People need to grow up and realize that moral clarity and ideological purity won't pay the rent. Just as there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, there is no ethical production, either. Everybody is complicit just by living; nobody is innocent.
Ethics are made up, so if you reach a conclusion that we're all pieces of shit and there's nothing to be done, you have the option to just rethink your system of ethics until it's sane.
Like, I'd maybe re-examine your ethical framework until it becomes an actually useful tool for figuring out what's the right thing to do in various situations. That's kind of the whole point.
e: Say, if your boss told you to shoot someone in the back of the head because he didn't want to deal with firing them. Would you say "Ah well... 'tis the way it goes under capitalism, amiright? Gotta pay the rent!". Nope, your line does exist, you just aren't showing your hand to us :P
Plenty of people manage to pay the rent without needing to completely compromise their sense of "moral clarity" or "ideological purity".
Just because there's no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean that helping Amazon union-busters agitate against bathroom breaks or smoothing the way for dozens of gigantic corporations to "headquarter" themselves in a single building in the Caymans, is somehow equivalent to working at an urbanist NGO despite owning a car or owning a computer whose assembly or constituent resources depended on child slavery (this is all of them, by the way).
It's true that none of us are "innocent", but one doesn't have to be part of the problem to make any money. Many of the conceivable blameworthy activities most of us engage in aren't really personally mediated -- I have to drive a car occasionally, but I've lived in places sporting thoughtful infrastructure that supported lifestyles in which cars were unnecessary. Having to choose to use one, and burn gas -- gasp! -- isn't a "personal choice" for most people, it's a structural consequence of the world in which they find themselves. British Petroleum invented the concept of the carbon footprint, in part to help prevent people from realizing this.
It's a little strange that this needs to be said. The employees who don't like whatever is being produced are certainly welcome to find employment elsewhere. Non-competes are not enforceable in California.
The article mentions the dust-up around Chapelle's latest, but he's been offensive for much longer -- a similar issue was raised with the 2019 special Sticks and Stones. So why this culture addendum now?
They don’t have to in the (very real) sense they can quit. In light of that, they might choose to do what their employer directs (no pun intended) or make a principled stand.
This is a good development. In the last 5 Netflix-produced movies I watched the white heterosexual male was always the predator, women were the victims, and minorities were the saviors. Watch “The weekend away” for an example. At least they could continue from the 90’s and stick with the Russians being the bad guys. Why involving us white dudes /s
[+] [-] EddieDante|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bestcoder69|3 years ago|reply
Like, I'd maybe re-examine your ethical framework until it becomes an actually useful tool for figuring out what's the right thing to do in various situations. That's kind of the whole point.
e: Say, if your boss told you to shoot someone in the back of the head because he didn't want to deal with firing them. Would you say "Ah well... 'tis the way it goes under capitalism, amiright? Gotta pay the rent!". Nope, your line does exist, you just aren't showing your hand to us :P
[+] [-] threads2|3 years ago|reply
Have you read The Rebel by Camus? He basically says the same thing. One solution is suicide. Really good book.
[+] [-] revolvingocelot|3 years ago|reply
Just because there's no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean that helping Amazon union-busters agitate against bathroom breaks or smoothing the way for dozens of gigantic corporations to "headquarter" themselves in a single building in the Caymans, is somehow equivalent to working at an urbanist NGO despite owning a car or owning a computer whose assembly or constituent resources depended on child slavery (this is all of them, by the way).
It's true that none of us are "innocent", but one doesn't have to be part of the problem to make any money. Many of the conceivable blameworthy activities most of us engage in aren't really personally mediated -- I have to drive a car occasionally, but I've lived in places sporting thoughtful infrastructure that supported lifestyles in which cars were unnecessary. Having to choose to use one, and burn gas -- gasp! -- isn't a "personal choice" for most people, it's a structural consequence of the world in which they find themselves. British Petroleum invented the concept of the carbon footprint, in part to help prevent people from realizing this.
[+] [-] aught|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baggy_trough|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 30944836|3 years ago|reply
The article mentions the dust-up around Chapelle's latest, but he's been offensive for much longer -- a similar issue was raised with the 2019 special Sticks and Stones. So why this culture addendum now?
[+] [-] prepend|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chazprime|3 years ago|reply
I suspect Americans are getting a little tired of the incessant, exaggerated culture wars stories constantly in the news.
[+] [-] electriclove|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevermindiguess|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simulate-me|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] effingwewt|3 years ago|reply
The number of times I've seen that play out over my life is staggering.
[+] [-] anamax|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newaccount2021|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]