"no ethical consumption under capitalism" is not a blanket permission to ignore all well organized boycotts and strikes, it's a clap back against bad faith hypocrisy dunks for wearing clothes and buying groceries from monopolies and oligopolies #HogwartsLegacy
A single individual refusing to shop at Walmart does nothing. That is not an example of a well organized boycott. "Voting with your dollar" is a fallacy *without organization, goals, and planning*
Dunking on people complaining about low wages or mistreatment of sweatshop workers or shaming working class people for buying groceries at the only place they can afford and reach, that is what the slogan "no ethical consumption under capitalism" is about.
No ethical consumption under capitalism is also a valid response to efforts to make things "fair" with campaigns to buy some luxury good as opposed to some other good. Grifters are abound selling liberals some luxury good that will supposedly save the world of they buy it instead
See: fair trade coffee, that shitty adbusters shoe, or Tesla cars.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Alabama a man who is feeling suicidal was taken to jail, like you do, and the next thing his family knew, he was dead from hypothermia of all things. How do you get hypothermia while in jail?
All cops are bastards, however when someone who is a cop decides to not be a bastard, they stop being a cop.
A officer who was fired for this in retaliation, blew the whistle and released footage that gave the answer. These good old boy Alabama cops decided to lock up this suicidal man, who should have been taken to the hospital, in a walk-in freezer for fun.
We are all one bad day away from becoming refugees. We look down on refugees because of a war or political collapse that was never their fault but it could happen to us to. If the US has a civil war, guess what, we would get to be refugees. Will others show us the same mercy?
"It can't happen here!" Everyone thinks that until it does. Look at Afghanistan in the 60s or Germany in the 1920s or even Syria not that long ago. People had stuff, they had lives and jobs and stability and then the bombs fell. Authoritarianism is rising around the world.
We look on these refugees like "bums" asking for a handout, or worse, as some sort of "invader" brought here to undermine our oh so enlightened culture. They were all like us once. We could become them, just takes some bad luck.
It's about the fallacy of needing to cover both sides in every story. You don't. We have carved out exceptions to that idea in other situations. Journalists don't feel obligated to talk to flat earthers any time a story about space exploration comes up
If we were talking about something like tort reform or raising or lowering taxes, or even an election, it makes sense to hear both sides, though notably the NYT and WaPo opted not to have any Bernie supporters among the ranks of never Trump conservatives and mainstream liberals.
But there are some positions, about people's basic human rights that we don't ask for both sides. We don't ask the Taliban how they feel about women's rights when that comes up. We don't platform someone who is pro-slavery when anti-black racism comes up.