She says so eloquently what is such an obvious crime against consumers that we tolerate because we must. Modern serfdom is when “trust” turns to “must”.
In that context, what leads you call yourself and the rest of humanity primarily "consumers" in response to an essay? I think this has become uncomfortably (to me) normalized, and it begs the same question that Le Guin asks about whether we understand what we are doing when we are defining ourselves. A citizen and a person doesn't have to be defined as what they consume, do they?
Have to? No, there are other options. But to twist this question a little bit - does a child that grows up in the United States have to speak English? They do not, technically. And in fact some small percentage don’t, but the vast, vast majority do. And not because they chose to, but because that is the overwhelming tendency of the environment they live in. I think much the same happens with consumerism.
> A citizen and a person doesn't have to be defined as what they consume, do they?
I find this is at the core of Stallman's criticism of the term "content". We speak of media "content", of "content authors", etc, as if movies, articles, books, etc were just that: content, ready to be commoditized, packaged and sold. And some of it is! But we've conditioned to think of everything as "content" to be "consumed", which is depressing.
Why should that be a mistake though? We take it for granted these days that public figures and companies will never show a scrap of mercy or generosity, but it doesn't have to be this way.
While acknowledging the truth of what you're saying (the first sentence, anyway), the problem is going into a cynical, defeatist "that's the way things are". A kind of learned helplessness.
She says so eloquently what is such an obvious crime against consumers that we tolerate because we must. Modern serfdom is when “trust” turns to “must”.
In that context, what leads you call yourself and the rest of humanity primarily "consumers" in response to an essay? I think this has become uncomfortably (to me) normalized, and it begs the same question that Le Guin asks about whether we understand what we are doing when we are defining ourselves. A citizen and a person doesn't have to be defined as what they consume, do they?
Have to? No, there are other options. But to twist this question a little bit - does a child that grows up in the United States have to speak English? They do not, technically. And in fact some small percentage don’t, but the vast, vast majority do. And not because they chose to, but because that is the overwhelming tendency of the environment they live in. I think much the same happens with consumerism.
> A citizen and a person doesn't have to be defined as what they consume, do they?
I find this is at the core of Stallman's criticism of the term "content". We speak of media "content", of "content authors", etc, as if movies, articles, books, etc were just that: content, ready to be commoditized, packaged and sold. And some of it is! But we've conditioned to think of everything as "content" to be "consumed", which is depressing.
Brilliant quote!
The mistake is in expecting anything positive from a company, brand or celebrity. And then phrasing it as if it's a problem?
Why should that be a mistake though? We take it for granted these days that public figures and companies will never show a scrap of mercy or generosity, but it doesn't have to be this way.
While acknowledging the truth of what you're saying (the first sentence, anyway), the problem is going into a cynical, defeatist "that's the way things are". A kind of learned helplessness.
google: god is silence saramago quote
seems to work ok
I suppose back in 2010 it gave different results. I think Ursula's point was how opaque it was...