Are we lazy customers?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I would gladly listen to their arguments, but when someone complains that a delivery man threw his LCD tv over a goddamn fence without even ringing the bell and gets insulted by a pack of hippies for being part of the "1%" I just forced myself to ignore them.

Want change? Then work. Or start a revolution.

Without work or blood you won't reach anywhere, specially if your Modus Operandi is insulting others for wanting a goddamn TV. Or using your iPhone to make a tweet about African children dying.

And stop being 21st century hippies. Join the French Foreign Legion (they do peacekeeping work), the Blue Helmets, the MSF (not the Metal Gear one, the one with the medics), the Red Cross or any of the hundreds of non-profit organizations around the world if you feel that the world is unfair.

Go clear minefields or something. It makes a lot more difference than camping and being pepper sprayed by the police.

EDIT: I am aware that probably nobody related to the Occupy movement is going to read this. But at least I made an interesting point, am I right?

Esotera:

You don't want to boycott? But aren't you advocating choosing another product (that is implied to be inferior) based on the salary the first company gives their executives? I have nothing against it, I'm just confused as hell.

I've got the idea that at this moment, executives are are paid high salaries with even bigger bonuses. At least, a lot of people are very angry about this. They organize in groups like Occupy, move to a square and tell everyone how angry they are about this. "How dare they earn so much! Think about the poor! Greedy bastards! Greedy bankers!" But what are their solutions? None. I haven't heard one clear solution from Occupy, at least not one that is achievable. "The bankers should just not be that greedy!" obviously didn't and doesn't work.

So, embracing the idea that we live in a free market, I thought that maybe, maybe we could 'vote with our wallet'. This doesn't have to be a sudden boycott. What I hope is that organizations like Occupy actually do something useful and collect data about bonuses and excessive rewards. When I go to a Occupy website, I want to see a list of Greedy-Bastard-Companies and a list of Not-So-Greedy-Bastard-Companies. So when I'm in the supermarket, I can vaguely remember what companies I should avoid. Occupy had a lot of media attention and they had a perfect moment to do this, yet... they didn't. They just said "WE'RE ANGRY, THEY'RE THE 1%, HERP DERP!". They could have started a 'New Awareness'. We're already aware regarding the environment, durability, our own health, et cetera. We should be aware of excessive rewards too.

So what do you if you're a company ('the underdog') in a 'Bonus-Aware-Society'? You tell people that you lack bonuses. That you lack those high rewards for the executives. You put big BONUSFREE stickers on your products. You're furniture is made of eco-friendly wood - you're food contains 50% less fat - you're bank is bonusfree.

In the Netherlands we have 'Univé verzekeringen', an insurance company without 'winstoogmerk' (they're not in it for the profit).

Danyal:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Local farmer you say? Tell me, from what company does this farmer buy the food he feeds his animals with?

I have no idea. The New World Order? The Templars? The Bilderberg Group?

My God Daynal, for a person who dedicates so much time to posting on these forums, you certainly are close minded and ignorant. You are not only ignorant, you are determined to stay that way. Time and time again you open threads and then refuse to rethink your position. Why? Thats the point of these forums, you know. Maybe you should apply for a teaching job, it would suit you, although I cant say anyone would employ you if you put forth the same attitude you do here.

This is the perfect example. I disagree, and make a point, so of course, I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who believes in the new world order. I mean, obviously, pointing out that the farmer you buy your eggs from most likely feeds his chicken with food manufactured by a big company which is in turn owned by an even bigger company is just so unrealistic. I might just as well suggest he buys it from aliens, right?

Welcome to my ignore list. Discussing anything with you is a pointless ordeal and im not going to waste my time doing so any longer.

ElPatron:
But at least I made an interesting point, am I right?

ElPatron:
stop being 21st century hippies - Go clear minefields or something.

Interesting... Yes :P

Danyal:

I have no idea. But if you knew about origin, thought that origin would screw you over, yet you PAID THEM TO GET SCREWED OVER... I'll go like LOL and I can't give a shit about it. I'm sorry, but my empathy can't be stretched indefinitely.

I have read Zeh Dons post and i partly agree with him. But to the point, there were many people all mighty raging about how they are not going to buy BF3 because of origin and its policy then turned around and bought it anyway. thing is, shouting doesnt work. and people dont know how to vite with their wallet. ergo we are still ruled by the companies.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Danyal:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Local farmer you say? Tell me, from what company does this farmer buy the food he feeds his animals with?

I have no idea. The New World Order? The Templars? The Bilderberg Group?

This is the perfect example. I disagree, and make a point, so of course, I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who believes in the new world order. I mean, obviously, pointing out that the farmer you buy your eggs from most likely feeds his chicken with food manufactured by a big company which is in turn owned by an even bigger company is just so unrealistic.

And that's exactly what I suggested when I replied that way. Your answer; buys from a big company which is owned by an even bigger company which is owned by an even bigger company, ultimately benefiting a few people, the secret top of society. You know how that top of society is called? Those few people that own those companies that own everything?

The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence.[1] About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications.

I might just as well suggest he buys it from aliens, right?

What's wrong with aliens?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.351419-The-Gospel-of-Judas-Jesus-is-an-alien
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.340045-Could-we-be-serious-about-religion-for-once-Cargo-Cults
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.341162-Is-God-a-human

Strazdas:

I have read Zeh Dons post and i partly agree with him. But to the point, there were many people all mighty raging about how they are not going to buy BF3 because of origin and its policy then turned around and bought it anyway. thing is, shouting doesnt work. and people dont know how to vite with their wallet. ergo we are still ruled by the companies.

And what's the problem with Origins? If you agreed to install it, you agreed to some possible privacy-violating measures, right?
If you truly think it's horrible, you don't buy it.
And if you buy it, you probably think it's not that horrible.
If you truly think it's horrible, yet you buy it... LOL xD You deserve to be screwed over by companies.

There's an issue you miss in the boycot strategy: companies prone to respond to the almighty dollar are just as likely to say screw you to the complainers and focus only on those paying money. I've heard it said many times in response to angry customers "we don't want your money that badly so go." You perhaps see this best in the movie industry. Number one complaint is the cost of going. Response: don't lower prices, make movies that pander to the crowd that'll give us money for everything, especially fanboy culture. Gaming culture follows suit as the reasons people buy used and pirate games (price) aren't addressed, and companies see how far they can push DRM, day one DLC and other plans. It could just be me, but I'm not all that comfortable in a culture that is based around seeing how big an asshole you can be to someone before you piss them off too much. I wouldn't say it's a husbands right to hit his wife and if she doesn't like it she should leave for example.

And given the size and power of what if aren't monoplies are at least sizable oligarchies government intervention of any kind to spur capitalism back on track seems impossible. The fiancial crisis a few years ago did not result in the breakup of institutions "too big to fail" and even amid national anger over bailouts, gave themselves bonuses anyway under the usual BS. Voting with our wallet, given the penetration of these conglomerates practically requires going ahmish, and they know it. I mean, if you have specific sugestions instead of a vague and idealistic capitalist philosophy I'll listen, but again, without specifics, it's a falicy to assume that someone will be there to supply any demand.

Not that OWS wasn't squandered, but it's downright insulting to think they never thought of that. (same thing applies to the "get a job" comments)

Strazdas:
...But to the point, there were many people all mighty raging about how they are not going to buy BF3 because of origin and its policy then turned around and bought it anyway. thing is, shouting doesnt work. and people dont know how to [vote] with their wallet. ergo we are still ruled by the companies.

No, we're not ruled by the companies exactly. I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion I'd say we're ruled by a lack of options. It's true that companies can control, and indeed limit, our options - but if something can along that gave us more options (iTunes) we'd jump on board. We're not restricted to the companies because we're trained to - we're restricted to them because we literally have no other choice at this point.

People wanted to play Battlefield 3 because the previous entries in the series were very good. There are no other large scale military multiplayer FPS on the market that can compare to Battlefield 3 - the closest you can get, without moving into simulators, is Call of Duty. And, frankly, Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 are very different experiences. Thus, people's options are: play Battlefield 3, or don't play at all.

Keep in mind that gamers are a unique brand of consumer. Unlike "the general public", gamers game all the time. They wake up with gaming on their minds, they think about gaming all day, talk about gaming with their friends and play games at every opportunity - from having 5 spare minutes to having a whole day off from work.
Within that market, there aren't many companies producing "top tier" games. Few games can compare to the polish of Call of Duty and Battlefield. After those games, your options are sub-par titles like Operation Flashpoint - or simulations like ArmA2. Gamer's have limited options by the definition of the medium.
So, in contrast, if we don't like what's on at the cinema, we can watch our favourite movies from 10 years ago no problems. We have literally thousands of movies that don't lose their entertainment factor 10 years later. While gamers can play titles like Battlefield Bad Company 2, sure, if the majority of the multiplayer community moves on you're shit out of luck. Activision Blizzard use this to ensure you buy each new Call of Duty title - it's called Migratory Game Design, and it ensures that you're customer base can't play yester-years titles today. This is why EA Games shuts down it's multiplayer servers of a title after two years: they need you buying their latest titles.
It would be like if every time they released a new Superhero Movie, they came and took away your previous Superhero DVDs.

Let's take a look at something else that got a lot of people is a fuss: Diablo 3. To call Diablo II: LoD an addiction of mine would be an understatement - after graduating high school, I spent 6 weeks levelling all 7 classes to 99. All of them. That's all I did for my 6 week break between being a student and joining the work force.
Yet, I won't be buying Diablo III.
Why?
Because I now have options. I can buy Torchlight 2, and get a similiar experience for less and without the strings. I don't agree with Blizzard's policies. However, if I didn't have options, my options are limited: buy Diablo III, or don't. Sure, I can play Diablo II - but I have that game memorised. It would be like owning one book, and being forced to re-read it again and again.
I already own Torchlight, and Titan Quest, and Dungeon Siege 1 and 2 - and I sold 3 because that game was not what I was after. I love those types of games. But so few of them that aren't shit exist that my options become very limited.

It's not a matter of weakness on my part, it's a matter of options. And if corporations spend billions a year ensuring I have only bad ones available to me, is it my fault for choosing a bad options over "nothing".

Movie studios like Fox, Universal and Paramount have resigned themselves to making bad movies. If they fill the cinema with garbage, what choice do you have if you want to go and see a new movie in the cinema and enjoy the "big screen experience"? Sure, you can watch your movies at home. But what if you want to go to the cinema because you like it, and want to enjoy that experience? What other option do you really have?
Proof of this is simple: I liked Avatar. I thought - as long as it was in 3D - it was a 4 star film (3 star in 2D). Yet, it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. For as much as I enjoyed it, Avatar is not Best Picture worthy. But, there it was. Because the options available were fucking terrible. And they still are.

Danyal:

So, high salaries for executives are inevitable?

Ceteris paribus, yes.

The US government doesn't attack monopolies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Blumenthal#Microsoft_lawsuit
That's new.

Not like it used to, no. It's all very well imposing relatively small fines on large megacorps, but does the state actually break them down any more? Not as far as I know. Has it gone after Glencore or P&G or Unilever or larger? Is it stepping in to mediate the conflict between capital and labour? Not really. The US government tried to attack Microsoft, but does Microsoft still have a ridiculous proportion of market share in an already very concentrated market? Yes it does.

Laws that create more transparency are perfectly reasonable in a capitalist society with a free market. If they don't exist already but actually are very helpful, Occupy could campaign for those laws.

Yes to the first sentence, and the second one didn't make sense. As in I can't read it. O.o

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Danyal:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Local farmer you say? Tell me, from what company does this farmer buy the food he feeds his animals with?

I have no idea. The New World Order? The Templars? The Bilderberg Group?

My God Daynal, for a person who dedicates so much time to posting on these forums, you certainly are close minded and ignorant. You are not only ignorant, you are determined to stay that way. Time and time again you open threads and then refuse to rethink your position. Why? Thats the point of these forums, you know. Maybe you should apply for a teaching job, it would suit you, although I cant say anyone would employ you if you put forth the same attitude you do here.

This is the perfect example. I disagree, and make a point, so of course, I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who believes in the new world order. I mean, obviously, pointing out that the farmer you buy your eggs from most likely feeds his chicken with food manufactured by a big company which is in turn owned by an even bigger company is just so unrealistic. I might just as well suggest he buys it from aliens, right?

Welcome to my ignore list. Discussing anything with you is a pointless ordeal and im not going to waste my time doing so any longer.

It is well worth bringing up the argument that Jonathan Safran Foer brings up in his book Eating Animals, namely that 99% of all animal husbandry in the USA (these numbers are sligtly lower in Europe, but not much) takes place on "farms" that are better labelled "animal industries". These "farms" are in turn invariably associated with one of the large corporations dealing in food. The way the food market is today, people simply can't switch over from products with cruel and terrible animal care to locally produced or ethically produced meat or eggs. Why? Simply because those last 1% of farmers that are still working small scale and taking care of their animals can't sustain the entire population or even a fraction of it. At least not if we intend to eat meat at the same rate we do today.

So your choice today is either to accept the terrible business practice of the large corporations or go vegeterian. Doing the latter only means you'll be forced to buy from a different set of large corporations. Almost as if the market levitated towards large corporations that put profit before ethics...

Danyal:
-snip-

Ah, so now you're on an occupy kick, eh? Well I guess it's better than six threads on why you hate religion so much.

Anyway, it sort of makes me feel silly for saying it, but as far as the occupy movement accomplishing nothing due to its disorganization and lack of direction I fucking called it. They were lazy, and not only in the sense of whining about the 1% while continuing to religiously buy their products. They were also lazy because once they got the world's attention, they did absolutely nothing with it. They just continued to squat in those parks as though some legislator was going to come up and write and present all the bills the protesters wanted--with exactly the wording they wanted--out of the goodness of their own heart.

They all went by, reassuring themselves that their "leaderless" model would assure fairness. But in the end, all having no leadership or hierarchy got them was thousands of people camping out in public parks and none of them wanting to get anything done. Rather than being leaderless in the way of everybody taking the initiative to get things done, they became leaderless in the way of nobody taking the initiative to get things done. And now they have officially overstayed their welcome, and the people no longer see them victims or even a novelty. Nobody cares about what they have to say anymore--they had their chance to get things done, and they wasted it.

I have been told that a few occupy groups have gotten stuff done in the way of voter registration drives, talking with legislators and the like. And that's great. I could get behind a group of protesters who protest with positive action rather than strictly negative. But as far as I can tell they are a minority. The rest just continue to monopolize public parks, which is really going to make people angry now that picnic season is fast approaching. So yes, the occupy movement has been a grand failure, and it is all their fault. Those big companies they hate so much didn't even have to acknowledge their existence. All they had to do was wait for this inevitable self-destruct to occur. They have lost the attention of the media, and they have lost the favor and sympathy of the people (or at least however much they had in the first place).

Gethsemani:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Danyal:

I have no idea. The New World Order? The Templars? The Bilderberg Group?

My God Daynal, for a person who dedicates so much time to posting on these forums, you certainly are close minded and ignorant. You are not only ignorant, you are determined to stay that way. Time and time again you open threads and then refuse to rethink your position. Why? Thats the point of these forums, you know. Maybe you should apply for a teaching job, it would suit you, although I cant say anyone would employ you if you put forth the same attitude you do here.

This is the perfect example. I disagree, and make a point, so of course, I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who believes in the new world order. I mean, obviously, pointing out that the farmer you buy your eggs from most likely feeds his chicken with food manufactured by a big company which is in turn owned by an even bigger company is just so unrealistic. I might just as well suggest he buys it from aliens, right?

Welcome to my ignore list. Discussing anything with you is a pointless ordeal and im not going to waste my time doing so any longer.

It is well worth bringing up the argument that Jonathan Safran Foer brings up in his book Eating Animals, namely that 99% of all animal husbandry in the USA (these numbers are sligtly lower in Europe, but not much) takes place on "farms" that are better labelled "animal industries". These "farms" are in turn invariably associated with one of the large corporations dealing in food. The way the food market is today, people simply can't switch over from products with cruel and terrible animal care to locally produced or ethically produced meat or eggs. Why? Simply because those last 1% of farmers that are still working small scale and taking care of their animals can't sustain the entire population or even a fraction of it. At least not if we intend to eat meat at the same rate we do today.

So your choice today is either to accept the terrible business practice of the large corporations or go vegeterian. Doing the latter only means you'll be forced to buy from a different set of large corporations. Almost as if the market levitated towards large corporations that put profit before ethics...

Well, thats the point im making. Nowadays, if you live in a first world country, virtually everything around you from your food to your desk was manufactured by a big corporation that most likely has some shady business practices. Of course there are exceptions, but you cant just say "Well just dont buy their products lol". Doesnt work that way.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Well, thats the point im making. Nowadays, if you live in a first world country, virtually everything around you from your food to your desk was manufactured by a big corporation that most likely has some shady business practices. Of course there are exceptions, but you cant just say "Well just dont buy their products lol". Doesnt work that way.

Not only that, but it also inevitably lands us into an unsolvable debate about what shady or unethical is.

And then we'd also run into companies often not having much choice. To name just one example, in some countries you can't do business without paying bribes. It's so common that you can choose to either pay bribes, or watch any enterprise there fail. And some countries have a bureaucracy so slow that paying bribes is a preferable alternative to getting things done. It seems a bit wrong to blame all companies that exist collectively over something that's a country's own problem.

To relate that back to the OWS protests: because of things like that they have no clue about what they're protesting against.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Well, that's the point I'm making. Nowadays, if you live in a first world country, virtually everything around you from your food to your desk was manufactured by a big corporation that most likely has some shady business practices. Of course there are exceptions, but you cant just say "Well just don't buy their products lol". Doesn't work that way.

Saying 'don't buy their products' is kind of pointless unless somebody's going to give you land to farm on, and stone to build a house, etc. and what not.

Even if your plan is to just live off the land, where are you going to go? What land are you living off of? And note, not all land is equal. You'd need land that was healthy and profitable enough to live off of for you and your family. Being placed on the asscrack of the moon isn't a suitable answer.

At some point somebody pointed at ground and iron ore and what not that nobody owned and was like "Tag, that shit is mine". No matter what, this is going to create an unbalanced equation.

Telling people to stop 'playing the game' is pointless and sort of assholish, really.

"If you don't like how life is, stop trying to improve it, just kill yourself!", is basically what Danyal and people like him are saying. That's not.. an answer. The rich seem to take sure offense at being told 'if you don't give us what we want, we'll pitch fork and bake your ass over a fire', so I don't think that being told the reverse back is any real fairer. Though the rich would want to pretend like they're being totally fair to each other (and the fact they just happened to own something that logically was never anybody's to begin with is just something to ignore).

They want to wage and win a class warfare without us even being aware we're in it, and being too ashamed to fight back. If we do fight back, we're being 'lazy'.

The rich are effectively taking public goods and making private wealth with them, because we as a society had decided that, in many cases, they're better at it. And then when it comes time for them pay anything back, either in fair wages, or better product, or taxes, they're suddenly like "Oh, this shit is all mine". Like as if them spitting on the ground and claiming 'tag' gave them some sort of supernatural godlike right over all of creation.

It's really childish. And it's the 'true' laziness, to be honest. Being lazy isn't complaining about a lopsided tax system that hurts millions of people in favor of a tiny few, or asking for fair wages for a substantial amount of work (with or without an iphone). Being lazy is looking at a public good and going "Tag", then refusing to pay your share for the infrastructure and shit we all collectively built and own and that you used to make your fortune.

Because at least the OWSers fucking paid for their iPhones. I doubt they went up to shit and was like "Tag, this shit is mine".

Blablahb:
Not only that, but it also inevitably lands us into an unsolvable debate about what shady or unethical is.

And then we'd also run into companies often not having much choice. To name just one example, in some countries you can't do business without paying bribes. It's so common that you can choose to either pay bribes, or watch any enterprise there fail. And some countries have a bureaucracy so slow that paying bribes is a preferable alternative to getting things done. It seems a bit wrong to blame all companies that exist collectively over something that's a country's own problem.

To relate that back to the OWS protests: because of things like that they have no clue about what they're protesting against.

Ok, but who has more power in that country? Companies with million dollar lobbyists or Joe Nobody who hasn't been listened to by a politician since ever.

If that whole thing was true, that Companies are greedy fuckwipes because Government made them that way, well they made the Government they way IT is, so I don't have a lot of compassion for their 'hardship' in that regard.

If a company CEO made a policy that said "I can only get payed if I jam a pencil in my own eye" then did that to themselves, then went "Ok, well, I now need 300% more money than before!".. no. I'm not buying that a bit.

OWS had no clue about what they're protesting? They were protesting the marriage that companies had with the government. If what you're saying is true, that companies are influencing the government to make companies assholes.. then that goal is all the more important and correct.

Damien Granz:
If that whole thing was true, that Companies are greedy fuckwipes because Government made them that way, well they made the Government they way IT is, so I don't have a lot of compassion for their 'hardship' in that regard.

Proving that countries are made by private companies sounds like an impossible burden of evidence. You're free to try, but I'm not going to believe it untill I see it.

Damien Granz:
OWS had no clue about what they're protesting? They were protesting the marriage that companies had with the government.

Yes, and that's utter bullshit anywhere outside the US, and even in the US mostly the realm of conspiracy theorists who confuse voters being swayed by advertising, with corporations purchasing influence.

And yes, they have no clue what they are protesting. One thing is they're against 'bonuses' of any kind. Wait, so they're opposed to people being paid more for working better? And do they know some stock brokers are not paid any wages at all, and their whole income is rewards for deals closed, and thus a 'bonus'?

Advocating reducing people to an income of € 0 a year sounds pretty ignorant to me.

And then I'm not even getting started on other topics OWS advocates, such as wanting to legalise burglary and squatting for their own selfish gain, or calling a whole political party a bunch of nazis that should be banned and all prosecuted.

The problem with OWS is they make scapegoats out of people, and totally ignore how intricate certain problems are, that, and the movement being hijacked by extreme-left douchebags.

You do not understand occupy if that's how you picture them.

You also do not understand the American economy.

Where else can I get my food? Go out of my way, effectively losing me money and time, to purchase more expensive food from a producer who I like more? Do you know how hard it is to change buying habits? You can't change your electric company, AS THERE IS ONLY ONE[1], you can't change where you get your water, heat etc. When I can choose, I purchase from companies I like, or rather, I purchase from companies I hate the least. This is only in the ridiculously small times when I can choose the producer.

[1] At least this is true where I live

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked