There’s plenty of people who are both vegan and boycotting companies like coca cola, as well as pushing back against the way the corpo ai crap is going. Just because bad things exist doesn’t mean they have to, or at the very least, that you have to use them or be complicit.
I don’t have to actively boycott Coca Cola, I just don’t drink it. I would argue equally that the people who are actively boycotting it should put their time toward something more constructive like reviving the soil.
Just seems wild to me to go “I already do bad thing, so more bad thing is fine” rather than “I am doing bad thing that I could be not doing, so I will stop doing bad thing and also not do new bad thing”
Hmm, yeah I don’t think this medium of communication is able to carry the nuances, because I also agree that the notion of “I already do bad thing, so more bad thing is fine” is wild and I’m confused if you took that from my message. I’d like to think most people who have employed some common sense and want good for the world would agree with that statement!
What I’m trying hard to communicate on this forum and seeing a lot of resistance toward is that the repetitive divergent anger (maybe we call this rage?) toward something is not constructive. I understand it’s a natural human reaction and has its place, but at some point I’d like to see humanity take radical responsibility for our shared involvement in the roles that contribute to why the world is how it is today.
I would argue we’ve been fairly unconscious about it, but now that the internet exists and we have this ability to exchange ideas across vast amounts of space, we can use the tools at our disposal in a spectrum of ways that range from good to bad. How can we make space for our human experience, but then also apply collective wisdom to make well-informed actionable steps forward?
There’s plenty of people who are both vegan and boycotting companies like coca cola, as well as pushing back against the way the corpo ai crap is going. Just because bad things exist doesn’t mean they have to, or at the very least, that you have to use them or be complicit.
I don’t have to actively boycott Coca Cola, I just don’t drink it. I would argue equally that the people who are actively boycotting it should put their time toward something more constructive like reviving the soil.
False dichotomy, one can do both :)
Just seems wild to me to go “I already do bad thing, so more bad thing is fine” rather than “I am doing bad thing that I could be not doing, so I will stop doing bad thing and also not do new bad thing”
Hmm, yeah I don’t think this medium of communication is able to carry the nuances, because I also agree that the notion of “I already do bad thing, so more bad thing is fine” is wild and I’m confused if you took that from my message. I’d like to think most people who have employed some common sense and want good for the world would agree with that statement! What I’m trying hard to communicate on this forum and seeing a lot of resistance toward is that the repetitive divergent anger (maybe we call this rage?) toward something is not constructive. I understand it’s a natural human reaction and has its place, but at some point I’d like to see humanity take radical responsibility for our shared involvement in the roles that contribute to why the world is how it is today. I would argue we’ve been fairly unconscious about it, but now that the internet exists and we have this ability to exchange ideas across vast amounts of space, we can use the tools at our disposal in a spectrum of ways that range from good to bad. How can we make space for our human experience, but then also apply collective wisdom to make well-informed actionable steps forward?