Comment

Comment on US supreme court sides with Starbucks in union case over fired employees

Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Nope. It’s you that aren’t comprehending that there’s no ethical consumption in capitalism and that there’s also no survival without consumption.

Thus it’s literally impossible to live up to your imaginary standards of caring about workers without being a hypocrite.

An argument that you’re making in bad faith, from ignorance, or both.

source

Sort:hotnew top

bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Don’t you know, you can just go live off the grid and become completely self sustaining… Wait, how do you pay for your property taxes… Hm…

source
Kimano@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I mean that guy is being an idiot, but it’s also not quite that simple. There is still more and less ethical consumption. A fairphone is more ethical than an iPhone, and pointing that out in good faith to someone complaining about Apple’s behavior seems entirely fair.

It’s not a complete fallacy to point out that someone is consuming something less ethical when they have a better option. Obviously it’s impossible for anyone to do this with literally everything, but absolutely you can avoid Starbucks because of their treatment of unions, and frequent a local coffee shop instead.

Granted this is mostly assuming two people having a good faith discussion, which on the internet is infrequent lol.

source
- Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  A fairphone is more ethical than an iPhone, and pointing that out in good faith to someone complaining about Apple’s behavior seems entirely fair.
  
  True. However, a Fairphone isn’t available to everyone. Every place that sells phones will offer you several kinds of iPhones with several payment plan options for those of us who don’t have $1000 available immediately. Same with several brands of Android phones for those of us that aren’t gullible enough to buy into the overpriced walled garden bullshit of Apple.
  
  Fairphone, on the other hand, isn’t available from your local provider, though. You have to buy them outright online. At least that’s how it is here in Denmark.
  
  Your example actually proves my point further: iPhones are universally available whether you can really afford one or not, whereas getting a Fairphone is much less straightforward in every way.
  
  I’d love for my next phone to be a Fairphone but unless my financial situation changes significantly, that’s not possible due to the universal favoring of less ethical brands.
  
  It’s not a complete fallacy to point out that someone is consuming something less ethical when they have a better option
  
  Bolded the key words. The frequent lack of an ethical (or even less unethical) option is my point. The only way to ALWAYS have the ethical choice available you ironically have to be wealthier than is ethically achievable.
  
  absolutely you can avoid Starbucks because of their treatment of unions, and frequent a local coffee shop instead.
  
  Not always, no. Like Walmart with grocery stores, Starbucks have been forcing out competitors to the point that they have de facto monopolies on coffee shops in some areas. You can’t choose a local shop if it doesn’t exist.
  
  Granted this is mostly assuming two people having a good faith discussion, which on the internet is infrequent lol.
  
  True lol
  
  source