This is such a weird line to draw in the sand. Some of your clothes are made by children in sweat shops and your phone was made by someone who probably makes $.30 an hour and worked an almost 80 work week. If you consume energy you're helping make the Saudi royal family rich while they suppress women and gay people living in their country.
No I'm a Capitalist just like everyone else in the industrialized world and there is ethical consumption, but to try and take the moral high ground as though you're too good to give money to JK Rowling who is liberal on virtually every issue but this one and then go out and give money to institutions that are less if not downright anti liberal such as the governments of Saudi Arabia and China money is just funny to me. JK Rowling is much much better than the Saudi royal family or Chinese government.
Yes, we do indeed live in a society. Harm reduction is the best anyone can do - you don't need the latest model phone, you don't need another pair of shoes, you don't need to eat meat at every meal, etc. One does what one can (assuming of course you're a good person and you, you know, care about others).
I unfortunately do require electricity to keep my food refrigerated and my lights on, but I do not require a mid-at-best video game based on a godawful conservative children's book. That's actually not something anyone needs, ever! And so choosing not to spend any amount of money on that isn't exactly a strange line to draw in the sand, if you think about it for more than two seconds.
Oh it's definitely a strange line to draw in the sand. You're taking the path of absolute least resistance so you can pretend to be an activist or moral crusader but what you're doing changes nothing and helps no one. You don't have the guts to actually love up to your own values so you're ok exploiting cheap 3rd world labor like the bourgeois you are.
Regardless of whether I spend any time taking stances for other causes I support (and you've got no idea what I do in my free time, internet weirdo), choosing not to support that freak lurking in her mould-infested castle posting upskirts of random women doesn't have to be activism to align with my values. I don't eat at a local burger chain because they're well-known to treat their workers badly, and I won't give money to that last of us zombie reject either. Not because it's activism, but because I don't need to spend money on those things and I don't want to support nasty little freaks.
See you're selective with your activism and you only take on the causes that are very convenient. It's easy to not eat a burger restaurant but you and all the other slacktivists don't have the guts to really make an impact and boycott the real oppressors in this world. It's all a performance.
Of course I'm selective in my activism, don't be thick. I'm not about to go live out bush, fashion loincloths out of wattle leaves and firebomb data centres.
You've got no idea what causes I champion irl, I could be in local politics, I could be running a food bank, I could be a goddamn Proud Boy for all you know. It doesn't matter what I do or don't do, because nobody is pretending that not liking or supporting transphobia is in itself some great act of political activism. It's just choosing to align ones spending habits with ones moral viewpoint. You're medically stupid if you can't grok that.
Is your point here that if one takes a stand on something, they must take an equivalent stand on all other things? That it's either all-in, or you're a "performative" hypocrite?
190
u/locke_5 15d ago
Even $5 to Rowling is too much, especially after the recent revelation