Politics, Religion and Shopping

[stub]

I was in the kitchen once with my hands full and my comp-u-tron was playing some YouTube silliness and it automatically went to the next thing in the cue, which was some long podcast with Tardiff and I am not gonna lie, it totally turned me off. Badly.

I would still buy his ink, if there were any available that I liked here but I also find his labels goofy and tacky and yeah. no. Seems like an okay guy but I have a real allergy to his particular brand of politics. I have purposefully gone out of my way not to know more. I really want to be supportive of a small homegrown hand crafted entrepreneurial type and unlike Walmart he isn't a huge empire squashing the little guy, he is the little guy but the vehemence the hawkishness of it is an enormous turn off.

[dneal]

Oooh, a necro-thread!

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because of the way they exploit illiterate cows in their advertisements.

[Scrawler]

Oooh, a necro-thread!

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because of the way they exploit illiterate cows in their advertisements.

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because I have never seen one and would not know where to find it.

[TSherbs]

By a somewhat roundabout method, I got to thinking very heavily today about how I use my dollar as my voice, and I was wondering how other Geeks see things on this matter. I'm feeling a bit guilty as I do enjoy my Noodler's Inks, and I plan on buying more, but I don't exactly cotton to Mr. Tardiff's politics, or the fact that he uses his product as a soapbox....

What do you think? Do you speak your mind with your spending? If you do, where you draw the line, if at all?)

I'm of a similar mind to you, in the specific instance and on the general topic. I've not set foot in Walmart in at least a decade, and I've spent more than is fashionable on a Lamy 2000 because a local shop carries Lamy (or rather THE local shop, so far as FP availability goes), despite having the sort of income that suggests shopping wherever the prices are LOOOOW and not buying FPs at all beyond just one. I think it is an analog rather than a binary activity, though. The equation is something like: IF {behavior I find objectionable} < {certain arbitrary limit} AND ({product quality} + {product value} - {product mark-up}) + {relative smallness of operation} > {different arbitrary limit} THEN go ahead and spend there. Since there's some wobble in my arbitrary limits, I might find myself in certain borderline cases to go ahead one day but balk the next.

Also, to the specific: while in many cases I don't agree with the Tardiff position (but not all, I find with some self-directed amusement), I find the fact that he doesn't conceal his opinions is a mark in his favour. He must know there's some people who will say, "I cannot give someone who thinks that any money!" and to let it be known that he thinks like that regardless at least shows conviction in the stance. I might not accept his stance, but I also know that it is sometimes very hard to choke back the declaration of position (there's a thread or two in this forum that proves my own inability). It's ego and conviction, I'd say, and at least it's out in the open.

I doubt it is a serious consideration, up to a certain point; with a big enough market, the people who flee from your monstrous politics will be replaced by those who embrace them. That certain point would be something like "BigStorE CEO Wally Pessimel announces proud support for NAMBLA, marches in parade." Short of that, though... I'll wager Hobby Lobby's sales haven't changed much from the previous levels.

I'm still not shopping at Walmart.

I like your equation! Although I would add more variables in...

[TSherbs]

My use of dollars lately has become to purchase and consume less and less. When my last son is through college, my wife and I are going to seriously downsize (and our house now is under 1800 sq ft) and become even more Spartan. I don't care much about the politics of business owners; I don't ever inquire into it in the same way that I don't know my plumber's politics. He lives in my town; I respect his work and kindness; I could not care less about his politics in the same way that I don't care about the politics of the person next to me in the church pew or doctor's office. But we can and should all live on less (I am speaking broadly here as an American, where we consume more per capita in energy and resources than anywhere else on the planet). THAT I am trying to do something about with my money, so to speak--by working to resist the the suggestions of the marketing strategies of virtually every purveyor of goods: "you need to buy this to improve your wellbeing or happiness." Um, I think not, thank you. In fact, saying "no" to "more" or "new" or "replacement" can feel pretty darn good for one's wellbeing and happiness!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Gus Speth, a US advisor on climate change said “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

[Scrawler]

Gus Speth, a US advisor on climate change said “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

Selfishness and greed are important survival characteristics that have directly lead to the current ascendancy of our kind. Those who accumulated food and resources tended to survive at the expense of those that did not. To make the next evolutionary step, and maintain such high population levels we need to change into a cooperative animal. However, if we can achieve that we will change our fundamental nature and cease to be what we are. These characteristics are so ingrained in our make up that we are bound to follow them until the next logical step, which is extinction. But life is tenacious and even if it takes tens of millions of years after the destruction we have wrought, life will reassert itself in new forms.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Gus Speth, a US advisor on climate change said “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

Selfishness and greed are important survival characteristics that have directly lead to the current ascendancy of our kind. Those who accumulated food and resources tended to survive at the expense of those that did not. To make the next evolutionary step, and maintain such high population levels we need to change into a cooperative animal. However, if we can achieve that we will change our fundamental nature and cease to be what we are. These characteristics are so ingrained in our make up that we are bound to follow them until the next logical step, which is extinction. But life is tenacious and even if it takes tens of millions of years after the destruction we have wrought, life will reassert itself in new forms.

So, you agree then.