4 ms·

I don't disagree with you. However, choosing to go elsewhere isn't meant to sink Amazon - it's meant to support alternatives, to encourage others to support alt

I don't disagree with you. However, choosing to go elsewhere isn't meant to sink Amazon - it's meant to support alternatives, to encourage others to support alternatives or at least think about the situation, and yes, to make me feel better about my choices.

NoOneNew 6y ago
Yup. Also, while supporting the "competition", you allow them to play the long game to find and fund ways of taking ground from Amazon when there are missteps. But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."
- badRNG 6y ago
  >But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings." I can get behind boycotting companies we know do bad things, however I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that this is a means to ending the abuse of their workers, or a means of making the world a better place. This is a political problem, not a consumer problem. Being an ethical consumer seems to be Sisyphean task, as to do so responsibly we'd need to ensure the alternatives we purchase from aren't treating their workers even worse to hold some market share. When we factor in the complexity of supply chains, environmental considerations, and labor practices across the globe (and the relations between core and peripheral nations,) a consumer simply cannot reasonably fit their purchasing decisions within a consistent ethical framework. This is probably the reason behind the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism."
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    That phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption". To pretend capitalism is the sudden problem to the world is a feat of self delusion and dodging having any form of self-accountability. Because the world was a perfect place prior to modern capitalism? I'm not saying it's perfect, but seriously, quit pretending like it's the cause of the world's problems. The cause of all our problems is the fact we are human. That and boycotting is political mob mentality. Needing a random person, you'll never meet or have a coffee with, telling you what to do so you can be a "a good person" in their eyes is bullshit. Do it strictly because you believe in your own ethics.
    - badRNG 6y ago
      >the phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption I can think of at least some ways in which consumption might be more ethically neutral. After a natural disaster, you often see communities band together to meet each others needs however they can. In a way, this mirrors how many native cultures approach production and resource distribution. Accepting the resources I need or providing for other's needs according to my ability certainly isn't unethical. There is something fundamentally different about the nature of consumption in economies based on maximizing exchange value vs meeting greatest needs. Otherwise, you likely need to defend the increasingly controversial position that markets maximize utility greater than any alternative.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
One problem is the obvious alternative other than target, Walmart, is far worse than Amazon on almost every measure. The heirs of Sam Walton and who have billions in walmart stock today support creationism, various republican causes and they really really hate unions, much more than Amazon. Being from the south I've seen many small towns decimated by a large Walmart being built on the side of town and then killing the small businesses in the center - this happened to my grandfather's town. He understood what was happening, he was also a walmart stock holder. I'm under no illusions that Amazon has done some of the same effect on local retail. Yet amazon doesn't support creation science.

NoOneNew 6y ago

Yup. Also, while supporting the "competition", you allow them to play the long game to find and fund ways of taking ground from Amazon when there are missteps. But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."

badRNG 6y ago
>But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings." I can get behind boycotting companies we know do bad things, however I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that this is a means to ending the abuse of their workers, or a means of making the world a better place. This is a political problem, not a consumer problem. Being an ethical consumer seems to be Sisyphean task, as to do so responsibly we'd need to ensure the alternatives we purchase from aren't treating their workers even worse to hold some market share. When we factor in the complexity of supply chains, environmental considerations, and labor practices across the globe (and the relations between core and peripheral nations,) a consumer simply cannot reasonably fit their purchasing decisions within a consistent ethical framework. This is probably the reason behind the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism."
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  That phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption". To pretend capitalism is the sudden problem to the world is a feat of self delusion and dodging having any form of self-accountability. Because the world was a perfect place prior to modern capitalism? I'm not saying it's perfect, but seriously, quit pretending like it's the cause of the world's problems. The cause of all our problems is the fact we are human. That and boycotting is political mob mentality. Needing a random person, you'll never meet or have a coffee with, telling you what to do so you can be a "a good person" in their eyes is bullshit. Do it strictly because you believe in your own ethics.
  - badRNG 6y ago
    >the phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption I can think of at least some ways in which consumption might be more ethically neutral. After a natural disaster, you often see communities band together to meet each others needs however they can. In a way, this mirrors how many native cultures approach production and resource distribution. Accepting the resources I need or providing for other's needs according to my ability certainly isn't unethical. There is something fundamentally different about the nature of consumption in economies based on maximizing exchange value vs meeting greatest needs. Otherwise, you likely need to defend the increasingly controversial position that markets maximize utility greater than any alternative.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago

One problem is the obvious alternative other than target, Walmart, is far worse than Amazon on almost every measure. The heirs of Sam Walton and who have billions in walmart stock today support creationism, various republican causes and they really really hate unions, much more than Amazon. Being from the south I've seen many small towns decimated by a large Walmart being built on the side of town and then killing the small businesses in the center - this happened to my grandfather's town. He understood what was happening, he was also a walmart stock holder. I'm under no illusions that Amazon has done some of the same effect on local retail. Yet amazon doesn't support creation science.