rio wrote:
Goat wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/david-mitchell-kraft-cadbury
Interesting op. piece.
Aha, the "hey why bother!" argument.
You could just as easily say of corporations that used slave labour two hundred years ago "it's pointless complaining about the morality because corporations aren't moral. And besides, we need them to sell us stuff and slaves need them for employment".
He wasn't saying that at all, from what I could tell.
Quote:
The outcry about the Cadbury sale and the recruitment of child marketers reveals a deep-seated naivety in our approach to the companies we give money to. We should save our breath – our disapproval means nothing to them unless we stop buying their stuff or make what they do illegal.
The last bit's the important one; he's saying stop whining pointlessly and realise that they're heartless bastards.
Quote:
Ultimately I'm arguing for cynicism. We should at least try to withhold our emotions from the corporations we trade with. They don't deserve our fondness, our hatred or, crucially, our trust. Let's save all that for people. It would solve a lot of problems: we wouldn't need to ban confectionery commercials, or repackage Harvey's Bristol Cream with a big picture of cirrhosis on it, because we'd already suspect products' claims. We'd stop assuming that everything was safe unless marked "dangerous".
We need big corporations – they employ us, they sell us things, they make money for our pensions – but they need us more. They're only robot tradesmen and they should know their place.
Makes sense to me.
Frigid wrote:
And no, I'm not posting that list. No one takes me seriously here.
Of course we take you seriously! Why else would, say, trapt, rio or me bother arguing instead of just saying 'stfu Fridge'? You're not Noodles, stop acting like him. And post that list.
Poor noodlz.
