioned corruption causing a lack of expression which then becomes expressed in a way the Chinese government looks down on as they fear it could cause rifts within society and eventually lead to the catastrophe that was pre-communist China (and in "democracies" the same thing often happens less often, look at America's treatment of that guy who leaked stuff to wikileaks supposedly, despite the fact taht failure to reveal information that may be about warcrimes is a crime in itself).

Now, I'm not saying if that's the right way to go about it or not, but it's a very subjective topic to argue, and I think the wording of "brutal" and "dictatorship" are things we apply to Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR or North korea, and between China and those there's definitely a big gulf - the tonnes of Chinese students studying in Australia is one indication for me personally, and the fact that protest and populace-government debate/discourse do occur in China.

RE Brother Yun, I know a tiny bit about him thanks to my parent's interest in his book The Heavenly Man, but to me what the man was like and did are irrelevant - the fact is that some in the west do think "christians are persecuted in China" akin to Roman persecution of christianity.

Too-long-don't-read (TL;DR) summary version of my last two messages:

Dictatoship - Wikipedia.
The trouble with democracy—and dictatorship (search for "restrictive" democracy - the article itself is OK I guess but uses "dictatorship" erroneously, and the comments are better lol)

China is not a dictatorship as their is no autocratic leader, and there's respect for the constitution amongst other things.

The best way to describe China is authoritarian, where the government is perceived to have authority and be respected as such, as opposed to the US, where tradition has led to the perception that if the government is doing something you don't like, you should kick up a ruckus about it.

Both have good and bad points, China's are that small things like freedom of speech etc get chipped away where overzealous interpretation is applied to the idea of "subverting authority", where as America's can be bad in that the public encourages or fights against bad/good policies (the whole slippery slope distinction of keeping laymen out of issues they "don't understand", and keeping laymen at the core of issues they "don't understand").

But China ultimately has too many parallels to "western nations" to be continue to be considered the same as its more turmultuous past or "parallels" like North Korea who aren't true parallels (the Chinese see North Korea as being crazy-locked-up just as we do after all, they gov't just doesn't say it since a truly alienated NK is dangerous, and sitting on-top of them). They are perhaps "Brutal" for a western country in that they will use force to deal with internal problems, however they largely keep such force to themselves, where as in the West we never use force much on our own citizens (probably for fear of being voted out), yet we happily use force on other countries.

Ultimately though, they're not that brutal at all, compared to Russia (similar story), or truly brutal countries (middle east). I won't mention Iran since I don't know where they come, but I think they're pretty placid for average Iranians, just having a xenophobic theocracy running the joint.

In addition, we have to separate history with recent-history with post-modern China (not to mention China before the civil war).

So it's a multi-faceted issue that ultimately can't be summed up in "brutal dictatorship", at least on an Esperanto-spirited forum like Lernu. "Authoritarian pseudo- democracy facing corruption and similar socially-impacting issues" would be more realistic.

ceigered:..we don't treat Russia like it's still soviet..

Because it's not - not completely, that is. But Russia is not part of the West, and spying still goes on.

ceigered:I think it's time the world moved on.

Easy to say when you don't have to live in a one-party state.

ceigered: Even before the annexation of Tibet to China, many people living there weren't Tibetans, not to mention Tibet was a typical 3rd world country .. In a sense, the annexation resulted in liberation and occupation at the same time.

Like I said, I'm sure the Party appreciates such aupport. I strongly suspect that the Dalai Lama who fled to India in 1959 when his country was invaded, did not anticipate "liberation".

ceigered:I think the wording of "brutal" and "dictatorship" are things we apply to Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR or North korea, and between China and those there's definitely a big gulf

This is a good apologetic for one-party regimes. Syria and Zimbabwe would love it - "see, we're not as bad as Nazi Germany. Let's have some perspective!" That perspective should not lose sight of what China is - a dictatorship.

As for brutality - perhaps you prefer not to think about the labour camps, or the fact that refugees from North Korea are routinely turned over to North Korean authorities, and I leave the consequences to your imagination.

ceigered:some in the west do think "christians are persecuted in China" akin to Roman persecution of christianity.

Read the biography and you will see just how violent Brother Yun's treatment was. I grant you that he wasn't eaten by lions. Not all Christians in the Roman Empire were.

In sum: China is a one-party dictatotship. That means that the people are not free to relieve the government of their position. It is an oligarchy, of the Politburo. People are free to make money and travel, but not criticise the government.

Possibly you take the freedom you enjoy in Australia too much for granted.

ceigered:I think it's time the world moved on.

Easy to say when you don't have to live in a one-party state.

Indeed. I'm not emotionally involved with the country.

ceigered: Even before the annexation of Tibet to China, many people living there weren't Tibetans, not to mention Tibet was a typical 3rd world country .. In a sense, the annexation resulted in liberation and occupation at the same time.

Like I said, I'm sure the Party appreciates such aupport. I strongly suspect that the Dalai Lama who fled to India in 1959 when his country was invaded, did not anticipate "liberation".

Thus "liberation and occupation at the same time". I don't trust the Dalai Lama or the ex-aristocracy 100% either. They actually *did* lose something. People down the bottom, the illiterate, uneducated, poor, starving (that is compared to now), they have got something out of it. I do believe Tibet was an actual theocratic dictatorship too.

ceigered:I think the wording of "brutal" and "dictatorship" are things we apply to Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR or North korea, and between China and those there's definitely a big gulf

This is a good apologetic for one-party regimes. Libya, Syria and Zimbabwe would love it - "see, we're not as bad as Nazi Germany. Let's have some perspective!" That perspective should not lose sight of what China is - a dictatorship.

Actually, I'd argue Zimbabwe is as bad as some of the phases of Nazi germany, just without the ability and power that Nazi Germany had, given that Nazi Germany had $$$. The expulsion of the whites from Zimbabwe is a good example.

And China isn't a dictatorship, a dictatorship needs a dictator. China doesn't have one. It has a pyramid structured single-party election system effectively, and freedom of speech *to a degree* (I'm not saying they're doing well in that regards either). It's not as efficient in allowing guys down the bottom to elect the guy up the top, but on a good day without corruption it works. Corruption is, once again, the problem.

As for perspective, perhaps evidence enough is how many people move to china, say how it's actually OK, while still believing in their religion. Or, how many Chinese come to countries like Australia as students, or to live, or to whatever, and clearly aren't oppressed people - they're just like westerners, able to identify problems with their govt, and participate in well-rounded discussion, although not as dramatically as westerners who are more likely to call parties communist/nazi/too-liberal/stupid.

Ultimately, China is far from being compared with aforementioned states. It's far from perfect too, I'm not denying that.

Read the biography and you will see just how violent Brother Yun's treatment was. I grant you that he wasn't eaten by lions. Not all Christians in Ancient Rome were.

The difference is, China harasses its own citizens, we harass others across the world, sometimes more and sometimes less. I can't say which is better.

In sum: China is a one-party dictatotship. That means that the people are not free to relieve the government of their position. It is an oligarchy, of the Politburo. People are free to make money and travel, but not criticise the government.

That's a very heavily two-party system way of thinking. We can't "relieve the government" either (try throwing a rotten tomato at the queen). We can vote out the ruling party, but the other one's still there in the background. The idea that China has only one party is better compared to countries with high levels of independent politicians, but then placed in a nationalistic bureaucracy.

And given that there are many demonstrations in China, many public complaints to even the party, clearly they are allowed to criticise. Media is less better off.

As for brutality - perhaps you prefer not to think about the labour camps, or the fact that refugees from North Korea are routinely turned over to North Korean authorities, and I leave the consequences to your imagination.

Possibly you take the freedom you enjoy in Australia too much for granted.

I don't take it for granted, as I've already said and implied throughout it all, thing's aren't rosey. But they're better than horrible, which is what's being implied.

Australia effectively does the same thing as China too - we get refugees we don't like, we kick them back to whereever they came from. See the Malaysian refugee deals issues going on for example.

And NK is NK, not China. China feels it has to play friendly, or it cause bad diplomatic consequences, at least if NK know China's harbouring refugees.