>If you want a better internet, you might stop and think about the fact that it is built by people and people need to eat. De facto expecting slave labor from some people and then designing an internet where those people can hijack your search results to try to eat gets you this.
People don't/can't pay for things anymore because trillions of dollars have been siphoned out of the holdings of the middle and working classes over the past 50 years. If not for piracy and subscription services, the music and film industries would have collapsed years ago. If you made people pay for the things they used to, they... wouldn't. Because they can't.
>Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years.
Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African. To an extent. For different reasons, depending on who you ask, of course.
>Which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it.
Assuming that you're an American, the notion that you don't understand the defensiveness strains credulity. It validates quite a bit more in the eyes of some.
> Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African.
The average Black American is almost 1/4 European descent due to mixing that occurred recently. My son has light brown hair—because his mom is Irish and Dutch. They’re irrelevant to a discussion of the genetics of Bangladeshis.
> Assuming that you're an American, the notion that you don't understand the defensiveness strains credulity. It validates quite a bit more in the eyes of some.
I don’t think we can confidently state that currently. Given that substantial amount of admixture persisted so many generations, it is quite possible that there has been at least some evolutionary advantage associated with it. The rest of your comment, however, is correct: we have no reason to believe that humans with bigger admixture derive huge value from it today, and no reason to be defensive about not having it.
>Considering how much worse off African Americans are socio-economically, on average, than white Americans, it's a no-brainer that their kids end up worse off on average as well.
It's worse than that. There's something about the American system which forces black families to be not just stagnant economically, but often to move backwards (at least in the transition from Boomer/Gen X to later generations). Both of my grandfathers provided a strikingly middle class life for their families, leaving the military after WWII for decent careers: one as a stable, unionized factory employee, the other as a nuclear physicist. All of their children went to college. Both of my parents hold advanced degrees. Even still, they face financial difficulties that their white peers don't seem to, and my generation of siblings and cousins, while along a spectrum of affluence, seems to have inherited a magnified version of their parents' diminished prospects relative to their achievement. On average, the families that were middle class mid-century are now working class, even with degrees.
And we're outliers, in terms of educational attainment in the black community heretofore. That's changing, but to what ends, when black professionals must have a more advanced degree to be considered for the same job as a white applicant with a less advanced degree? When our houses are worth $50k less, our access to credit is restricted, our tax burden relative to income tends to be higher, and we are actively sought out for discrimination by many bedrock institutions of American life? It's not a level playing field.
>The idea in education is that everyone is intellectually equal. Therefore the racial achievement gap in mathematics is due to racism. The solution is to change things.
If we're going to go there: I went from being a straight-A math student in Pre-Calculus to a C (verging on D) student in my AP Calculus course in high school. In college, I retook Calculus and aced it, receiving one of the highest final scores in the class. The first course was taught by a black woman. The second was taught by a white man. The last was taught by a black man. I am a black man.
People in this conversation are frequently quick to dismiss the value of anti-racist (and, for that matter, anti-sexist) policy and execution in STEM pedagogy. They lean on and extrapolate erroneously from the notion of many great mathematical thinkers' probable hereditary advantages to a general, in-born hierarchy of fitness for STEM thinking. Coincidentally, this shields them from tough conversations regarding their own fitness to teach, and especially to teach children whose backgrounds they cannot or will not find sympathy and empathy for. I will admit that the solution is not so simple as my anecdote might suggest, but the implied path shares character with the correct one, in recognizing the farcical nature of assuming that the status quo - especially in this country - is a product of actual potential playing out as it must necessarily so, and not of history overshadowing even the best of intentions (though they are usually less than that).
Definitely agree. There’s no reason for me to believe that I’m good at teaching. My students’ failings could be mostly a reflection of my own failing in teaching.
I don’t dismiss the value of anti-racist policy and attempts to rid myself of negative biases that affect my students. My compliant is when I’m told, and I have been told this by an educator, that the act of requiring knowledge of algebra is itself racist. That’s when I feel we’ve gone too far. I don’t necessarily think algebra should be required but the reasoning for getting rid of that requirement shouldn’t be because black students are not passing it at a high enough rate.
My belief is that far too many people are going to college. The degree therefore is being watered down. If we lived in a country where everyone had guaranteed access to food, shelter, and medical care then the emphasis on college wouldn’t be so pronounced and colleges could then concentrate on what’s needed.
I don’t believe your comment should have been downvoted. Thank you for sharing your experience and thoughts.
I disagree that "too many" people are going to college. That's a canard which defends the artificial exclusivity of education. The vast majority of people are capable of learning algebra, and geometry, and calculus, and in a timely manner, when empowered by conscientious and effective instruction. It is also true that many students - particularly black and Latino students - are place in the contradictory situation of urgently needing a credential that they were not trained correctly to earn. This has nothing to do with their capability, and everything to do with the dysfunctional system that their intellectual growth is beholden to.
So while I appreciate the sympathetic elements of your reply, I have to point out that the root of your argument is a baseless suspicion of the cognitive capabilities of students of color. Yes, requiring knowledge that has been systematically denied, effectively on the basis of race, in order to obtain a credential that is necessary to earn a dignified living, is a form of racism. And we will need to "change things" to fix that.
I made no assumptions, statements, or implications regarding the cognitive capabilities of students of color. You are incorrectly ascribing beliefs to me. I do believe too many people are going to college. I said people and not students of color.
Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of people can learn calculus in a timely manner? I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is simply not true. Please note that I’m making no reference to or claims about students of color. I’m speaking about all people. In my experience a lot of people simply can’t learn calculus to any reasonable definition of what that notion entails.
The requirement of a specific set of knowledge for a degree is not what is wrong. What is wrong is living in a society in which having a degree is increasingly necessary to live at a decent standard.
>The idea in education is that everyone is intellectually equal. Therefore the racial achievement gap in mathematics is due to racism. The solution is to change things.
I'm at a loss as to how you might construe these statements, which you presented as wrongheaded (i.e., that you believe the inverse of each), to not imply that you believe that the "cognitive capabilities of students of color" are lesser, considering the nature of the racial achievement gap (an aspect of the conversation which you broached). Either you simply do not remember what you stated earlier, or you're lying. This is clearly a reference to students of color, at the very least. I just want to establish the high probability that you are being disingenuous.
>Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of people can learn calculus in a timely manner?
Assuming that most people can learn at a 5th grade level, and that, as suggested several times in the comments, this lecture could be broken up into multiple days worth of dynamic, interactive instruction, rather than being presented as a blitzkrieg 20-minute lecture:
This is not conclusive, of course. But you asked for any evidence, and I think a reasonable person arguing in good faith would conclude that it suffices. You've shown evidence to be otherwise, so I don't expect you to agree, but I would be happy to be wrong for once in this conversation, on this matter.
The idea in education is that everyone is intellectually equal. Therefore the racial achievement gap in mathematics is due to racism. The solution is to change things.
This is a line of reasoning used by people to advocate for things like getting rid of remedial math. The problem with this line of reasoning to me is the premise that everyone is intellectually equal. Not all premises have to be wrong for an argument to be wrong. This comports with my later statement that too many people are going to college.
There is nothing of a racial nature in any of the statements I made in this regard. To reiterate, I believe that there is meaningful variation in the intellectual ability of humans. I believe too many people are going to college.
My problem with the California initiative is that it is based on the idea that everyone has the same intellectual ability and, furthermore, it does not meaningfully address the true cause of the problem of the racial achievement gap. It’s worthy to address biases amongst institutions and I agree with their efforts in this regard.
The racial achievement gap is a systemic wide problem caused by the structure of our society and nothing meaningful will improve until these things are addressed at a higher level. The effect of the California reforms, I fear, will cause more harm than good.
I understood what you said. This post is simply a reiteration of statements I've already addressed. If you did not mean to make racially-charged statements, you should reassess how you talk about your views in the future, because - and I am telling you this as someone who is taking your stated aim on your word, against my better judgment - what you said sounds racist. Full stop.
The problem is that our societies have made college a status symbol - everybody is supposed to strive for a degree even if what they're planning to do doesn't require it. This is particularly pronounced for white collar jobs, even though many of them are really more akin to tradecraft, and should be properly taught in trade school.
(I would argue that the majority of what we call "software engineering" is actually of this nature.)
And jumping past your comments about anti-racist and anti-sexist policy and execution in STEM pedagogy, your anecdotes point out an actually effective intervention -- supporting the development of a teaching workforce that reflects the communities of students in the classroom! There is a significant difference in approach when someone sees their students as "theirs", a resource to be developed and nurtured, instead of "someone else's", an unruly crowd to be disciplined, as you mention in a later comment. Is the teacher teaching, or babysitting/policing? Too much of US education is the second, for children of any color.
Must you have the same skin color to teach rather than babysit/police? No. In the American context, though, it takes effort rather than inertia to accurately see and develop the potential of your black students -- because inertia gives white teachers in particular a relentlessly negative media stream about "thugs" instead of "future Nobel winner". Our segregated society gives white teachers an incorrect set of Bayesian priors on the meaning of acting out or difficulties in class. They don't have black friends whose kids are going through a rough patch but are still the same sweet kid they were at age six. I mean, I just talked with a high school teacher in a rural Midwestern district who said 'at least she didn't have to worry about kids doing cocaine in the closet at school like at an inner city school', and as a graduate of such an inner city school, my response was "honey we couldn't afford cocaine, that's a rich kid drug". This is a lovely lady, dedicated teacher, and that's her prior on "inner city kids" as of Dec 3, 2021.
It was not the fact that they were black. It was the fact that, as a black student, I was not subject to the same warped expectations that I found common while taking higher-level courses under some of my white teachers. Not every white teacher was like this; however, I did notice, particularly in my AP courses, that many were less supportive and understanding of black students who hit periods of difficulty, and more disciplinarian in their regard. I'm unconvinced that American pedagogy in general has shaken off the inclination to view students of color as un-growing children to be trained and tamed, rather than growing thinkers to be taught and empowered.
This contributed to my later success, but it generally would not - and, to my recollection, doesn't - explain the massive jump in grade. The main difference was a more conscientious teacher and an environment that facilitated better study habits. The second time, unlike the first, I was not forced to fight my teacher's low expectations and lack of support in addition to learning the material.
I'm just trying to find a way to say how much it sucks that your comment is being downvoted.
Fuck it. It sucks so much that your comment is downvoted. Fuck that. This place is fucked up sometimes, where people downvote comments that might at a very long stretch be misconstrued as displaying some remote racial insensitivity if you squint really, reaaaaly hard, and then downvote a black guy who says what he's seen first-hand. It's like watching the BBC giving equal screen time to climate scientists and climate denials in service to some objectivity, long ago lost.
They're ads that aren't clearly identified as ads, and they've covered most of the frontpage. That's not journalism, and if any major newspaper did this, it would be outrageous.
That said, HN doesn't accept editorialised headlines. A short blog post, or heck, even a Tweet, would be a more solid basis for a submission, and you'd get to choose your own appropriate and descriptive title. (Keep it under 80 characters to fit HN submissions.)
Thanks I thought this was a Verge article and was surprised to find the link led to the home page and couldn't figure out what it was all about.
So if I'm understanding this right: OP actually posted a link to the Verge home page during Black Friday to showcase how "Affiliate marketing has destroyed tech journalism". But there was never an article on this topic?
Shouldn't it be titled "Show HN" or "Tell HN" then? Because the title and link were so confusing and I wouldn't have figured it out without this helpful comment.
At the end, the author muses that he is too close, temporally, to the end of the Bush administration to determine how Polybius' thoughts on the political role of religion held true for it. It's been 12 and a half years since this was published, so I wondered if perhaps anyone thinks we might have an answer to this conundrum.
It's frustrating to me that my potential enjoyment of this piece, lauded as it is by several of the comments that are already here, was poisoned by the introduction. I imagine that
>I ran to visit my friend Yet, who lived in the village behind my parents’ house in Battambang, Cambodia.
will come off as innocuous to many, but my immediate impression was, "Wait... like a plantation?". I'm not intimately familiar with Cambodian history, but I had some understanding of it having been a French colony. With that colonization must have come a sharpening of class lines, as in many Western colonies, like Cuba, and the American South. Some quick research confirmed that. And then, after independence, a coup, with alleged but unconfirmed American backing; and then, after that, a vicious response by radicalized communist entities. Familiar trappings of the first tumultuous global century.
...I'm trying to figure out how to articulate this feeling. It's a sort of anger at the lionization of Western, Capitalist claims and ideals, at the whitewashing of the means by which they were asserted, at the implacable sneers towards anything in opposition to this story of glory. Not because I myself dislike freedom, and variety, and eating; but because the movements that rise up to challenge that status quo rise out of the muck-like detritus it generates and then plops right onto the heads of the poor and marginalized. I skim this piece and see not any sort of understanding of how the French Indochina, as a tentacle of the Western imperialism kraken, that produced the things the author lauds also sowed the seeds of its destruction; I see almost a willful and zealous blindness to this, in fact. When I talk to Castro's diaspora, same thing. When I talk to Lost Cause pushers, same thing.
All of this scares the sh*t out of me. It's yet another example of how suffering - true agony as far as the eye can see - can come from and produce the same sort of skewed priorities and world-view, over and over again, all around the world. When the world has wronged us so utterly - at least from our perspective - we're unable to see the wrongs we participated in, and how they could have contributed to the slow gestation of our despair. You see shades of it even here, today. I want us to get it right for once and this essay is stealing hope from me.
If you'd read it, you'd have found that the blindness is not there. But I don't think it's the piece you would have wanted either way. Willful zealotry is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I see it in your comment, fwiw.
This is a first person recollection of a nine year old girl's experience surviving two revolutionary civil wars and a genocide. Not incidentally, the sentiments you express were the precise sentiments weaponised to fuel and justify this bloodbath.
Stopping at paragraph one to "yeah but she's a bouge...." is a mark of zealotry.
As to "sightedness," which I take as meaning obligatory mentions of class issues, imperialism and foreign cultural influences... it's sprinkled liberally throughout the piece. Even the title. The "softness" she's talking about is bourgeois softness, compared to peasants who had been living almost as hard before.
Here's one passage: "It would be tempting to affect a survivor’s bravado, as if I had achieved my continued existence through will and wit. But my chief survival advantage was being born to a family that could afford to fly to Saigon. We used our dwindling gold to flee to a place where wearing eyeglasses did not put our lives in immediate danger."
I suspect this does not suffice, given my first paragraph. This is not an essay about how capitalist greed and imperialist arrogance are the ultimate culprits. This is a story where ideological zealots play the roles of crusader, conquistador and slaver.
The willful element is turning the story around. Capitalism and Imperialism the root cause, even if the actual atrocities were committed by anticapitalist anti-imperialists. This is always true and if it isn't, just "dig deeper" and find that it is true. That sounds like willful zealotry to me.
It's equivalent to blaming the caliphate for the inquisition, berating a muslim or jewish victim for blindness to the true underlying cause... Also, refusing to read something because it doesn't start with a declaration that ideologically conforms to your position is willful.
"This is not an essay about how capitalist greed and imperialist arrogance are the ultimate culprits."
My contention is that this is a problem, given what we know about the history of Capitalism and Western imperialist arrogance and its direct and deleterious effects on many (most) of the 3rd world countries these principles touched during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the ways in which those effects (predictably) hardened the hearts and ways of dissenters. Even in, as an adult, remarking on one's experience as a nine-year-old girl suffering at the hands of anti-Capitalist regimes. Maybe especially so, in an essay about survival being predicated on the weathering away of comfort(able biases). Maybe even more so, if the goal is to not have anti-Capitalist backlash repeat itself.
With that in mind, if you came away from my comment with the impression that I believe that a violent class purge, let alone the institution of capital-C Communism, is the answer, I have to think that you did not read very carefully.
I know, and that is precisely the problem. The zealot perspective is that every story is the same story. It's always a story about capitalist greed or always story about moral impurity or always a story about market interventions going awry. It's beyond bias. It's total tunnel vision.
In any case, this is her story, her perspective. Write your own story, and it'll be the story you want.
Meanwhile, how dare you, who wrote what you wrote demand that others read your comment carefully and generously for nuance... especially when you are taking the position of the kmer rouge yourself.
There is a reason that my issue with the essay is presented as one that maps to rhetorical phenomena similar to the one specifically in question. It's because the central issue is the repetition - the ubiquity - of Capitalism and Western imperialism's apparent innocence in regards to suffering in the world that it largely shaped. No story that perpetuates this falsehood can be called beautiful; it can't be called truth, or even helpful. Every story like this recreates it's own cruel circumstances for posterity. And to say so is the opposite of tunnel vision; it's to acknowledge on multiple levels that meaning is half-formed without consideration of context, even if that context damns one's sentiments.
>Meanwhile, how dare you, who wrote what you wrote demand that others read your comment carefully and generously for nuance...
Because.
I may be a hypocrite, but I'm not wrong.
And in any case, our circumstances are different: I'm not misrepresenting her words; you're misrepresenting mine.
What apparent innocence? No one has argued anything like this. Not the author. Not me. The thing you are objecting to isn't apparent innocence of western imperialism. The thing you are objecting to is the existence of a story that is about something else... to the point of historical denialism in all but the most technical sense.
It also happens to be true that the particular atrocities this story was about were committed by anti-western, anti-capitalists. The events she is describing really did happen... to her. That is the context. Preceding these events were other events. The story isn't about those.
Your comments are whataboutism.
And yes, it is tunnel vision. It is essentialism and it is zealotry. It is having one story in your mind that explains anything and everything. Everything boils down to capitalism and western colonialism. Any telling of events that doesn't conform to your one and only allowable story is rejected without inspection. As you said, you can't get past the first paragraph is it's not a simple anti capitalism/colonialism narrative. Who here is the one avoiding challenges to their comfortable biases? Who is the reactionary here?
In this case, it happens to be particularly awful, given that the perpetrators shared your specific tunnel vision. Even if the atrocities are committed by anticapitalists, an author has exactly one paragraph to clarify that colonialism that is the true culprit. It's like telling responding to a victim of fascism with a "but what about communism." There are parallels to every argument you bring up.
> My contention is that this is a problem, given what we know about the history of Capitalism and Western imperialist arrogance and its direct and deleterious effects on many (most) of the 3rd world countries these principles touched during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the ways in which those effects (predictably) hardened the hearts and ways of dissenters. Even in, as an adult, remarking on one's experience as a nine-year-old girl suffering at the hands of anti-Capitalist regimes.
This argument doesn't make any sense: "$FOO is bad because the anti-$FOO people are violent madmen"
You can't always shift blame away from the violent madmen.
$FOO is bad because $FOO's faults have tended to create anti-$FOO people.
Further: these faults also tend to drive anti-$FOO people to violence - often not even simply as a matter of course, but as an explicit strategy. In almost every case, the first to violence is $FOO. $FOO then encourages violence from the other side, to legitimize a crackdown. When anti-$FOO survives this crackdown, their behavior has been altered forever by their initial experience with $FOO.
In fairness, it's hard to blame a 9yo for colonialism. The author's family might have benefited a bit from it, in the sense that they lived over their own shop instead of on dirt between rice paddies. One suspects that good fortune could be overstated, especially when weighed against that family's extinction and her own travails.
Nguon's hatred for Khmer Rouge is genuine. However, she isn't foolish enough to consider herself a capitalist. The work she does now is simply unrelated to authoritarians, whether of the communist or the capitalist variety. The women's development center is more authentically anarchist than anything else.
It doesn't seem charitable to compare her either to idiot Confederacy buffs or to Miami Cubans. I understand where you're coming from, but keep in mind that her enterprise is selling scarves and purses to rich Westerners. There's only so much she can say without upsetting the customers.
I'm still not convinced of the wisdom of carrying water for these things which ultimately triggered catastrophe, through the backlash to their excesses. It's not a matter of there being no virtue in one side and no fault in the other; it's a matter of honoring the ambivalence so that one isn't caught off guard by earnest dissent. If your story is, "The evil authoritarians who destroyed my life, specifically, ruined everything," you're missing the military-industrial complex for the SCUDs; and there is an executive somewhere very happy about that, and also very happy to elevate your narrative which pretends that he doesn't exist.
My concern is that pride in the "greatness" of what civilization has become blinds people to the discontent which could rock everything we hold dear. Again.
Re-reading your original comment, I think your "like a plantation" impression was mistaken. In southeast Asia, even today, even in the countryside, the population is really dense. It isn't a sign of prosperity to have a village behind an auto shop. Everything has a village out back. Remember, western countrysides used to be more densely populated as well, before mechanization obviated all the farmhand jobs. Rural Cambodia was even more like that, fifty years ago.
But sure, colonization. USA ultraviolent body-count military colonization was in a sense a continuation of French opportunistic get-rid-of-the-king-and-install-his-half-brother colonization, but it is more properly considered an escalation. Similarly, Khmer Rouge "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss" dictatorship was in a sense a continuation of Angkor-era feudalism, but it was really an escalation.
Lots of humans are tired of the escalation. You have fallen for the armaments manufacturers' narrative, so you can't hear an old woman cursing her persecutors without finishing her curse with "...and this is why capitalism is great". She didn't say that. "America" or "USA" or "capital" are strings that do not appear in TFA. Nguon DGAF which flavor of authoritarianism we prefer. She wants to enjoy traditional Cambodian crafts, and also French food, and also a bit of peace. Why should she care to follow idiotic USA "security" policy? She doesn't get a vote on that question, and the votes we get don't make a difference anyway. Every authoritarian system feeds on human blood; that isn't up to a vote.
It is tempting to try to preempt the "USA #1 always right!" bullshit, but I don't think you've accomplished that ITT. In future, focus on the truth, and don't worry about correcting old people on what they should really think about their most harrowing experiences.
Your comment is amazing. You read that article written by someone that narrowly escaped genocide and your mind immediately goes to what is essentially communist propaganda. You don't express anger once at the people involved in orchestrating the killing, you don't assign any blame to the actual ideology that was used to justify mass slaughter. Instead you just spout a programmed response.
You have a curious definition of the words "vicious" and "radicalized". Would you agree or disagree that characterizing Communist regimes as such, within a Communist regime, would have gotten me killed?
The real "break with tradition" was America and the CIA ousting Prince Sihanouk, who had been fighting militant communists, but was in dialog with the non-militant Cambodian left. A puppet Lon Nol was put at the helm, and the US then invaded eastern Cambodia (and shot Kent State students protesting that invasion) and carpet bombed the Cambodian countryside. This is what began the destabilization of Cambodia. Prince Sihanouk in exile allied with anyone against Lon Nol, which included the communists, and he supported the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces, which liberated Phnom Penh in the spring of 1975, right around the same time Saigon was liberated from western colonialism.
The implementation of the leftist utopian visions that torture and murder and silence and "re-educate" millions and send millions more desperate refugees fleeing out to die at sea in little, overloaded boats trying to escape is not usually described as "liberation" by those, such as my family and many friends, who managed to survive these visionaries.
> It's a sort of anger at the lionization of Western, Capitalist claims and ideals, at the whitewashing of the means by which they were asserted, at the implacable sneers towards anything in opposition to this story of glory.
Alas, capitalism isn't all that popular in the west anymore. Perhaps you need to look further afield to find its champions.
Not "in the West" but rather "in Western media and universities, especially outside STEM". By no coincidence, these are the most vocal minorities.
Capitalism is not cool with novelty-seeking intellectual elites anymore. But nothing established is; the purpose of these elites is to look for and research alternative ways. Most if these ways are detrimental or are dead ends. But so are most mutations that drive evolution forward.
Japan has scarce natural resources. It's also situated on an archipelago. Without international (and, importantly, overseas) trade, it ceases to exist as an industrial civilization. The necessity (and, yes, in contradiction with the traditionally collectivist and exclusive character of its people's culture) of international relations to the survival of the 21st century Japanese state is well-known, and the source of no small amount of consternation on the part of those concerned with the notion of a Japanese identity. I'm not educated or familiar enough with their cultural dynamics to say for certain, but I can imagine the exclusivity of Japanese identity being partially a reaction to its precariousness.
People don't/can't pay for things anymore because trillions of dollars have been siphoned out of the holdings of the middle and working classes over the past 50 years. If not for piracy and subscription services, the music and film industries would have collapsed years ago. If you made people pay for the things they used to, they... wouldn't. Because they can't.