Seems unlikely. I'd have read an argument but I don't generally consider links-to-youtube to be an argument.
> Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad?
My point is it's not impossible to make ethical choices about spending, even in a world where you don't have full control.
The idea that it is wrong to make ethical decisions about how to spend your money, time or attention, either because the system we live in makes complete consistency impossible or because of some notion that we might force people judged as bad to starve, is just so bizarre.
A thread here the other day covered several brands of "Italian" or "Australian" tomato paste in Australia that have been caught using Chinese tomatoes, which are largely from areas we know use forced labour. I don't approve of forced labour and I'm willing to pay a little more to avoid contributing to that. If enough others join me, it might make a small difference. By directing what economic activity I can to products from nations with good standards of worker rights, I hope I help keep slavery-free products viable, until such time as we get a government with a backbone.
But am I boycotting everything made in China? Could I even conceptually avoid using all Chinese products when they're literally everywhere? No, that seems very unlikely to even be possible in this day and age. But I don't consider that the inability to do that negates the choices I make where I can. Your quote makes it seem like you do think that? All or nothing? Go live in a locally made yurt and grow your own food or just give up?
> If it is, then how should these condemned people live?
Well if there's no more profit to be had in selling the output of indentured servitude, it might stop? And these "condemned" people could do something else to make a living rather than being slavers?
If a particular author was known to be (for example) funding white supremacist groups, am I supposed to feel guilt that I might not buy their book? Why? They need to eat? Maybe they could stop the funding then?
Now, where your specific red lines are is going to be variable, and where it comes to artistic output things are always blurry. But I still don't think it's wrong to ask "Where is my money going? What second order effect is this purchase having on the world?"
An author who abandoned his family and lied about large parts of his life is clearly not a good person. Whether that puts you off reading them is up to you. I still (occasionally) reread HP Lovecraft, with the knowledge he was a pretty godawful racist, even for his times, and so is some of his work. That said, buying a book of his isn't going to fund him or his views these days, as there is no identifiable estate.
I think boycotts are effectively useless. If you disagree, can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal? Accomplished by the actual boycott alone, I mean.
Boycotts are, as I understand it, only a way for you to feel that you still are morally pure. But the counterargument is that it is impossible to be actually morally pure. When you last needed, say, a plumber, did you know how they voted before you engaged them? How does your electricity company CEO vote? How about your local grocery store cashier? If you would actually go though every single thing and person that you depend on, and boycotted every one who is a terrible person or organization, you would not be able to live.
Therefore, boycotts are doubly bad: They don’t accomplish anything, but they feel useful, and therefore they rob you of any incentive or energy to do anything actually useful, like changing relevant laws. Also, many people go at least one step further, and denounce people who simply do not participate in their pet boycotts.
Who says that avoiding Chinese tomato paste doesn’t accomplish anything? It funnels money to other brands and keeps them going rather than rewarding forced labour and driving other forms of production out of the market. That in itself is an actual, practical effect in a capitalist system.
And doing so certainly wouldn’t make me less likely to vote for a party promising to address the issue.
And I mean, isn’t this just how capitalism works? Buy stuff you want to see more of? Don’t buy things you don’t like. I try to buy local when I can, because I like local produce and I want the local economy to thrive. It’s just taking an active role in the feedback mechanisms that exist around us and deciding where you want to put your very small level of personal influence.
> can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal?
The Bud Light Boycott of 2023 springs immediately to mind. Not that I agree with the people doing the boycotting, or would drink bud light anyway, but it certainly made the company backpedal.
> Boycotts are, as I understand it, only a way for you to feel that you still are morally pure
Then I guess you don’t understand very much, and you certainly don’t understand my posts higher up if you think I’m demanding moral purity of myself or anyone else.
To me, this all just sounds like a justification for your own lack of conscientiousness.
> Who says that avoiding Chinese tomato paste doesn’t accomplish anything? It funnels money to other brands and keeps them going rather than rewarding forced labour and driving other forms of production out of the market. That in itself is an actual, practical effect in a capitalist system.
Your individual boycott accomplishes absolutely nothing. Even the total number of people participating in this boycott will not change a single thing.
> The Bud Light Boycott of 2023 springs to mind. Not that I agree with the people doing the boycotting, but it certainly made the company backpedal.
Unlikely, since, from what I hear, the brand everyone switched to was owned by the same company. The most a boycott can accomplish is a public statement, no actual change. Also, this statement was a result of the publicity, not the boycott itself. The company fought publicity with publicity by making a public statement of their own.
> you certainly don’t understand my posts higher up if you think I’m demanding moral purity of myself or anyone else.
You did say that those not participating in boycotts should be held “accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world”.
> To me, this all just sounds like a justification for your own lack of conscientiousness.
> Your individual boycott accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Incorrect. I've already explained why. The simple act of making choices in capitalism has an effect on the markets you participate in.
> Unlikely
But a factually true and well documented answer to your demand, which itself was little to do with my arguments, but I produced one anyway like some sort of performing seal.
> You did say that those not participating in boycotts should be held “accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world”.
Nope, certainly did not. And you're the one obsessed with boycotts, purity, "condemned" people and other such hyperbolic statements.
> No personal attacks, please.
You first eh?
At this point I'm done with this conversation and your persistent misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Have a nice life.
Then what did you mean by “I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally.”? I though you meant that people who do not participate in boycotts should be held accountable. If that is wrong, then my replies to you were irrelevant. But in that case, what did you mean?
Seems unlikely. I'd have read an argument but I don't generally consider links-to-youtube to be an argument.
> Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad?
My point is it's not impossible to make ethical choices about spending, even in a world where you don't have full control.
The idea that it is wrong to make ethical decisions about how to spend your money, time or attention, either because the system we live in makes complete consistency impossible or because of some notion that we might force people judged as bad to starve, is just so bizarre.
A thread here the other day covered several brands of "Italian" or "Australian" tomato paste in Australia that have been caught using Chinese tomatoes, which are largely from areas we know use forced labour. I don't approve of forced labour and I'm willing to pay a little more to avoid contributing to that. If enough others join me, it might make a small difference. By directing what economic activity I can to products from nations with good standards of worker rights, I hope I help keep slavery-free products viable, until such time as we get a government with a backbone.
But am I boycotting everything made in China? Could I even conceptually avoid using all Chinese products when they're literally everywhere? No, that seems very unlikely to even be possible in this day and age. But I don't consider that the inability to do that negates the choices I make where I can. Your quote makes it seem like you do think that? All or nothing? Go live in a locally made yurt and grow your own food or just give up?
> If it is, then how should these condemned people live?
Well if there's no more profit to be had in selling the output of indentured servitude, it might stop? And these "condemned" people could do something else to make a living rather than being slavers?
If a particular author was known to be (for example) funding white supremacist groups, am I supposed to feel guilt that I might not buy their book? Why? They need to eat? Maybe they could stop the funding then?
Now, where your specific red lines are is going to be variable, and where it comes to artistic output things are always blurry. But I still don't think it's wrong to ask "Where is my money going? What second order effect is this purchase having on the world?"
An author who abandoned his family and lied about large parts of his life is clearly not a good person. Whether that puts you off reading them is up to you. I still (occasionally) reread HP Lovecraft, with the knowledge he was a pretty godawful racist, even for his times, and so is some of his work. That said, buying a book of his isn't going to fund him or his views these days, as there is no identifiable estate.