Chat

7499 readers

14 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

AskBeehaw

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

How much does a creator's worldview influence whether you use their tech or consume their media? (beehaw.org)

submitted 10 months ago by Gaywallet@beehaw.org to c/chat@beehaw.org

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Watching the drama around kagi unfold and it has me wondering how much you take into consideration a creator's view on things like homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. when deciding to use a product. I think most of us have a bar somewhere (I would imagine very few on this website would ever consider registering on an altright platform), so where is that bar for you? What about art? Have you boycotted JKR or dropped your opinion about Picasso because they're transphobic and misogynistic respectively? Is it about the general vibe of a product or piece of media, or are you more discerning? What goes into this decision and why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's the phenomenon of no ethical consumption under capitalism.

I know that saying and in my experience it's handwaving, lazy bullshit.

Let's say your daily routine included buying a snuff film about shooting three people and buying groceries at a megacorp store that mistreats it's employees. How would stopping to buy the snuff films not be a morally good thing even tho you continue shopping at that store? No one in their right mind would then say you are a hypocrite for not buying murder movies.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying it's not morally good, that's not what no ethical consumption under capitalism means. It means there's no way around doing infinitely more harm by living than the harm you do by watching any media.

Also the analogy works better if by buying groceries you are supporting the creation of like 1000 snuff films a minute but you sometimes watch a movie directed by a sexist asshole. Sure, you can stop watching the movies but morally it's a drop in an ocean of wrong.

[–] Thevenin@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

there’s no way around doing infinitely more harm by living

morally it’s a drop in an ocean of wrong.

Then why did you bother joining your co-ops? Why bother engaging with local political candidates? Why bother with locally-sourced food and clothing? Isn't it just delusion to fight against an infinite foe?

I think the answer is that you don't truly believe what you're telling us. I think you pretend to be a Friedrich Nietzsche nihilist because that suits the aesthetics of anarchy, but deep down you're a Victor Frankl nihilist. Just like the rest of us, you want to put one more drop in the bucket because whether or not it makes a difference to the cosmos, it makes a difference to you.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wish cooperative businesses were common here and I would like to work for one which is why I'm in a group that advocates for them, it's not a moral question, same with the other stuff. It also can and has had a real world effect(We helped push free public transit through) while consumer boycotts almost never do which is why morality doesn't play a part in my buying decisions. I'd like to focus on things that can help more than just make me feel good.

Also nihilism is fucking retarded, I'm not sure why you are attributing that to me. It's the 14y olds philosophy that just wants to be edgy.

[–] Thevenin@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Also nihilism is fucking [redacted], I’m not sure why you are attributing that to me.

To recap:

There’s nothing I can do unless I want to become a hunter gatherer. [...] there’s no way around doing infinitely more harm by living [...] morally it’s a drop in an ocean of wrong. [...] it’s not a moral question, same with the other stuff

If you had just said that you don't bother boycotting because your effort is currently being spent in more productive activities, then I would've given an upvote and left. But that's not exactly what you said. You said that any attempt at improving society through personal morality (short of removing yourself from it) is pointless due to the scale of the harm society inflicts. Even if you didn't mean it, that's what you stated, so that's the point I've been disagreeing with over here.

The stance that personal morality should have no place in the shaping of society (and that the common man's fight to improve society is irrelevant and naive due to the scale of the ultimate victory of the strong over the weak) is a paraphrasing of Nietzsche's disavowal of "slave morality." The stance that a person should only advocate for things that help them personally is a paraphrasing of Nietzsche's ideal of "master morality." If you don't want people associating you with that philosophy, you should be careful not to repeat it.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Sorry, if I came off as too agro, I really hate nihilism.

It wouldn't be entirely true to say I don't do boycotts because I'm busy doing other things, a more accurate reason would be twofold:

Consumer boycotts are notoriously ineffective and almost never have any results.
Morally it's only harm reduction, you aren't doing good, but avoiding doing something bad, on a scale where the reduction is insignificant.

Even if the stars aligned I probably wouldn't do boycotts for those reasons, I prefer actions that bring about good results if I choose to do something.