6 ms·

Let people be. There’s way too much “we need to start...” bullshit these days, and mostly spearheaded by the same group of ~500 businesses and media corps[1];

Let people be. There’s way too much “we need to start...” bullshit these days, and mostly spearheaded by the same group of ~500 businesses and media corps[1]; as if any of these fucking mega corporations give a shit about any of us. When everything you believe in starts aligning perfectly with the corporations that have been screwing you for decades (tax havens, monopolizing the industries your parents worked in, sending all our jobs over seas to underaged slaves, dumping toxins into our rivers, etc.), it’s time to rethink your thinking. 1. took me all of three seconds to find an example for the publisher in question, in what looks like The Economist running pseudo-critic defense for Nike’s sweatshops, etc.: https://www.economist.com/business/1999/02/25/sweatshop-wars https://www.economist.com/business/1999/02/25/sweatshop-wars

eigenschwarz 6y ago
Huh? Please tell me which one of these "~500 businesses and media corps" is at work here and what exactly they are saying "we need to start..." doing that is, in actuality, screwing us. Else your diatribe has zero relevance.
- core-questions 6y ago
  Your post is an example of tactical nihilism. Suddenly, you've forgotten about every corporation that has reprehensible politics that you dislike? Suddenly, every media organization is truthful, every sponsor an altruist? Honestly, how have you not seen these "we need to start doing X" posts? They rain down from the heavens on a weekly basis. "It's time to stop doing X, and do Y". "Here's why Z is problematic." It's literally corporate moralizing, sprinkled with doomsday predictions and rationalizations for hating the enemy du jour. It gets so very tiresome.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    This thread: 1. Topic A is done by evil X. 2. No it's not. 3. Why are you trying to distract from the evil of X?
  - jansan 6y ago
    Tactical nihilism Great word, I have to write that down.
  - eigenschwarz 6y ago
    Again, huh? There is simply no relevance of the rant to the article; it has nothing to do with politics or "tactical nihilism." It appears several other posters also fail to find the relevance. Less certainty, more inquiry.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
duxup 6y ago
What does your link have to do with?: "There’s way too much “we need to start...” bullshit these days, and mostly spearheaded by the same group of ~500 businesses and media corps" There's no apparent connection that I can see.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
eloff 6y ago
How are big corporations pushing preparedness for black swan events? If anything they do the opposite - see 2009. I don't see the relevance of your rant.
bobbydroptables 6y ago
>There’s way too much “we need to start...” Not really. A world as complex as ours needs to be starting new initiatives all the time. Basically every convenience you take for granted (electricity, indoor plumbing, grocery stores) was because society said "we need to start". In places where they were slow to do that, it's generally less available and lower quality or they have to rely on technology from the places and people that took initiative. We need to be starting much much more, not less.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  "we need..." is a persuasion technique. It tries to sell an idea by (a) trying to incorporate you into it the argument before you even agreed (the "we" part) and (b) pushing on through a sense of false urgency (the "need" part). "We need" is never ever an argument on itself. And it can be easily countered with: Who is this "we" you're talking about because I surely haven't agreed yet if I go along in your story. And the "need" isn't a shared need unless I'm willing to agree that it is a shared need between you and me. "We need" forces the other to think past the problem and move directly towards "solutions". As if the problem exists outside of our own experience and should be considered as a problem. "We need" never explains why a set of facts is considered a problem in the first place. It just puts the focus on solutions, maybe even solutions that detract from what truly ought to be done. The same is true when posing "society" as this homogeneous group that declares in unisono "we need to start". This couldn't be farther from the truth. "Society" is just a complex network of individuals, tribes, factions, parties,... with ever evolving shared and conflicting interests. Anything a society seemingly "agreed" upon is more emergent behaviour then deliberate action. "society" sure didn't consciously decide "we need to start using technology or believing experience x, y or z." On the contrary. There are plenty of examples of beliefs being disparaged, vilified, questioned,... to the point where their proponents were burned on the stake. Or technologies and their inventors being ridiculed or banned because nobody was interested, or it was unclear which problem they truly solved. Humanity survived just fine without electricity, indoor plumbing, grocery stores, digital technology and so on for hundreds of thousands of years. Ask any elderly person if they felt unhappy 60 or 70 years ago because they weren't able to consult Wikipedia via digital devices. They will simply answer "Well, we just went to the library. And that worked out perfectly for us. There simply wasn't an alternative and we didn't lament the lack of an alternative." Stating that society agreed to "we need to start" would putting the horse before the cart.
fzeroracer 6y ago
Corporations are bad, but that doesn't distract from two very distinct facts: 1. We let corporations do this to us. The cult of profit over all else is why all of those things you mention are an issue. As long as we keep removing regulations, laws and things that were put into place to stop companies from doing this shit, what can we honestly expect? 2. There are many things we've done which are not the result of corporations but rather our own narcissistic drive for fake freedoms above all else. The people refusing to wear masks for example or practice basic preventative measures against pandemics are not doing so because of businesses and media corps telling them to stop. They're doing so because of pervasive behavior which has infected the national debate and is peddled by elected officials. This won't change until people stand face to face with the results of their actions and unfortunately in a pandemic that means mass death. Our general reaction to the coronavirus convinced me that we're lucky it's not far, far deadlier. Because if we had to stare down a virus that would threaten our extinction, we'd choose extinction.
xvector 6y ago
How shortsighted. Humanity faces many existential threats and it is completely and utterly irresponsible to not even try to mitigate them.
rattray 6y ago
> spearheaded by the same group of ~500 businesses and media corps The Economist may be quite friendly to capitalism, but they're independently owned (mostly by wealthy families, plus some staff, per [0]). Regardless, your premise seems entirely strange to me. I hear "we need to start..." from individuals, mostly on the political left outside of the mainstream. Nike and Exxon Mobil never tell me to change things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group

eigenschwarz 6y ago

Huh? Please tell me which one of these "~500 businesses and media corps" is at work here and what exactly they are saying "we need to start..." doing that is, in actuality, screwing us. Else your diatribe has zero relevance.

core-questions 6y ago
Your post is an example of tactical nihilism. Suddenly, you've forgotten about every corporation that has reprehensible politics that you dislike? Suddenly, every media organization is truthful, every sponsor an altruist? Honestly, how have you not seen these "we need to start doing X" posts? They rain down from the heavens on a weekly basis. "It's time to stop doing X, and do Y". "Here's why Z is problematic." It's literally corporate moralizing, sprinkled with doomsday predictions and rationalizations for hating the enemy du jour. It gets so very tiresome.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  This thread: 1. Topic A is done by evil X. 2. No it's not. 3. Why are you trying to distract from the evil of X?
- jansan 6y ago
  Tactical nihilism Great word, I have to write that down.
- eigenschwarz 6y ago
  Again, huh? There is simply no relevance of the rant to the article; it has nothing to do with politics or "tactical nihilism." It appears several other posters also fail to find the relevance. Less certainty, more inquiry.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

duxup 6y ago

What does your link have to do with?: "There’s way too much “we need to start...” bullshit these days, and mostly spearheaded by the same group of ~500 businesses and media corps" There's no apparent connection that I can see.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

eloff 6y ago

How are big corporations pushing preparedness for black swan events? If anything they do the opposite - see 2009. I don't see the relevance of your rant.

bobbydroptables 6y ago

>There’s way too much “we need to start...” Not really. A world as complex as ours needs to be starting new initiatives all the time. Basically every convenience you take for granted (electricity, indoor plumbing, grocery stores) was because society said "we need to start". In places where they were slow to do that, it's generally less available and lower quality or they have to rely on technology from the places and people that took initiative. We need to be starting much much more, not less.

CaptArmchair 6y ago
"we need..." is a persuasion technique. It tries to sell an idea by (a) trying to incorporate you into it the argument before you even agreed (the "we" part) and (b) pushing on through a sense of false urgency (the "need" part). "We need" is never ever an argument on itself. And it can be easily countered with: Who is this "we" you're talking about because I surely haven't agreed yet if I go along in your story. And the "need" isn't a shared need unless I'm willing to agree that it is a shared need between you and me. "We need" forces the other to think past the problem and move directly towards "solutions". As if the problem exists outside of our own experience and should be considered as a problem. "We need" never explains why a set of facts is considered a problem in the first place. It just puts the focus on solutions, maybe even solutions that detract from what truly ought to be done. The same is true when posing "society" as this homogeneous group that declares in unisono "we need to start". This couldn't be farther from the truth. "Society" is just a complex network of individuals, tribes, factions, parties,... with ever evolving shared and conflicting interests. Anything a society seemingly "agreed" upon is more emergent behaviour then deliberate action. "society" sure didn't consciously decide "we need to start using technology or believing experience x, y or z." On the contrary. There are plenty of examples of beliefs being disparaged, vilified, questioned,... to the point where their proponents were burned on the stake. Or technologies and their inventors being ridiculed or banned because nobody was interested, or it was unclear which problem they truly solved. Humanity survived just fine without electricity, indoor plumbing, grocery stores, digital technology and so on for hundreds of thousands of years. Ask any elderly person if they felt unhappy 60 or 70 years ago because they weren't able to consult Wikipedia via digital devices. They will simply answer "Well, we just went to the library. And that worked out perfectly for us. There simply wasn't an alternative and we didn't lament the lack of an alternative." Stating that society agreed to "we need to start" would putting the horse before the cart.

fzeroracer 6y ago

Corporations are bad, but that doesn't distract from two very distinct facts: 1. We let corporations do this to us. The cult of profit over all else is why all of those things you mention are an issue. As long as we keep removing regulations, laws and things that were put into place to stop companies from doing this shit, what can we honestly expect? 2. There are many things we've done which are not the result of corporations but rather our own narcissistic drive for fake freedoms above all else. The people refusing to wear masks for example or practice basic preventative measures against pandemics are not doing so because of businesses and media corps telling them to stop. They're doing so because of pervasive behavior which has infected the national debate and is peddled by elected officials. This won't change until people stand face to face with the results of their actions and unfortunately in a pandemic that means mass death. Our general reaction to the coronavirus convinced me that we're lucky it's not far, far deadlier. Because if we had to stare down a virus that would threaten our extinction, we'd choose extinction.

xvector 6y ago

How shortsighted. Humanity faces many existential threats and it is completely and utterly irresponsible to not even try to mitigate them.

rattray 6y ago

> spearheaded by the same group of ~500 businesses and media corps The Economist may be quite friendly to capitalism, but they're independently owned (mostly by wealthy families, plus some staff, per [0]). Regardless, your premise seems entirely strange to me. I hear "we need to start..." from individuals, mostly on the political left outside of the mainstream. Nike and Exxon Mobil never tell me to change things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group