Yea I assumed that your main point was some kind of sacrifice, not the smartphones themselves. If it weren’t for the smartphones you’d be phrasing your gotcha around TVs, or washing machines, or fridges, or indoor plumbing. I’ve seen this very conservative argument before.
Progressivism and leftism aren’t some kind of ascetic christianity and nobody needs a morality preacher. Social progress is not about individual morality. And it’s not a zero sum game either.
There is enough food production and wealth in the world to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty already. I could be a selfish asshole not willing to part with my sneaker collection and that would still be the case.
Maybe there is a future where carrying around a smartphone isn’t necessary because we’ve rebuilt human connection in communities. The damn things are addictive misery machines under capitalism anyway. But that’s very different from going around wagging the finger at people that say “we could feed the hungry”.
Indoor plumbing has actually done wonders in the developing world.
It’s weird though, when the argument is billionaires should give up their stuff, that’s fine but when it’s we who might have to make sacrifices, that’s morality preaching? Seems incredibly conveniently selective.
I get that no one likes thinking of themselves as complicit but that seems a pretty poor foundation for ideology.
Nobody is talking about billionaires “giving up their stuff” or making a “sacrifice”. This is about wresting ownership of the means of production away from the capitalists. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “complicity” in this particular discussion, you’ll have to clarify.
Unclear. Are you referring to human rights abuses in cobalt mining? Are you talking specifically or abstractly? About a specific industry or generally? Individually or at the national level?
Yea I assumed that your main point was some kind of sacrifice, not the smartphones themselves. If it weren’t for the smartphones you’d be phrasing your gotcha around TVs, or washing machines, or fridges, or indoor plumbing. I’ve seen this very conservative argument before.
Progressivism and leftism aren’t some kind of ascetic christianity and nobody needs a morality preacher. Social progress is not about individual morality. And it’s not a zero sum game either.
There is enough food production and wealth in the world to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty already. I could be a selfish asshole not willing to part with my sneaker collection and that would still be the case.
Maybe there is a future where carrying around a smartphone isn’t necessary because we’ve rebuilt human connection in communities. The damn things are addictive misery machines under capitalism anyway. But that’s very different from going around wagging the finger at people that say “we could feed the hungry”.
Indoor plumbing has actually done wonders in the developing world.
It’s weird though, when the argument is billionaires should give up their stuff, that’s fine but when it’s we who might have to make sacrifices, that’s morality preaching? Seems incredibly conveniently selective.
I get that no one likes thinking of themselves as complicit but that seems a pretty poor foundation for ideology.
Nobody is talking about billionaires “giving up their stuff” or making a “sacrifice”. This is about wresting ownership of the means of production away from the capitalists. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “complicity” in this particular discussion, you’ll have to clarify.
Removed by mod
Unclear. Are you referring to human rights abuses in cobalt mining? Are you talking specifically or abstractly? About a specific industry or generally? Individually or at the national level?
Removed by mod