It really is frustrating to see true things trotted out as a defense of undeniably shitty behavior. There are two facts (that people who are aware of how exploitative capitalism is) will use to argue that any consumption is fine, that their personal consumption of certain deeply unethical products isn’t problematic, or that there isn’t a spectrum from mostly fine to inherently problematic consumable commodities.
One: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Two: attempts at ethical consumption alone will never be sufficient to affect real change (and may mislead some into thinking they’ve done their part when they haven’t). These things are true. But just because they are, that does NOT mean that all consumption is the same, and it doesn’t mean that consuming certain things isn’t a form of tacit but still supportive approval of the worst kinds of exploitation. It very much is just mental acrobatics that some people will use to justify their hypocrisy and stamp out the feelings of guilt for consuming shit that deep down they know they should feel guilty about consuming.
OOP is using fact one to do this. And I don’t think miz is meaning to, but in the context of this post, reminding people of fact 2 without further explanation comes across as if it’s backing up OOP’s flawed “logic.”
It really is frustrating to see true things trotted out as a defense of undeniably shitty behavior. There are two facts (that people who are aware of how exploitative capitalism is) will use to argue that any consumption is fine, that their personal consumption of certain deeply unethical products isn’t problematic, or that there isn’t a spectrum from mostly fine to inherently problematic consumable commodities.
One: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Two: attempts at ethical consumption alone will never be sufficient to affect real change (and may mislead some into thinking they’ve done their part when they haven’t). These things are true. But just because they are, that does NOT mean that all consumption is the same, and it doesn’t mean that consuming certain things isn’t a form of tacit but still supportive approval of the worst kinds of exploitation. It very much is just mental acrobatics that some people will use to justify their hypocrisy and stamp out the feelings of guilt for consuming shit that deep down they know they should feel guilty about consuming.
OOP is using fact one to do this. And I don’t think miz is meaning to, but in the context of this post, reminding people of fact 2 without further explanation comes across as if it’s backing up OOP’s flawed “logic.”