Not at all. If you feed the oppressor, you support it. It’s a perverse stretch to claim the contrary – and it renders the word support meaningless. You cannot feed an oppressor (or promote someone else feeding an oppressor) and simultaneously claim to not support it. Vegans understand the concept well, and their movement reflects it.
Yet this is evident from his writing. He guides people to not boycott oppressors. It’s there in black and white. You seem to think the emporer wears no clothes.
I quoted him. Read my first comment. If he did not mean what he said, he should revise his statements and position.
(edit) Also, read Doctorow’s article. He repeats several times with different phrasing that an individual action is “problematic”. You’ve grossly missed his thesis. It’s one of his main conjecturing claims.
and then you made a leap of logic from what he said.
this phrase:
He’s essentially saying:
is a huge red flag. you’re not just quoting him. you’re telling everyone else how to interpret what he’s saying, removed from the context of his piece.
The problem with “conscious consumption” is that it comes out of the neoliberal tradition in which every political matter is supposedly determined by your individual actions, and not your actions as part of a union or other political institution that works as a bloc to overthrow the status quo.
“Conscious consumption” is what he uses to describe boycotting by an individual. He describes it as a “problem”. Again, it’s not just a single statement. It’s his thesis littered throughout. You’ve missed the major point in his work.
BTW, in the quote above he pushes a false dichotomy fallacy. You can (and should) boycott individually AND act in union with others taking actions. They are not mutually exclusive.
everything you’ve said in this specific comment to which i’m responding is good faith interpretation of what he said. but this isn’t the whole of what you’re claiming he is saying and implying.
Of course it’s not the whole of my position. The comment you are replying to is just one facet of the problems with Doctorow’s stance, which you misunderstood as indicated in the comment prior.
As I said, the vegan movement proves that individual boycotts are effective. Apart from that, you lose insight if you talk the talk without walking the walk. You must live the lifestyle to gain the insights on what needs to change and what to demand. Otherwise it’s like trying to fight in the dark from the outside. Like trying to fight for change in a country where you have never lived.
If you don’t actually boycott Cloudflare (for example), you have no idea the full extent of the damage it does. The superficial view of CF without experiencing life without CF does not equip you to know where the battleground is or what it looks like. You are working blind.
Not at all. If you feed the oppressor, you support it. It’s a perverse stretch to claim the contrary – and it renders the word support meaningless. You cannot feed an oppressor (or promote someone else feeding an oppressor) and simultaneously claim to not support it. Vegans understand the concept well, and their movement reflects it.
anyone who says “Cory doctorow supports oppressors and tells others to do the same” is lying.
Yet this is evident from his writing. He guides people to not boycott oppressors. It’s there in black and white. You seem to think the emporer wears no clothes.
you are making leaps of logic and accusing him of making statements he is not. this is bad faith.
I quoted him. Read my first comment. If he did not mean what he said, he should revise his statements and position.
(edit) Also, read Doctorow’s article. He repeats several times with different phrasing that an individual action is “problematic”. You’ve grossly missed his thesis. It’s one of his main conjecturing claims.
the fucking irony
and then you made a leap of logic from what he said.
this phrase:
is a huge red flag. you’re not just quoting him. you’re telling everyone else how to interpret what he’s saying, removed from the context of his piece.
Read the quote:
“Conscious consumption” is what he uses to describe boycotting by an individual. He describes it as a “problem”. Again, it’s not just a single statement. It’s his thesis littered throughout. You’ve missed the major point in his work.
BTW, in the quote above he pushes a false dichotomy fallacy. You can (and should) boycott individually AND act in union with others taking actions. They are not mutually exclusive.
everything you’ve said in this specific comment to which i’m responding is good faith interpretation of what he said. but this isn’t the whole of what you’re claiming he is saying and implying.
Of course it’s not the whole of my position. The comment you are replying to is just one facet of the problems with Doctorow’s stance, which you misunderstood as indicated in the comment prior.
if it were an effective method, i could agree. if it’s not effective, then it’s not a good use of our effort.
As I said, the vegan movement proves that individual boycotts are effective. Apart from that, you lose insight if you talk the talk without walking the walk. You must live the lifestyle to gain the insights on what needs to change and what to demand. Otherwise it’s like trying to fight in the dark from the outside. Like trying to fight for change in a country where you have never lived.
If you don’t actually boycott Cloudflare (for example), you have no idea the full extent of the damage it does. The superficial view of CF without experiencing life without CF does not equip you to know where the battleground is or what it looks like. You are working blind.