This isn’t an airfield. You do not have to announce your departure.

Thanks.

While sure, there is leverage, but it’s not like Spotify is being arbitrary about their content. I can listen to obscure stuff, and I do. Also don’t forget that big artists are often big for a reason and it’s usually not for a lack of talent, taste just varies but certainly there always is a market for ‘pop music’.

And we’re the pawns

Yeah the problem with that kind of humour is that eventually you’ll attract the people who think the same thing unironnically.

Inaction. Like everywhere else, a lot of things go wrong but aren’t acted upon for too long because of political impotence or incompetence. Which paves the way for populist sentiment. Netherlands now has a housing crisis, a nitrogen crisis, employment shortage and then there is global warming, inflation and war in Europe.

Things we knew were coming and the sole reason the government didn’t do anything was because of the neoliberal idea that the market will solve all problems through the magic of capitalism. This has been true for the past 3 decennia now.

Our saving grace is the EU and many policies and money coming in has been touted as solutions offered by a lot of populist in the east of the EU. Giving them an air of legitimacy. But of course the EU is also the entity that has been spreading the neoliberal ideals and open markets, a single coin. So easy to paint the EU with negative side effects as a boogeyman. Just don’t mention the positive and don’t offer solutions.

The problem is that far-right populist never have solutions because they see most of the problems coming from within a corruption of culture. So they often ignore fundamental systemic solutions because they are themselves functioning because of the system they are in. Fixing things is directly undermining their right of existence. So a feedback loop is inherently present.

Once you’re in it’s extremely difficult to get out.

Look I share the same frustrations. And true change can only come from political actions. Laws, oversight, fines, taxation, enforcement… Leaving change to the market isn’t a solution to anything. We can’t consume our way out of this problem.

But that’s also not the point of our conversation, I’m trying to make clear that as a consumer you still bare responsibility over what you consume.

The problem is when people throw their hands up and just ‘get what they need’ mindlessly. That’s also a choice.

When we can make choices that are clearly better and more ethical, we should. So it is on us to do the best we can, within the system we find ourselves in. We should strive for systemic (political) change outside of consumption, as well. One doesn’t get nullified by the other.

Okay but this also doesn’t absolve you from your responsibility. At some point you’re going to make a decision about where your personal boundaries in weighing your options are. And if you’re not driving and eating (a lot) less animal products you’re further ahead of the curve than others. But deciding when you find things unsustainable, it is still another decision.

Most people don’t feel or don’t see a positive difference from their choice. So they let go of their responsibilities because of it. If there is no positive impact it doesn’t matter what they do, is their thinking.

While when you look in the supermarket now compared to ten years ago… Meat substitutes, vegan products, plant milks are abundant. So, things are changing, the choices people make are influential. It just isn’t immediate. But even within capitalism the market is responding to changes, from the personal choices of people like you and me. It’s slow and tedious, but things change.

Yes as an overarching critique that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. My problem is that this doesn’t absolve us from our responsibility. If choice A leaves trails of chemicals behind but costs less than B that leaves purity behind. I can definitely critique people who choose to get A.

Mainly because the other option is to choose to not consume. For example veganism doesn’t apply to what you’re saying. It’s a conscious decision based on ethical values. The same thing can be true for people who don’t use cars.

And even if there is a choice between lesser evils, it’s still a choice of consequence.

deleted by creator

That’s a mischaracterization of what it means to argue from ideology. They only have to accept the idea that ownership of the means of production means ownership of the pollution from the means of production.

Which is a. Very common and b. The only explanation through which this research makes sense without attributing malice.

You are the person to set in motion the apparatus necessary to accomplish the task that you wanted to be accomplished.

Yes you live in this late stage capitalist hellscape with the rest of us, but that doesn’t absolve you from being critical and making the best decisions in it.

Okay so you rather think they were doing it on purpose than doing from ideology. I have a bit more regard for people I guess

You think you’re not?

The problem here is that this research works from a Capitalist understanding of responsibility. That is to say that Besos is responsible for the emissions of Amazon, musk for space x, etc. Which means absolutely nothing. It’s a bullshit number.

“Sell it to who Ben? Fucking aquaman?”

What?

That’s just you, with intelligence, trying to explain what he, without intelligence, is doing. You’re projecting intelligence on him because he won capitalism, and Capitalism wants you to think it’s because of merit. It isn’t, he’s an idiot. Look at the name of his child… Do you think this is a person with foresight?

Thank you!

Is this a typo or the latest expression I have to remember now?