more baseless comments like my unfair treatment of obama supporters which no one can give any specifics on?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Stuff White People Like
#82 Hating Corporations
March 5, 2008 by clander
One of the more popular white person activities of the past fifteen years is attempting to educate others on the evils of multi-national corporations. White people love nothing more than explaining to you how Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Microsoft, Halliburton are destroying the Earth’s culture and resources.
While the growth of multi-national corporations can be attributed to a number of complex social, economic and political factors, many white people prefer to take the word of two trusted sources: No Logo and AdBusters.
Published in 2000, No Logo has been responsible for more white person “enlightenment” than any book since the burning of the library at Alexandria. By reading this one magic book, white people are able to get a full grasp on the evils of multi-national corporations and then regurgitate it to friends and family.
Advanced white people will supplement No Logo with a subscription to AdBusters, where they will learn how to subvert corporate culture and return it to the masses. Specifically, this means taking ads and redoing them to give a negative message about a product. Apparently the belief is that when other people see this ad, they will be hit with an epiphany that their entire existence has been a Matrix-style manufactured universe.
If you plan to engage in lengthy conversations or get high with white people it is recommended that you read No Logo or one issue of AdBusters. Failing that, it is acceptable to buy a copy to leave on your coffee table. When white people see it, they will recognize you as someone who can see through the advertising and has a proper perspective on life.
When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier.White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like.
Following these simple steps can help you gain the trust and respect of white people in a relatively short period of time.
When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers...
Alright...I object...
some of us white people actually perpetuate both Apple Computers AND advertising in one fell swoop!! (see "Pushing the Envelope" thread, and linked advertising for Apple computers...)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No, it's really not. Millions of people do not have computers and manage not to starve or suddenly burst into flames.
Ah, there you go again. Yes, farfromglorified, you are right, millions of people do not starve and do not burst into flames even though they do not own a computer. Thank you for showing me that.
A computer is a necessity in today's society for all sorts of things, but not for survival! Again, when we use words like "need" or "necessity", we have to understand what they mean. They imply a requirement against a standard. I need a computer to respond to your post. I need a double-shot latte to feel cool. I need a plasma TV to impress my friends. I don't need any of those things to survive.
Well, if your point is that we only need oxygen, nutrition, water and a few other things to survive, then you're right. But that's not what I was discussing.
I think we are discussing the above, so it's kind of disproving your point. Anyway, do you see the problem with these fuzzy applications of the word "need"? Of course no one "needs" five TVs, except the guy who has five TVs will probably give you the same equivocations about them as you're now giving about computers. Personally, I own probably 50 computers. Do I need them? Absolutely not! However, are they linked in ways to my own survival at a given standard and my happiness to a certain extent? Sure.
I was talking about survival in the Western society. Now, of course you can again cite the few examples of bums who live on the streets without anything, but that's not what I mean.
Surviving to a lot of people simply means making sure they can put food on the table. That requires money in today's society. To gain money one must have an income. Some jobs, or more and more jobs require a computer, thus to the people who work these jobs computers are a necessity to do their jobs, which they earn money with, which they use to buy food.
You could tell people who need a computer for their jobs, that they don't need it to survive and you'd be right. But they do need food. And in our Western society food costs money. So one might say they need money to survive, unless they can get food without paying for it.
Now if we're talking about survival in this sense, could you explain to me how or why one might need five TVs or a huge mansion?
The unfortunate consequence of debating "need" against fuzzy standards is that one simply seeks to impose one's values on others. I can invent all sorts of reasons why I need my computers, but certainy you don't need your millions of dollars or your 5 bedroom house or your fancy new watch. The fact of the matter is that people seek out the things that make them happy and absolutely should be allowed to do so based on their standards. And if they amass material fortune expecting joy and find nothing but misery there, so be it. Why should I care? If any of us believes we have a right to seek out happiness on our own standards, then we absolutely need to have the ability to do so without others imposing their definitions of happiness or need upon us.
Some people might find happiness in killing other people. Some might find happiness in stealing your stuff. Some might find happiness in throwing garbage all over your front lawn.
Ah, these are criminal offenses you say? But isn't that an imposed standard as well? Why should you get to pollute the air I breathe and the water I drink? Why do you have the right to trample all over this world in your pursuit of happiness? What if your defintion of happiness makes me unhappy or worse my pursuit of happiness impossible?
Don't kid yourself, someone's will is always imposed on others.
edit: also you'll see how roland mentions in his post how he wishes to break free from that cycle, which is imposed on him, as much as possible. That means he isn't really imposing his will on you but rather looking for ways to escape the will or definition of happiness you impose on him.
And futhermore, the good ole "you don't need a computer" is also used when people are not talking about "survival'
I was talking about survival in the Western society. Now, of course you can again cite the few examples of bums who live on the streets without anything, but that's not what I mean.
I can also cite an example of a man I used to work for who is worth about $200,000,000 who wouldn't even know how to turn on a computer or a cell phone, let alone use one.
Surviving to a lot of people simply means making sure they can put food on the table. That requires money in today's society. To gain money one must have an income. Some jobs, or more and more jobs require a computer, thus to the people who work these jobs computers are a necessity to do their jobs, which they earn money with, which they use to buy food.
You could tell people who need a computer for their jobs, that they don't need it to survive and you'd be right. But they do need food. And in our Western society food costs money. So one might say they need money to survive, unless they can get food without paying for it.
LOL...so your contention is that, if all computers simply disappeared off of our desks one night, we'd all starve the next day? Please.
Yes, many people's jobs require computers and many people (myself included) would not have our given occupation without computers. Yet absent those computers and occupations, I think most of us would still eat.
Now if we're talking about survival in this sense, could you explain to me how or why one might need five TVs or a huge mansion?
By your logic, it's not hard. Simply link your TVs or your mansion somehow to your occupation and *bingo*...death averted.
Realistically, however, a person might say they need 5 TVs to "stay informed" or to "stay sane" or to "keep their kids happy" or to "watch Lou Dobbs and play Call of Duty 4 at the same time".
Some people might find happiness in killing other people. Some might find happiness in stealing your stuff. Some might find happiness in throwing garbage all over your front lawn.
Ah, these are criminal offenses you say? But isn't that an imposed standard as well? Why should you get to pollute the air I breathe and the water I drink? Why do you have the right to trample all over this world in your pursuit of happiness? What if your defintion of happiness makes me unhappy or worse my pursuit of happiness impossible?
Don't kid yourself, someone's will is always imposed on others.
edit: also you'll see how roland mentions in his post how he wishes to break free from that cycle, which is imposed on him, as much as possible. That means he isn't really imposing his will on you but rather looking for ways to escape the will or definition of happiness you impose on him.
And futhermore, the good ole "you don't need a computer" is also used when people are not talking about "survival'
Someone's will is not necessarily imposed on others. But if you believe the path to happiness is found in imposing on others, I have absolutely no problem with that. Pollute away! Throw trash on my lawn! However, they can't then turn around and suggest they have a right to clean air or clean lawns. Whether or not their actions are "criminal" doesn't concern me. Whether or not their actions are consistent with their own values does.
What has gotten better in the last 10 years because of the internet? People did more before the internet to protest war during Vietnam..
People have opinions. They read and agree with what they want. Sure messages get out, but people only consider and read the messages they agree with.. I'm still not seeing how the internet has helped anything.
With the greatness of the internet age, we still managed to elect Bush two times.
Like I asked, give me an example of what has gotten better and my opinion will sway. I hope I'm wrong because I can't think of anything.
What has gotten better in the last 10 years because of the internet? People did more before the internet to protest war during Vietnam..
People have opinions. They read and agree with what they want. Sure messages get out, but people only consider and read the messages they agree with.. I'm still not seeing how the internet has helped anything.
With the greatness of the internet age, we still managed to elect Bush two times.
Like I asked, give me an example of what has gotten better and my opinion will sway. I hope I'm wrong because I can't think of anything.
I can also cite an example of a man I used to work for who is worth about $200,000,000 who wouldn't even know how to turn on a computer or a cell phone, let alone use one.
Congratulations!
LOL...so your contention is that, if all computers simply disappeared off of our desks one night, we'd all starve the next day? Please.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that if you took a person's computer away he would die of starvation the very next day. Or he'd burst into flames.
:rolleyes:
Yes, many people's jobs require computers and many people (myself included) would not have our given occupation without computers. Yet absent those computers and occupations, I think most of us would still eat.
Tell me how most of you would eat without a means to pay for food.
By your logic, it's not hard. Simply link your TVs or your mansion somehow to your occupation and *bingo*...death averted.
Death averted! Hooray! Spontaneous combustion averted!
Your job either requires those things or not. Most people do not have jobs that require multiple Tvs and huge mansions. I'm sure you know somebody who does have a job like that :rolleyes:
Realistically, however, a person might say they need 5 TVs to "stay informed" or to "stay sane" or to "keep their kids happy" or to "watch Lou Dobbs and play Call of Duty 4 at the same time".
We were talking about earning money so you can buy food.
Furthermore, in reality one can only watch one TV at a time. Also in reality when one needs a TV to stay sane, there's something wrong with him.
Someone's will is not necessarily imposed on others.
Of course it is.
But if you believe the path to happiness is found in imposing on others, I have absolutely no problem with that. Pollute away! Throw trash on my lawn!
So you're also ok with it if someone beats up your children. Beat away! If someone murders your family? Murder away! Or you have no problem with it if sixteen people you have never met came to live in your house! Live away!
The fact is, the lifestyles of many impose on other people's pursuit of happiness.
However, they can't then turn around and suggest they have a right to clean air or clean lawns.
They can't but you might want to.
Whether or not their actions are "criminal" doesn't concern me. Whether or not their actions are consistent with their own values does.
So people can murder, loot, steal, set fires, pollute the whole fucking planet and tax you for all kinds of things as long as it's consistent with their own values?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that if you took a person's computer away he would die of starvation the very next day. Or he'd burst into flames.
Tell me how most of you would eat without a means to pay for food.
You recognize that eating predates paying, yes? And you recognize that money predates computers, yes? Before our fancy laptops and blackberrys, people both ate and had occupations. And while computers create new occupations and generally lead to great increases in productivity for many occupations, their absence would not end civilization or productive society.
Your job either requires those things or not. Most people do not have jobs that require multiple Tvs and huge mansions. I'm sure you know somebody who does have a job like that :rolleyes:
One of my good friends runs a public access network and "needs" many TVs. And not too long ago on this board, many defended Al Gore's mansion as a requirement for his occupation of statesmanship.
Furthermore, in reality one can only watch one TV at a time. Also in reality when one needs a TV to stay sane, there's something wrong with him.
LOL...that's the rub. In reality, if one needs a computer to keep their job, one is an idiot. See how that works? My needs are perfectly sane and justifiable. Your "needs" are crazy and false.
Of course it is.
You've created a false absolute. My will does not necessarily trump yours. It can, but it doesn't need to.
So you're also ok with it if someone beats up your children. Beat away! If someone murders your family? Murder away! Or you have no problem with it if sixteen people you have never met came to live in your house! Live away!
Absolutely. People have every right to beat up children, murder families, or disregard property rights. Those people, however, demonstrate no adherance to their own rights of safety, life, or property. Find me the thief that doesn't claim to own what he stole. Find me the murderer who doesn't claim a right to life. Those are rare indeed.
The fact is, the lifestyles of many impose on other people's pursuit of happiness.
Sometimes, yes. However, it's far more common that the lifestyles of many simply impose on other people's happiness, not the pursuit. And when someone else's lifestyle imposes on your happiness directly, the problem is typically that you weren't pursuing happiness to begin with -- you were expecting it to be given to you.
So people can murder, loot, steal, set fires, pollute the whole fucking planet and tax you for all kinds of things as long as it's consistent with their own values?
That's a rather odd philosophy, man.
It's not an odd philosophy at all. It's called logic. Certainly people have every right to murder, loot, steal, burn, pollute, and tax. They can do it can't they? Nature granted them that ability. What they cannot do, however, is what nature doesn't allow them to do and that is to live by contradictory principles.
You can continue to mock me, I don't care, but that's not what I said.
If you can show me where I said you'd die the very next day if I took your computer away, go ahead (andmy sarcastisc post doesn't count). And please while you're at it, please show me where I said you'd burst into flames.
I can take away someone's food today and he won't starve, I can take that same person's food away the next day and yet he won't starve and I can do it again the next day and again he won't be dead. I guess by your logic one doesn't need food to survive, because needing something to survive obviously means you need it within 24 hours or you'll die or burst into flames.
You recognize that eating predates paying, yes? And you recognize that money predates computers, yes? Before our fancy laptops and blackberrys, people both ate and had occupations. And while computers create new occupations and generally lead to great increases in productivity for many occupations, their absence would not end civilization or productive society.
Ah, yes. So what you're saying is you don't need a computer because people before us didn't need a computer. They used a shovel for their jobs for example. Ah, but they don't need a shovel either because people before them didn't have a fancy shovel. We can go all the way back to the hunter-gatherer society even though I clearly said I was talking about today's society. Not the society of previous generations.
So please answer the question with a realistic answer. How would all the people in the Western world who have a job that requires a computer buy their food if tomorrow all computers disappeared. The fact is there would be a very large number of unemployed. There would be an economic crisis.
Also, please point out where I said that if you took away computers civilization would end.
LOL...that's the rub. In reality, if one needs a computer to keep their job, one is an idiot. See how that works? My needs are perfectly sane and justifiable. Your "needs" are crazy and false.
If your job is webmaster you need a computer. Without one you cannot keep your job, because you wouldn't be able to do your job. How does that make one an idiot?
Go to a hundred doctors and tell them you need a tv because you'll go insane without one. They'll all tell you you have a problem, but I'm sure you'll say they are wrong and their claims are false and that's it's perfectly normal that people go insane if they don't have a TV around.
You've created a false absolute. My will does not necessarily trump yours. It can, but it doesn't need to.
I disagree.
Absolutely. People have every right to beat up children, murder families, or disregard property rights. Those people, however, demonstrate no adherance to their own rights of safety, life, or property. Find me the thief that doesn't claim to own what he stole. Find me the murderer who doesn't claim a right to life. Those are rare indeed.
Find me a person who wants clean air, find me a person who wants fresh healthy water, find me a person who wants a healthy planet for their children. Many of them do pollute water, do pollute the air, do fuck up our planet. Those are not rare at all.
Sometimes, yes. However, it's far more common that the lifestyles of many simply impose on other people's happiness, not the pursuit. And when someone else's lifestyle imposes on your happiness directly, the problem is typically that you weren't pursuing happiness to begin with -- you were expecting it to be given to you.
No, sorry I am not expecting it to be given to me.
It's not an odd philosophy at all. It's called logic. Certainly people have every right to murder, loot, steal, burn, pollute, and tax. They can do it can't they? Nature granted them that ability. What they cannot do, however, is what nature doesn't allow them to do and that is to live by contradictory principles.
Actually, farfromglorified, thousands, millions if not billions of people live by contradictory principles every day. I guess nature granted them that ability after all.
You can continue to mock me, I don't care, but that's not what I said.
First, I'm not mocking you, particularly as you've done nothing to deserve being mocked. Second, unless I've totally misunderstood you, you have been saying that a computer is a justifiable need vis a vis survival. That contention simply does not hold up.
I can take away someone's food today and he won't starve, I can take that same person's food away the next day and yet he won't starve and I can do it again the next day and again he won't be dead. I guess by your logic one doesn't need food to survive, because needing something to survive obviously means you need it within 24 hours or you'll die or burst into flames.
One does need food to survive. Food is a requirement of human survival. A computer, however, is not. A lack of food guarantees a death directly related to that lack. A lack of computers (or tvs or houses or cell phones or shoes) does not.
One may argue that a computer or a tv or shoes or nearly any other good enhances life, degrades life or better assures survival or detracts from survival for some or many, but you cannot create an absolute need for those goods vis a vis survival.
Ah, yes. So what you're saying is you don't need a computer because people before us didn't need a computer. They used a shovel for their jobs for example. Ah, but they don't need a shovel either because people before them didn't have a fancy shovel. We can go all the way back to the hunter-gatherer society even though I clearly said I was talking about today's society. Not the society of previous generations.
You can go all the way back, but you don't need to. "Today's society" can quickly turn into "yesterday's society" as opposed to some vision of "tomorrow's society". Society is not some great progression down the path of better technology, despite what many would have you believe. Many times and in many places, human societies have regressed and survived (though not always comfortably or universally). I'm certainly not advocating for the regression, but it is possible and, if it occurred, life would most certainly continue.
So please answer the question with a realistic answer. How would all the people in the Western world who have a job that requires a computer buy their food if tomorrow all computers disappeared. The fact is there would be a very large number of unemployed. There would be an economic crisis.
Unemployment and economic crises do not equate to survival or the lack thereof in absolute terms. A theoretical elimination of computers would most certainly create a shock to our economy. But even if computers disappeared, farms and distribution networks would not disappear with them. Your grocery store would probably still be open. Your garden would not wither and die. Bacon would not become un-delicious.
Also, please point out where I said that if you took away computers civilization would end.
Perhaps you're not understanding me. A need is a requirement of something to reach a goal. If survival is a goal, and to you a computer is a need, then you are saying without computers we would not survive.
Perhaps! I'm not saying that a person who justifies owning TVs "to stay sane" is correct. I'm saying that a person will certainly invoke fuzzy links between his possessions and his goals, just like you're doing with the computer/suvival dynamic. It could certainly be argued that a person whose survival is based on a fallible collection of silicone, copper, and plastic also "has a problem".
What I am suggesting is that people should not be so hasty to apply the concept of "need" in terms of determining someone's rights or jusfitications in doing something, acquiring something, or pursuing their goals. It makes for terrible conflicts in which people constantly contradict themselves while attempting to maintain their standard of living while at the same time changing the standard of livings of others based not upon the values of those others but rather on the values of one person.
If your job is webmaster you need a computer. Without one you cannot keep your job, because you wouldn't be able to do your job. How does that make one an idiot?
LOL...it doesn't. But there are plenty of people who need all sorts of things for "their job", "their happiness", "their sanity", "their insecurities", "their families", etc, etc, etc, etc. Yet people like you might say "they have a problem" based on your standards.
Go to a hundred doctors and tell them you need a tv because you'll go insane without one. They'll all tell you you have a problem, but I'm sure you'll say they are wrong and their claims are false and that's it's perfectly normal that people go insane if they don't have a TV around.
Go to a hundred doctors and tell them you need a computer because you can't survive without one. Webmaster or otherwise, they'll laugh at you.
I disagree.
Ok.
Find me a person who wants clean air, find me a person who wants fresh healthy water, find me a person who wants a healthy planet for their children. Many of them do pollute water, do pollute the air, do fuck up our planet. Those are not rare at all.
Absolutely. A want and a principle are not the same thing, and you've just defined the difference between them.
No, sorry I am not expecting it to be given to me.
I'm not saying you are.
Actually, farfromglorified, thousands, millions if not billions of people live by contradictory principles every day. I guess nature granted them that ability after all.
LOL...no, they don't. Millions of people say one thing and do another every day. That's not living by contradictory principles. That's simply hypocrisy.
Farfromglorified (your name is Jeff, right?), I'm done with this discussion about the semantics of the words "need" and "survival."
I never once said people should only buy stuff they need to survive. I was merely saying that "you don't need a computer" is a rather childish way of addressing another poster's point, especially if one doesn't even address the rest of his post.
Anyway, why don't I just state what I think, it'll be easier, I think.
First of all, no, I don't think people should only buy the things they need to survive. I don't care if people buy a couch, a tv, a car, a computer or an xbox.
What I do care about is the state of our planet. It's not a secret that we are fucking it up. We're chopping down our rain forests because people need furniture made from wood that only grows in tropical rain forests. We're continually and continously polluting our air and our water because people's needs demand more industry. Furthermore, all these things people buy are wrapped in plastic, then again in paper, then boxed and then the box is filled with polystyrene.
I realize that we can't just stop industry. I realize you can't say: 'people stop buying everything'. But you can point out that continuing this trend will have a lot of negative consequences. And I'm only doing that. The Western way of life is not sustainable if we want to keep and perserve what little we have left of nature, fresh water ... and basically our planet.
And that's basically what Roland said in the beginning. He wants to break free from this cycle he's pushed in or born into. If he wants to grow his own vegetables, keep chickens and only buy meat, he'll first need a place where he can do that. He probably needs money to acquire such a place. It could very well be that he needs a computer for his job. So no, a computer is not a justifiable need for survival, you're right about that. But it is a means of getting to his goal and if you know this than is it so difficult to assume he might not have the ability to live the way he wants now but uses his computer as a means to reach that goal?
In his post he stated he already does what he can, he already grows some of his own vegetables... He's already taking steps towards what he wants to achieve. And sure, he might have used the wrong word (survive) but he probably didn't expect to encounter the lexical Inquisition...
So all I'm saying is that people need to think what's more important to them; a future in which their children and grandchildren can live in a healthy environment or a future in which their children will have a nice set of furniture and two very nice mansions but no clean air and no fresh water. Or a future where their kids do have clean air and water, but only regular furniture and regular houses.
I believe Guru was right when he said: "the beautiful world as we know it is definitely at risk." And I don't think I'm imposing my will on anyone if I'm only sharing my views.
Thanks for the post. Much of what you say is not only valid, it's highly important and I don't disagree with it at all.
There's an interesting lesson to be learned in how you frame Roland's post above. Certainly one may argue that they wish to live a simpler life and that, in the short term, a more complex life might help them acquire that in the long term. That's a completely valid point and would apply well to Roland's post had it not been as much about other people as it was about him. Regardless, can that same principle not be applied to society? Might our own waste and impacts now lead to something better in the future?
One may certainly say that the excessive consumption of Western societies creates a net negative on the environment, individual happiness, or all sorts of desirables. And perhaps our way of life may prove to be "unsustainable", but there's little evidence that actually demonstrates that it fits such a moniker. Human beings have never been more numerous or more wealthy. Will that be short-lived?
Stuff White People Like
#82 Hating Corporations
March 5, 2008 by clander
One of the more popular white person activities of the past fifteen years is attempting to educate others on the evils of multi-national corporations. White people love nothing more than explaining to you how Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Microsoft, Halliburton are destroying the Earth’s culture and resources.
While the growth of multi-national corporations can be attributed to a number of complex social, economic and political factors, many white people prefer to take the word of two trusted sources: No Logo and AdBusters.
Published in 2000, No Logo has been responsible for more white person “enlightenment” than any book since the burning of the library at Alexandria. By reading this one magic book, white people are able to get a full grasp on the evils of multi-national corporations and then regurgitate it to friends and family.
Advanced white people will supplement No Logo with a subscription to AdBusters, where they will learn how to subvert corporate culture and return it to the masses. Specifically, this means taking ads and redoing them to give a negative message about a product. Apparently the belief is that when other people see this ad, they will be hit with an epiphany that their entire existence has been a Matrix-style manufactured universe.
If you plan to engage in lengthy conversations or get high with white people it is recommended that you read No Logo or one issue of AdBusters. Failing that, it is acceptable to buy a copy to leave on your coffee table. When white people see it, they will recognize you as someone who can see through the advertising and has a proper perspective on life.
When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier.White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like.
Following these simple steps can help you gain the trust and respect of white people in a relatively short period of time.
These have been amusing until this one.
There are many reason's all people should be against the status quo regarding corporations.
The media control is just a small (very important) part of it. The way television shows are designed, even news broadcasts...they have 7 minutes of conversation interupted by 2 minutes of commercials. If you have someone on the air saying pretty radical things like, "There is an American holocaust every year", or "The people in the US are subjected to more propaganda than any other country,"or the US is basically a 1 party system,"...your gonna need more than 7 minutes to defend your points.
Thats the genius of the system, it only allows for regurgitation of conventional ideology.
What has gotten better in the last 10 years because of the internet? People did more before the internet to protest war during Vietnam..
People have opinions. They read and agree with what they want. Sure messages get out, but people only consider and read the messages they agree with.. I'm still not seeing how the internet has helped anything.
With the greatness of the internet age, we still managed to elect Bush two times.
Like I asked, give me an example of what has gotten better and my opinion will sway. I hope I'm wrong because I can't think of anything.
ok, the closest gas station to me is less than a minute. this particular store gets its gas from a company named Valero. thanks to the internet i know that Valero uses an additive in their gas that gets into the water supply. so, now i know i shouldn't support such a company. b/c of the internet i know nestle get's their chocolate from cocoa plantations on the ivory coast which used child slave labor, which is also against my conscience to support. b/c of the internet i know coke privatized water in india and severely polluted the water left over for the actual ppl.
b/c of this i'm not gonna 'shut nestle down!!!' but i can feel better knowing i'm not supporting such acts w/ my money and to me that means a lot
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
corporations control our media, our view of the world and life. they tell us who is electable and realistic. essentially they tell us who to vote for. it's obvious how much of our governmental policy is catered towards corporate interests and lobbyists have more sway than me and you.
so why play along? the only person who can make a candidate unelectable is you.
I'm not playing along. Why are you?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i'd also like to point out that the internet has been very necessary for my spiritual and mental growth/evolution. there are several ppl i met online that have contributed significantly to this and since they live in other states and even countries i seriously doubt i would have even ever known of them w/o the internet. so yes, i find my personal evolution as necessity
i would never have know of abook, baraka even farfromglorified! or the friends in canda, belgium, the UK, the netherlands, norway, germany, italy....and each on of those ppl have helped change the way i think and view things
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
more baseless comments like my unfair treatment of obama supporters which no one can give any specifics on?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Stuff White People Like
#82 Hating Corporations
March 5, 2008 by clander
One of the more popular white person activities of the past fifteen years is attempting to educate others on the evils of multi-national corporations. White people love nothing more than explaining to you how Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Microsoft, Halliburton are destroying the Earth’s culture and resources.
While the growth of multi-national corporations can be attributed to a number of complex social, economic and political factors, many white people prefer to take the word of two trusted sources: No Logo and AdBusters.
Published in 2000, No Logo has been responsible for more white person “enlightenment” than any book since the burning of the library at Alexandria. By reading this one magic book, white people are able to get a full grasp on the evils of multi-national corporations and then regurgitate it to friends and family.
Advanced white people will supplement No Logo with a subscription to AdBusters, where they will learn how to subvert corporate culture and return it to the masses. Specifically, this means taking ads and redoing them to give a negative message about a product. Apparently the belief is that when other people see this ad, they will be hit with an epiphany that their entire existence has been a Matrix-style manufactured universe.
If you plan to engage in lengthy conversations or get high with white people it is recommended that you read No Logo or one issue of AdBusters. Failing that, it is acceptable to buy a copy to leave on your coffee table. When white people see it, they will recognize you as someone who can see through the advertising and has a proper perspective on life.
When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier.White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like.
Following these simple steps can help you gain the trust and respect of white people in a relatively short period of time.
some of us white people actually perpetuate both Apple Computers AND advertising in one fell swoop!! (see "Pushing the Envelope" thread, and linked advertising for Apple computers...)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ah, there you go again. Yes, farfromglorified, you are right, millions of people do not starve and do not burst into flames even though they do not own a computer. Thank you for showing me that.
Well, if your point is that we only need oxygen, nutrition, water and a few other things to survive, then you're right. But that's not what I was discussing.
I was talking about survival in the Western society. Now, of course you can again cite the few examples of bums who live on the streets without anything, but that's not what I mean.
Surviving to a lot of people simply means making sure they can put food on the table. That requires money in today's society. To gain money one must have an income. Some jobs, or more and more jobs require a computer, thus to the people who work these jobs computers are a necessity to do their jobs, which they earn money with, which they use to buy food.
You could tell people who need a computer for their jobs, that they don't need it to survive and you'd be right. But they do need food. And in our Western society food costs money. So one might say they need money to survive, unless they can get food without paying for it.
Now if we're talking about survival in this sense, could you explain to me how or why one might need five TVs or a huge mansion?
Some people might find happiness in killing other people. Some might find happiness in stealing your stuff. Some might find happiness in throwing garbage all over your front lawn.
Ah, these are criminal offenses you say? But isn't that an imposed standard as well? Why should you get to pollute the air I breathe and the water I drink? Why do you have the right to trample all over this world in your pursuit of happiness? What if your defintion of happiness makes me unhappy or worse my pursuit of happiness impossible?
Don't kid yourself, someone's will is always imposed on others.
edit: also you'll see how roland mentions in his post how he wishes to break free from that cycle, which is imposed on him, as much as possible. That means he isn't really imposing his will on you but rather looking for ways to escape the will or definition of happiness you impose on him.
And futhermore, the good ole "you don't need a computer" is also used when people are not talking about "survival'
naděje umírá poslední
I can also cite an example of a man I used to work for who is worth about $200,000,000 who wouldn't even know how to turn on a computer or a cell phone, let alone use one.
LOL...so your contention is that, if all computers simply disappeared off of our desks one night, we'd all starve the next day? Please.
Yes, many people's jobs require computers and many people (myself included) would not have our given occupation without computers. Yet absent those computers and occupations, I think most of us would still eat.
By your logic, it's not hard. Simply link your TVs or your mansion somehow to your occupation and *bingo*...death averted.
Realistically, however, a person might say they need 5 TVs to "stay informed" or to "stay sane" or to "keep their kids happy" or to "watch Lou Dobbs and play Call of Duty 4 at the same time".
Someone's will is not necessarily imposed on others. But if you believe the path to happiness is found in imposing on others, I have absolutely no problem with that. Pollute away! Throw trash on my lawn! However, they can't then turn around and suggest they have a right to clean air or clean lawns. Whether or not their actions are "criminal" doesn't concern me. Whether or not their actions are consistent with their own values does.
People have opinions. They read and agree with what they want. Sure messages get out, but people only consider and read the messages they agree with.. I'm still not seeing how the internet has helped anything.
With the greatness of the internet age, we still managed to elect Bush two times.
Like I asked, give me an example of what has gotten better and my opinion will sway. I hope I'm wrong because I can't think of anything.
You've got to be kidding me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Congratulations!
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that if you took a person's computer away he would die of starvation the very next day. Or he'd burst into flames.
:rolleyes:
Tell me how most of you would eat without a means to pay for food.
Death averted! Hooray! Spontaneous combustion averted!
Your job either requires those things or not. Most people do not have jobs that require multiple Tvs and huge mansions. I'm sure you know somebody who does have a job like that :rolleyes:
We were talking about earning money so you can buy food.
Furthermore, in reality one can only watch one TV at a time. Also in reality when one needs a TV to stay sane, there's something wrong with him.
Of course it is.
So you're also ok with it if someone beats up your children. Beat away! If someone murders your family? Murder away! Or you have no problem with it if sixteen people you have never met came to live in your house! Live away!
The fact is, the lifestyles of many impose on other people's pursuit of happiness.
They can't but you might want to.
So people can murder, loot, steal, set fires, pollute the whole fucking planet and tax you for all kinds of things
That's a rather odd philosophy, man.
naděje umírá poslední
That is what you're saying, when you claim that computers are a requirement for (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/need) survival.
You recognize that eating predates paying, yes? And you recognize that money predates computers, yes? Before our fancy laptops and blackberrys, people both ate and had occupations. And while computers create new occupations and generally lead to great increases in productivity for many occupations, their absence would not end civilization or productive society.
One of my good friends runs a public access network and "needs" many TVs. And not too long ago on this board, many defended Al Gore's mansion as a requirement for his occupation of statesmanship.
LOL...that's the rub. In reality, if one needs a computer to keep their job, one is an idiot. See how that works? My needs are perfectly sane and justifiable. Your "needs" are crazy and false.
You've created a false absolute. My will does not necessarily trump yours. It can, but it doesn't need to.
Absolutely. People have every right to beat up children, murder families, or disregard property rights. Those people, however, demonstrate no adherance to their own rights of safety, life, or property. Find me the thief that doesn't claim to own what he stole. Find me the murderer who doesn't claim a right to life. Those are rare indeed.
Sometimes, yes. However, it's far more common that the lifestyles of many simply impose on other people's happiness, not the pursuit. And when someone else's lifestyle imposes on your happiness directly, the problem is typically that you weren't pursuing happiness to begin with -- you were expecting it to be given to you.
It's not an odd philosophy at all. It's called logic. Certainly people have every right to murder, loot, steal, burn, pollute, and tax. They can do it can't they? Nature granted them that ability. What they cannot do, however, is what nature doesn't allow them to do and that is to live by contradictory principles.
You can continue to mock me, I don't care, but that's not what I said.
If you can show me where I said you'd die the very next day if I took your computer away, go ahead (andmy sarcastisc post doesn't count). And please while you're at it, please show me where I said you'd burst into flames.
I can take away someone's food today and he won't starve, I can take that same person's food away the next day and yet he won't starve and I can do it again the next day and again he won't be dead. I guess by your logic one doesn't need food to survive, because needing something to survive obviously means you need it within 24 hours or you'll die or burst into flames.
Ah, yes. So what you're saying is you don't need a computer because people before us didn't need a computer. They used a shovel for their jobs for example. Ah, but they don't need a shovel either because people before them didn't have a fancy shovel. We can go all the way back to the hunter-gatherer society even though I clearly said I was talking about today's society. Not the society of previous generations.
So please answer the question with a realistic answer. How would all the people in the Western world who have a job that requires a computer buy their food if tomorrow all computers disappeared. The fact is there would be a very large number of unemployed. There would be an economic crisis.
Also, please point out where I said that if you took away computers civilization would end.
Actually, if you need a TV to stay sane (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=69764&dict=CALD), you have a problem.
If your job is webmaster you need a computer. Without one you cannot keep your job, because you wouldn't be able to do your job. How does that make one an idiot?
Go to a hundred doctors and tell them you need a tv because you'll go insane without one. They'll all tell you you have a problem, but I'm sure you'll say they are wrong and their claims are false and that's it's perfectly normal that people go insane if they don't have a TV around.
I disagree.
Find me a person who wants clean air, find me a person who wants fresh healthy water, find me a person who wants a healthy planet for their children. Many of them do pollute water, do pollute the air, do fuck up our planet. Those are not rare at all.
No, sorry I am not expecting it to be given to me.
Actually, farfromglorified, thousands, millions if not billions of people live by contradictory principles every day. I guess nature granted them that ability after all.
naděje umírá poslední
First, I'm not mocking you, particularly as you've done nothing to deserve being mocked. Second, unless I've totally misunderstood you, you have been saying that a computer is a justifiable need vis a vis survival. That contention simply does not hold up.
One does need food to survive. Food is a requirement of human survival. A computer, however, is not. A lack of food guarantees a death directly related to that lack. A lack of computers (or tvs or houses or cell phones or shoes) does not.
One may argue that a computer or a tv or shoes or nearly any other good enhances life, degrades life or better assures survival or detracts from survival for some or many, but you cannot create an absolute need for those goods vis a vis survival.
You can go all the way back, but you don't need to. "Today's society" can quickly turn into "yesterday's society" as opposed to some vision of "tomorrow's society". Society is not some great progression down the path of better technology, despite what many would have you believe. Many times and in many places, human societies have regressed and survived (though not always comfortably or universally). I'm certainly not advocating for the regression, but it is possible and, if it occurred, life would most certainly continue.
Unemployment and economic crises do not equate to survival or the lack thereof in absolute terms. A theoretical elimination of computers would most certainly create a shock to our economy. But even if computers disappeared, farms and distribution networks would not disappear with them. Your grocery store would probably still be open. Your garden would not wither and die. Bacon would not become un-delicious.
Perhaps you're not understanding me. A need is a requirement of something to reach a goal. If survival is a goal, and to you a computer is a need, then you are saying without computers we would not survive.
Perhaps! I'm not saying that a person who justifies owning TVs "to stay sane" is correct. I'm saying that a person will certainly invoke fuzzy links between his possessions and his goals, just like you're doing with the computer/suvival dynamic. It could certainly be argued that a person whose survival is based on a fallible collection of silicone, copper, and plastic also "has a problem".
What I am suggesting is that people should not be so hasty to apply the concept of "need" in terms of determining someone's rights or jusfitications in doing something, acquiring something, or pursuing their goals. It makes for terrible conflicts in which people constantly contradict themselves while attempting to maintain their standard of living while at the same time changing the standard of livings of others based not upon the values of those others but rather on the values of one person.
LOL...it doesn't. But there are plenty of people who need all sorts of things for "their job", "their happiness", "their sanity", "their insecurities", "their families", etc, etc, etc, etc. Yet people like you might say "they have a problem" based on your standards.
Go to a hundred doctors and tell them you need a computer because you can't survive without one. Webmaster or otherwise, they'll laugh at you.
Ok.
Absolutely. A want and a principle are not the same thing, and you've just defined the difference between them.
I'm not saying you are.
LOL...no, they don't. Millions of people say one thing and do another every day. That's not living by contradictory principles. That's simply hypocrisy.
I never once said people should only buy stuff they need to survive. I was merely saying that "you don't need a computer" is a rather childish way of addressing another poster's point, especially if one doesn't even address the rest of his post.
Anyway, why don't I just state what I think, it'll be easier, I think.
First of all, no, I don't think people should only buy the things they need to survive. I don't care if people buy a couch, a tv, a car, a computer or an xbox.
What I do care about is the state of our planet. It's not a secret that we are fucking it up. We're chopping down our rain forests because people need furniture made from wood that only grows in tropical rain forests. We're continually and continously polluting our air and our water because people's needs demand more industry. Furthermore, all these things people buy are wrapped in plastic, then again in paper, then boxed and then the box is filled with polystyrene.
I realize that we can't just stop industry. I realize you can't say: 'people stop buying everything'. But you can point out that continuing this trend will have a lot of negative consequences. And I'm only doing that. The Western way of life is not sustainable if we want to keep and perserve what little we have left of nature, fresh water ... and basically our planet.
And that's basically what Roland said in the beginning. He wants to break free from this cycle he's pushed in or born into. If he wants to grow his own vegetables, keep chickens and only buy meat, he'll first need a place where he can do that. He probably needs money to acquire such a place. It could very well be that he needs a computer for his job. So no, a computer is not a justifiable need for survival, you're right about that. But it is a means of getting to his goal and if you know this than is it so difficult to assume he might not have the ability to live the way he wants now but uses his computer as a means to reach that goal?
In his post he stated he already does what he can, he already grows some of his own vegetables... He's already taking steps towards what he wants to achieve. And sure, he might have used the wrong word (survive) but he probably didn't expect to encounter the lexical Inquisition...
So all I'm saying is that people need to think what's more important to them; a future in which their children and grandchildren can live in a healthy environment or a future in which their children will have a nice set of furniture and two very nice mansions but no clean air and no fresh water. Or a future where their kids do have clean air and water, but only regular furniture and regular houses.
I believe Guru was right when he said: "the beautiful world as we know it is definitely at risk." And I don't think I'm imposing my will on anyone if I'm only sharing my views.
naděje umírá poslední
Thanks for the post. Much of what you say is not only valid, it's highly important and I don't disagree with it at all.
There's an interesting lesson to be learned in how you frame Roland's post above. Certainly one may argue that they wish to live a simpler life and that, in the short term, a more complex life might help them acquire that in the long term. That's a completely valid point and would apply well to Roland's post had it not been as much about other people as it was about him. Regardless, can that same principle not be applied to society? Might our own waste and impacts now lead to something better in the future?
One may certainly say that the excessive consumption of Western societies creates a net negative on the environment, individual happiness, or all sorts of desirables. And perhaps our way of life may prove to be "unsustainable", but there's little evidence that actually demonstrates that it fits such a moniker. Human beings have never been more numerous or more wealthy. Will that be short-lived?
These have been amusing until this one.
There are many reason's all people should be against the status quo regarding corporations.
The media control is just a small (very important) part of it. The way television shows are designed, even news broadcasts...they have 7 minutes of conversation interupted by 2 minutes of commercials. If you have someone on the air saying pretty radical things like, "There is an American holocaust every year", or "The people in the US are subjected to more propaganda than any other country,"or the US is basically a 1 party system,"...your gonna need more than 7 minutes to defend your points.
Thats the genius of the system, it only allows for regurgitation of conventional ideology.
ok, the closest gas station to me is less than a minute. this particular store gets its gas from a company named Valero. thanks to the internet i know that Valero uses an additive in their gas that gets into the water supply. so, now i know i shouldn't support such a company. b/c of the internet i know nestle get's their chocolate from cocoa plantations on the ivory coast which used child slave labor, which is also against my conscience to support. b/c of the internet i know coke privatized water in india and severely polluted the water left over for the actual ppl.
b/c of this i'm not gonna 'shut nestle down!!!' but i can feel better knowing i'm not supporting such acts w/ my money and to me that means a lot
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not playing along. Why are you?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i would never have know of abook, baraka even farfromglorified! or the friends in canda, belgium, the UK, the netherlands, norway, germany, italy....and each on of those ppl have helped change the way i think and view things
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way