Is it bullshit? Yes it is, because it only encourages people to join some pre-fabricated social movement, which will never change anything.

(February 2, 2024 at 4:35 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Is it bullshit? Yes it is, because it only encourages people to join some pre-fabricated social movement, which will never change anything.

The ONLY thing that ever creates change is a social movement. Not entirely sure what you mean by ‘pre-fabricated’.

Boru

(February 2, 2024 at 4:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 2, 2024 at 4:35 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Is it bullshit? Yes it is, because it only encourages people to join some pre-fabricated social movement, which will never change anything.

The ONLY thing that ever creates change is a social movement. Not entirely sure what you mean by ‘pre-fabricated’.

Boru

Lol what? No, not at all.

(February 2, 2024 at 4:52 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(February 2, 2024 at 4:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The ONLY thing that ever creates change is a social movement. Not entirely sure what you mean by ‘pre-fabricated’.

Boru

Lol what? No, not at all.

Bolshevik Revolution: social movement

Women’s suffrage: social movement

Abolition: social movement

Civil rights: social movement 

Child labour: social movement

I could go on if you like.

Boru

(February 2, 2024 at 6:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 2, 2024 at 4:52 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Lol what? No, not at all.

Bolshevik Revolution: social movement

Women’s suffrage: social movement

Abolition: social movement

Civil rights: social movement 

Child labour: social movement

I could go on if you like.

Boru

Yeah but, none of that stuff happened because of the social movements associated with them.

(February 2, 2024 at 6:27 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(February 2, 2024 at 6:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Bolshevik Revolution: social movement

Women’s suffrage: social movement

Abolition: social movement

Civil rights: social movement 

Child labour: social movement

I could go on if you like.

Boru

Yeah but, none of that stuff happened because of the social movements associated with them.

STFU, please.  If, and until you have something worthwhile to say.

JFC...some people.

(February 2, 2024 at 6:27 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(February 2, 2024 at 6:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Bolshevik Revolution: social movement

Women’s suffrage: social movement

Abolition: social movement

Civil rights: social movement 

Child labour: social movement

I could go on if you like.

Boru

Yeah but, none of that stuff happened because of the social movements associated with them.

Boru

(February 2, 2024 at 6:27 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(February 2, 2024 at 6:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Bolshevik Revolution: social movement

Women’s suffrage: social movement

Abolition: social movement

Civil rights: social movement 

Child labour: social movement

I could go on if you like.

Boru

Yeah but, none of that stuff happened because of the social movements associated with them.

What caused them, then? Be specific. Address each movement, and lay out what you think pushed each over the top.

Go on, get to work. No one-liners, let's see your view of those histories.

(February 2, 2024 at 2:15 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: But the problem is that it is better to be "an asshole" than to do ineffective or counter-productive things in an attempt to address the global problems.

I don't think it's ever good to be an asshole. It's kind of tautological -- "asshole" = "thing it's bad to be." 
But I agree with you that doing counter-productive things will not get the goals you think you want.

Quote:[quote pid='2189026' dateline='1706897735']

People who simply don't care about global problems are better for the world than people who are boycotting sweatshops (a very counter-productive thing).

How do you know that boycotting sweatshops is counter-productive? Do you have specific cases in mind?

Boycotts have sometimes been effective in pushing companies to change.

Quote:And who knows whether insisting on me being a vegetarian in my father's house (after my mother ended up in a prison) was morally objectionable. It definitely caused him to worry about my health (unjustifiably, but that's a predictable consequence of my actions) and to spend significantly more time cooking. Insisting on me not eating eggs would probably cause way less trouble and would certainly be way more effective in reducing my impact on superbacteria.

I don't know anything about your family's situation. I think that being a vegetarian can be a good thing, if you do it right. But I agree that if it's causing your father extra stress it may not be a good idea. 

Sticking to principle when it's causing discomfort for the people around you -- especially when it's more of a gesture than an effective strategy -- is probably not wise. 

Quote:

Belacqua Wrote:Another slogan is "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

I must admit I don't understand what that means.

Well, we all have to consume to live. Even the most ascetic of us has to consume something. And given the system that we live in, there's no way for us to do this without some people getting exploited. Anybody who uses the Internet is living on the backs of the coltan and lithium miners who get paid slave wages. So thanks, guys. 

Quote:But isn't the same true under any economic system, and not just capitalism? In fact, it's even more true under socialism, since socialism relies on coercion to work, while capitalism doesn't.

It's certainly true that no economic system has ever been perfect. 

But I don't understand how you're using the word "socialism" here, since socialism doesn't rely on coercion. 

The basic definition of socialism is that the workers own the company. That is, instead of shareholders (who don't labor) owning the company and getting the profits, the people who actually do the work hold part ownership in the place they work. They have some level of input as to what the company will do, and how the profits will be used.

(February 2, 2024 at 4:35 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Is it bullshit? Yes it is, because it only encourages people to join some pre-fabricated social movement, which will never change anything.

I agree with you that we have to be wary of social movements. 

Some of them mean well but get co-opted right away and end up serving the people they were supposed to oppose. Some of them are astroturfed from the beginning -- as you say, prefabricated. 

Some of them are only supported by a small but noisy minority, and get more media attention than they deserve. 

But sometimes -- very rarely -- people without official power can influence the way we live. 

The trouble is that to make a real change in the way the system works, the people in the movement at some point have to jump over the walls and get into the halls of power. That's the dangerous point. Way too often you see activists who were (probably) sincere about social change mutated into typical politicians once they get an office. 

And since the anti-war movement actually made some difference in the 1970s, the people in power have learned much more effective ways of shutting down such movements. So today we've got the so-called liberals actually supporting the CIA and the NSA, calling for increased government control, and cheering on war.