“there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism”.
The VPS hosting of every Lemmy instance is thus unethical. Mastodon is then unethical. Buying a gun to defend yourself and your home is then unethical. Buying a child food is then unethical.
Hard disagree. The issues of life are not so cut and dry.
I meant that everything you buy in a capitalist world is putting money in hands of bad people.
You buy baby food from nestle and you are giving money to terrible people.
What I implied in the post, is that that doesn’t make you a bad person. You need to live, and most importantly, you have right to enjoy your life. That would inevitably lead to giving money to bad people.
Here a corporation, Mozilla, is using a service from a bad person, twitter. Are they as bad because of it? I don’t think so. There are other people, like Bernie Sanders, who still have an active twitter account. They are doing consumption that profits bad people, but in a capitalist economy that is inevitable. Thus I don’t think the consumption of something should be the sole factor judging the ethics of a person.
We live in a society where is very hard or sometimes impossible to avoid it. Here, Mozilla or Bernie Sanders, haven’t found another social network with enough userbase for their communication purposes. I personally don’t agree with their choice, But I won’t call them fash for making that choice. Because I know how limited consumption offers are in a capitalist world.
The VPS hosting of every Lemmy instance is thus unethical. Mastodon is then unethical. Buying a gun to defend yourself and your home is then unethical. Buying a child food is then unethical.
Hard disagree. The issues of life are not so cut and dry.
Fuck Twitter tho.
I meant that everything you buy in a capitalist world is putting money in hands of bad people.
You buy baby food from nestle and you are giving money to terrible people.
What I implied in the post, is that that doesn’t make you a bad person. You need to live, and most importantly, you have right to enjoy your life. That would inevitably lead to giving money to bad people.
Here a corporation, Mozilla, is using a service from a bad person, twitter. Are they as bad because of it? I don’t think so. There are other people, like Bernie Sanders, who still have an active twitter account. They are doing consumption that profits bad people, but in a capitalist economy that is inevitable. Thus I don’t think the consumption of something should be the sole factor judging the ethics of a person.
We live in a society where is very hard or sometimes impossible to avoid it. Here, Mozilla or Bernie Sanders, haven’t found another social network with enough userbase for their communication purposes. I personally don’t agree with their choice, But I won’t call them fash for making that choice. Because I know how limited consumption offers are in a capitalist world.