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.
It’s on you to show that. I quoted him. Those words have meaning. He restated his points in multiple different ways so there is no question about his thesis. You can’t cling to this strawman claim without actually showing a difference between his words and the ideas I am opposing.
Like a politician, Doctorow is telling people what they want to hear. They want to be told they don’t need to make a potentially sacrificial personal transformation or accept the burden of personal responsibility by opting-out of being an enabler of an oppressor.
Conversely, I tell people what they /need/ to hear, as brutal as it may be. Which is aligned with Rutger Bregman’s ideology.
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.
What are you calling effective? You have an increasing population. You have a rise of meat-eating car-driving right-wing nutters voting fascists into power. What do you expect? The fact that we can walk into a restaurant and ask for a vegan menu proves positive effect occured. The fact that even prisoners can specify that they are vegan and get a vegan meal while incarcerated shows it was effective.
To be clear, “effective” does not mean “mission complete”. Abolition of slavery was very effective. That does not mean slavery is entirely eradicated. The fight against slavery will likely continue throughout our lifetime.
(edit) I suspect if you find a chart for the numbers of vegans, that will also be increasing.
this reads like cope. make any excuse you want, but if you want to save animals from the livestock industry, you’re going to need to choose an effective method.
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.
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.
I did not misunderstand. you are intentionally misinterpreting him.
It’s on you to show that. I quoted him. Those words have meaning. He restated his points in multiple different ways so there is no question about his thesis. You can’t cling to this strawman claim without actually showing a difference between his words and the ideas I am opposing.
Like a politician, Doctorow is telling people what they want to hear. They want to be told they don’t need to make a potentially sacrificial personal transformation or accept the burden of personal responsibility by opting-out of being an enabler of an oppressor.
Conversely, I tell people what they /need/ to hear, as brutal as it may be. Which is aligned with Rutger Bregman’s ideology.
and yet you still added to it. your bad faith interpretation of his statements needs no further evidence for anyone who has read this conversation.
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.
saying something doesn’t make it true.
What are you calling effective? You have an increasing population. You have a rise of meat-eating car-driving right-wing nutters voting fascists into power. What do you expect? The fact that we can walk into a restaurant and ask for a vegan menu proves positive effect occured. The fact that even prisoners can specify that they are vegan and get a vegan meal while incarcerated shows it was effective.
To be clear, “effective” does not mean “mission complete”. Abolition of slavery was very effective. That does not mean slavery is entirely eradicated. The fight against slavery will likely continue throughout our lifetime.
(edit) I suspect if you find a chart for the numbers of vegans, that will also be increasing.
this reads like cope. make any excuse you want, but if you want to save animals from the livestock industry, you’re going to need to choose an effective method.
the fucking irony