#They are a company trying to make profit and no ethical consumption under capitalism and all that

[psychoticallytrans]

If you've ever wanted to buy cheap, good quality spices, might I recommend Penzey's? They frequently have sales that let you buy a 50$ gift card for 35$, and then you can use those cards to shop later sales. The spices are great, they have full lists of what's in them which is great for anyone with allergies, and as for their politics... click the readmore if you'd like to see some snippets from the newsletters I get from them in my inbox, as well as a few shots of a DuckDuckGo search for "penzeys ceo". Warning for US politics, and lots of discussion of Republicans.

[misscrawfords]

I'm very interested in how King the Land will end. Most CEO/poor girl dramas have a Cinderella ending in which the poor girl gets rich and all her family benefit and the CEO becomes good and we never actually see how this works long term because it ends with marriage. (A bit like 18th century novels with a similar plot. Both the 18th century novel of manners and the kdrama romcom know that they're creating a fantasy.)

However, King the Land basically seems to take as its central premise that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Well, not exactly that, but close enough. The scene between Gu Won and his sister over the helicopter underscored that. Those share-holders sitting round the table went along happily with the sister's perspective that you cannot save the life of one employee if it gets in the way of making money. Gu Won's father may be sympathetic to him but he has built an empire on that exact premise and presumably brought up his daughter to run the company on this premise so his sympathy is completely useless.

Gu Won's horror at this business model is also ultimately useless. He cannot take over the business and win over his sister by being a better person and making more ethical choices because the business is not built on that. And so far, he's not even doing that - he just wants the life of the woman he likes to be more similar to his and he is Pikachu-face shocked that this is reality for her. He's not trying to systematically change the working conditions for all employees of his hotel and all its off-shoots - because both Sarang's friends seem to work for King owned businesses.

The show seems to be making a point of saying that it is impossible to run a corporation like this ethically and make a profit that will allow it to keep running (which is true because people don't get this rich without walking all over the poor) which means I can't see any way for it to end in a satisfying way with Gu Won taking over and just "being better" than his sister. It would feel like a hollow victory and surely not one Sarang would feel comfortable accepting. The entire company is shown to be so rotten from the ground up - barring a few decent individuals doing what they can in a horrible system - that the only happy ending has to be burning it to the ground. But then he's not rich and the fairy tale romance comes crashing down...

Anyway, I'm just very interested to see where it will go!

[dukeofriven]

The adage that ‘there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ never bites with more obvious frequency than with podcasts. You love your favourite podcasters: you want them to make content and be successful at it and earn a living, but short of having the sort of fanbase who can really pump-up a Patreon—and I mean really pump-up a Patreon because there’s no pension in podcasting—you’re going to end-up turning to advertising. And the companies who have monopolized podcast advertising, at least in the genres that people here on tumblr are likely to listen to, are really, really scummy. They know their audience. They know the level of tech-saviness and geekery and the general level of disposable income, which means data-miner Honey can try and prey on your desire for deals to try and suck you dry of information they sell at huge profits to retailers. ‘Leftover Warehouse Garbage’ monthly loot boxes can prey on your sense of exclusivity and penchant for nerdy knickknacks. Chronic employee abuser and environmental disaster Blue Apron can prey on your insecurity about having the energy and skill to cook decent meals. Overpriced and under-contented subscription service Squarespace is there to gouge you for services other companies provide for far more affordable cost—and so on. Right now I am listening to a podcast where the poor host, so as to make a living as a creator, has to do a song-and-dance for AirBnB, that thing that’s made life harder for every person in the Western world struggling with the housing crisis. It’s horrific. It’s horrific to be advertised-to by these disgusting companies—I could be here forever just talking about the app-based ones alone and how they sell you a ‘product’ to cover-up the fact that the product they actually sell is you and your personal information. (Or I could do a side-bar to Youtubers and the surely-some-kind-of-money-laundering-operation-because-no-one-alive-actually-plays-it Raid Shadow Legends).

‘There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism’ doesn’t just mean physical, material products, how you can’t buy a chocolate bar without touching exploitative food production practices, or how the light-up eyes in your Pokemon keychain are LEDs from one of four massive factories in China that chew their workers up and spit them them out to die. It also means understanding that art itself comes pre-compromised if the artists wishes to live in anything other than ‘principled’ ascetic poverty. It means that plenty of progressive podcast collectives with progressive podcasts can’t really do the level of ‘due diligence’ we’d hope for on their sponsors because then they would have no sponsors. There’s no way to win, and every proposition is a losing one.  Commercia delenda est.

[burgerdrome]

Are you still a fan of Warhammer? I hope it’s been long enough that you aren’t scared of this restarting anything but like, I’m a fan myself and everyone I know is also one, and your article gave me some uncomfortable feelings of “what’s the woke way to enjoy this” lol

Hello! Thank you for the delightful question and thank you also for allowing me to be part of the authentic Tumblr experience of receiving an inbox message from a questionable username.

So I guess I think the question about whether there's a "woke way" to enjoy Warhammer is an unhelpful way to think about it (or about anything). It's okay to enjoy a pretend game about silly clanking armoured men just in the same way it's okay to enjoy a pretend video game where you drive a car over the speed limit.

I think a lot of leftists get caught up in ethical hand-wringing and sort of paralysed by how to move forward with something but the reality of participation in a capitalist system is that while you can be conscientious about your choices, at the end of the day you still have to, you know, make those choices. There isn't a perfect way to do it - there is no ethical consumption under capitalism!

One of the great things about the Warhammer hobby - hell, just about all tabletop gaming hobbies - is that the companies who make the products simply cannot stop you from buying them, building them, and playing with them in the way that you want. The fact that Warhammer (hell, D&D too, etc) is essentially imagination layered on top of painted bits of plastic means that the barrier to entry, and the conditions under which a corporation can control your entry, are astonishingly low.

But of course this means that a huge chunk of potential profit is going missing. One of the big ways that Games Workshop - hell, just about all tabletop gaming companies, really - has tried to maximise their profits in recent years has been to attempt to normalise the idea that to "play Warhammer" is to engage in brand loyalty rather than personal creativity - in other words, to own as much of your potential hobby ecosystem as possible.

Purchase your official Warhammer model from the official Warhammer store (good luck getting a pre-order from a local games store which has been deliberately understocked!), clip it from the sprue using official Citadel clippers, glue it with Citadel plastic glue while you're watching the official Warhammer Plus "loremasters" show, basecoat it with Citadel spray, make sure to play it using the new rules we released 3 months ago and which we will update in another book in 3 months time (which you will need to buy, you don't want to miss out!) etc, etc, etc. Deeply tiresome shit.

(Illustrative side note: Recently I saw a post on Facebook marketplace with someone saying "Can someone sell me a pair of Citadel clippers, my last ones broke!" Someone immediately responded to recommend going to buy a pair at Bunnings for $5, and the person legitimately had to be convinced that they were the same product and weren't going to, in some way, "hurt" the models.)

Of course while GW has a long history of trying to trick baffled Christmas aunties into buying spray paint from their stores for $30 instead of from Bunnings for $10, when I got into Warhammer in 1997 DIY creativity was explicitly encouraged and that was pretty much the whole point - Games Workshop literally published books telling you to go to construction sites to find basing sand, to repurpose old cardboard boxes to make buildings and walls, to use guitar strings to make power cables, to write your own missions, to invent your own Chapters (with rules to do so), to build your own characters and leaders, etc, etc. And I did! And it kicked ass.

The old codexes are full of examples of people scratchbuilding whole terrain sets, converting up models for characters that GW couldn't be arsed to provide - that sort of "make it your own! exercise your creativity!" ethos was baked into the very DNA of the hobby, and it has always stuck with me, even as GW has tried to backpedal away from it and focus on "how well can YOU paint OUR kits?"

So now for me I look at Warhammer the same way I might look at an art supply store. Yes I can buy one particular brand of paint or one particular brand of canvas when looking at doing up a new watercolour, but ultimately it's about picking what I think is going to allow me to exercise my creativity the most, or what I enjoy working with.

And when I do throw dice (I am a busy full-time employee with a mortgage and now mostly play small scale Kill Team skirmish games) I play against extremely chill people who have straight-up 3D printed accessories or whole models, or play in my local games club on old Malifaux terrain on a third party game mat, or whatever.

I buy all my models second hand online or purchase out-of-production things at swap meets. I use third-party paints and brushes, and 3D print up conversion parts that I need which I purchase online. I engage with the hobby on my terms and look at it as a way to express my own creativity, or as a series of building blocks to assemble in whichever way I see fit, because that's what makes me happy. Ultimately Games Workshop's colour schemes, lore, etc are (and only ever can be) suggestions - the only difference is that they used to explicitly tell you as much and encourage you to play around, and now they strongly encourage the opposite.

This isn't to cast shade on anyone who just buys GW models and paints them with GW paints or whatever. Doing that isn't somehow a fascist act or a one way ticket to Cancel Jail. They make some nice fucking models! And tbqh their Contrast paints are the best in class for that sort of thing (Army Builder "Speed Paint" ones suck ass).

Buying little toy dolls from companies (at least companies which aren't openly funding genocide) is only a problem if we do so uncritically or treat those little toy dolls as sacred idols and allow them to consume our personalities. That's when you end up with weird right-wing 40K Lore Youtubers with aquila tattoos.

[cipheramnesia]

I guess the complicated bollocks of it all is like, okay, if someone is a queer creator (or indeed any disenfranchised group) who wants to reach a wide audience and also afford to live, it means working for a huge company which 100% hates them and all the work they do.

And that's okay, because working for most companies is pretty much that experience. The larger the company, the more certain you can be it hates you, the employee, whether it's out in the open or behind layers of protective HR and PR. Can't blame a queer for working and existing in the world we all live in, while trying to use that to angle a little more good stuff towards the rest of us, right? Right. Shouldn't be, is, we try and do better, capitalism sucks, etc etc. We know.

Not only that but it's kind of a double bind can't win situation. Give money to the big faceless monopoly that hates all queers, minorities, poor people, etc and show them shows made for queers, minorities, poor people etc are profitable and get more widely distributed media of that type OR don't give any money to said monopolies and never see any mass distribution of media et al because it's not profitable. I'm writing this on a phone made by a faceless megacorp, or I could write it on a computer made by a faceless megacorp, using internet services also provided by faceless megacorps. We live in a society, etc. Again, you get it, we all get it. If not, welcome to the shit side of "no ethical consumption under capitalism." There's ways out of all this, but not everyone can dump energy into the full time job of "no capitalism life "

Media produced by monopolies, in addition, is often going to be more polished, both easier to engage with as an audience and having fewer technical flaws. This is related to large corporations having the capacity to pay qualified professionals for services like editing, or to exploit other workers en masse for similar services. In tandem those cut on cost and production time and it's one reason why mass produced media feels more "finished" in many cases, and moves faster. Two guys writing, editing, voicing, and animating a cartoon might put out five minutes of decent quality material every few months if they're very industrious, while Disney can produce media on a schedule delivering multiple weekly animated series continuously thanks to the combination of scale, massive wealth, and exploitative business practices. To varying degrees, this applies to writing, music, and any media with mass distribution. If you ever look at the difference between an independent work and a mass market one, it's useful to remember that even something at a scale as small as a book with one author is worlds apart between one author publish by a small press, versus any author published by a large company that will use better quality materials for the physical book, multiple editors to avoid minor formatting or spelling mistakes, and so on. It's a difference in scale always.

I think everyone knows this in theory but sometimes it helps to lay it out. The scales are tipped in the favor of mass production and mass incorporation from both the perspective of the creator and the audience. Not insurmountably so, not for everyone, but very close and actually insurmountably tipped for a lot of people. It's easy to pay ten bucks a month for Netflix and forget what that easy and cheap access is attached to, and in some cases that's someone's best bet for a little escape from this motherfucker of a system.

Why all this preamble? Because I need to be clear that with all of this understood by me, and as someone who makes concerted efforts to find independent creators (in my area of interest, horror movies, I'm not made of infinite time), that it does get extremely frustrating to get barraged with posts that feel mmm not demanding but let's say pushy, a little pushy about Disney content. Not in the same way people push their own independent content, but in a mass, from multiple people who are independent but unified in support of queer stuff, yes, but Disney queer stuff. And, I cannot emphasize enough, who all understand the preamble above, whose support is for the creators we love and not the corporations who hate us.

And all I really want is just to see support for independent creators blow up that way. There's a few here, Tumblr has the ability to throw its obsessive love of weird found family wet rag murder gremlin blorbos behind independent creators, we've seen it, and we can make more of it, just y'know, see a post about some little no budget horror with the gays, reblog that shit. See a post about a queer novel, share that shit. Spread the emotional investment out from the middle, sometimes.

I dunno. I'm a little over sensitive just because my jam is a smaller piece of the toast. Not as many people wanna get excited about the Sawyers from Texas Chainsaw Massacre as camp queers, or hyped about Erin, the first name only one movie protagonist of You're Next. That's fair, but we can still get more hype for other little movies, other authors. They're always out there. For every other big hype mass media production there's always gotta be like, I dunno, an alternative? I just want an umbrella for when it starts raining "See the New Big Thing."

[dinoburger]

to try to put an earlier thought about fan work and commodity in a less frenetic, more cohesive way, it's one of those things that thrives from being divorced from context that also makes it fraught as a way of feeding back into media consumption

it's easy for us to see on one hand, there are artists who are independently creating work, where monetary gain is minimal and means maybe this week it's a bit easier to pay rent.

On the other you have "buy a Disney plus subscription and watch this show the 'correct' way so they can keep making more content!" and it's a celebrity cast with a zionist director or something. Also Disney. Also the corporate subscription system.

Good job, you've helped set the pieces for the diabolical Rue Goldberg machine of capitalism and encouraged others to do the same.

Most things are more blurry. This platform, for instance, is less than ideal in countless ways and at worst, morally bankrupt, but it's still a resource that can be taken advantage of to the ends of spreading word about other resources, or helping drum up awareness - if nobody knows what's going on, they're going to listen to what's being told to them. We know which voices are the loudest.

Paying attention to which accounts have checkmarks, though, it's not as if we aren't complicit in some ways. When we use this site and it encourages others to do the same, we're paying indirectly.

There's always going to be more decision making than electing to shrug and say "no ethical consumption under capitalism" - that absence of a decision to decide where to draw the line is a kind of crime of omission. This "I just wanna draw my silly guys from my funny shows tee hee ^^".

I make and weigh up my decision to use this site every day that I do. I still think, ultimately, it is more optimal than a subscription service, it's... reasonably... user friendly (although, that gets less and less true by the day) and it's fairly accessible. I like that fan communities are a free, open space for people to chat and hang out.

I might change that decision tomorrow. I think it would be a shame, considering how long I've been around, but I don't need to fortify my identity as a "tumblr user".

That should extend to fan work. I don't guarantee you my patronage. If TF2 became a subscription service, I might rescind. I already feel very on-the-fence about supporting Valve - while it was a pioneer company, it's still encompassed by the vast and profitable Steam, which is corporate in its makings and as such, dubious. I wouldn't really encourage anyone to give them money, but I can't stop it either.

The other thing about this kind of disconnect is how most people online treat you as only the sum of your parts. The entity that is you is comprised of commodities they enjoy. Most people who find your work will do it through the frame of whatever they were already looking for, people who don't necessarily have any ideas about these conscious decisions we make.

I do know of artists deliberately making themselves harder to find because of this. Either disappearing any trace of the person behind the work, or obscuring the work to begin with. To a degree, it kind of undermines the joy of open accessibility that made these sites appealing, but I also understand why.

The sad part of closing yourself off from a community is that it can make it harder for smaller artists who just want to get by, doing what they do, to be seen at all. It's harder to reap the benefits of using this platform, with a lot of the same risks anyway.

I think everyone, to some degree, has an obligation to encourage conscious decisions like this, and show awareness of the strings attached to whatever their new shiny thing is. You're never really going to get there by trying to purge everything or double down about why you're allowed to stop caring.

[salted-caramel-tea]

anyway if y’all don’t believe me shein is not worth your time let’s have a look at a dress that i bought 2 years ago and has been hanging in my wardrobe since i bought it bc it was overhyped and actually a terrible dress. i looked cute in it tho but it was terribly made and i never bought from shein again. i don’t want to show pictures bc last time i posted a picture of it i got weird ass men in my messages .

so first and foremost it’s fast fashion it’s a terrible company it is so much worse than any other fast fashion brand as well we’ve talked about their worker conditions we’ve talked about their borderline slavery working for pennies and the huge controversies over the ‘help me labels’ time and time again but it’s just not getting through to people that this is just not a good place to buy from ethically . ‘no ethical consumption under capitalism’ sure but that doesn’t mean we can’t at least try to stop buying massive hauls from underpaid workers where we have the means and ability to buy elsewhere . obv some people will be reliant on brands like shein for size inclusivity and affordability and that is understandable especially with the price surges in second hand fashion right now but where we have the means to do better i argue that we should instead of spending £1000 on item hails from unethical companies and promoting them like they’re god tier level garments . ok .

anyway if ur still convinced shopping from shein is alright then let’s look at the quality of the dress i have . worn exactly twice . in these photos. hasnt even seen a washer or dryer and been in my wardrobe since .

first and foremost you can see right through the fabric . the only section of the garment with a lining is the bodice . some might argue it’s alright bc the dress flares out around the body do you can’t see much however it makes the garment appear unfinished and messy even compared to other fast fashion brands .

the star of the show here is the stitching . this is a complete rush job done by someone who is overworked and underpaid likely paid by the amount of garments they make in a day trying to make ends meet . in so the quality of the garment will suffer . i believe i paid around £25 for this dress in early 2021 when it was super popular on tiktok and it does not have the feel of a £25 dress i can get anywhere else even with other fast fashion retailers like h&m and asos . this is not wear as a result of use. the dress has barely been worn, and it’s barely made to be worn because it will start to suffer damages as it’s worn . i have a shein skirt from 2019 that i’ve had to mend because the stitching around the zipper was such bad quality that it just fell apart leaving a hole in the back of the skirt after a few wears . even if you’re willing to overlook the poor workplace practise of borderline slavery the items will never be worth the money you pay for them anyway .

shein is not a good place to buy from when you have the means to buy elsewhere. mistreatment of workers and bad workplace environments lead to low quality minimally wearable garments that end up in charity shops or bins after a few wears and profit off the users susceptibility to micro trend fads by pumping out as many items as the can at rapid fire pace . both the people who work in these warehouses and the quality of the clothing is suffering . genuinely anywhere is better .

[friendlystarfruit]

Any thoughts on the new Hogwarts game?

CW (transphobia and the hp franchise)

I think the game looks really good and I dont have any issue with people liking hp games and movies buy but I am debating if we should buy it over pirate it J.K. Rowling is being empowered by it (she will profit ) and as J.K. Rowling is a transphobe, (she doesnt support trans rights) she will use that money and fame to do harm that worries me.

One may argue there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but this is an appeal to futility argument, yes nobody is perfect and as consumers it can indeed be difficult, you can not undo the harmful dynamics of a Capitalistic society through supply and demand but you can still work under capitalism to make some good changes. A big example of corporate activism is the rise of veganism and how this effects the amount of aninmal bred and the amount of plant based options to encourage more people to eat kinder to animals and the planet but be in that case we are paying directly for a dead body its not like we are buying a cup cake from a murderer those are two different issues one is funding a bad action the other is funding a bad person doing a morally natural action (selling cupcakes) .

But does this apply to new HP game? I am trying to figure out that myself I know big companies that are hard to avoid do awful things and all of us are not perfect ethical consumers and the product we are buying is not the problem its the views of its owner.

This isn't a black and white issue because none of us are perfect innocent consumers , all of can do more but maybe a simple choice to pirate a game instead of buying it out of support for trans people isnt much to ask?

I am a big gamer and I think the game looks incredible too bad te money will go to Rowling *sigh

[justsomeantifas]

Do you have any more resources on work, specifically targeted towards trying to make ethical work/“career” decisions? I’m a white collar worker struggling to make a decision on leaving a high paying job that lets me do more mutual aid but is indirectly supporting a large company that does harm. I’m trying to find something less evil before my department stops hemorrhaging money and could use readings to guide my decision.

I can’t think of many readings regarding work other than “Nickel and Dimed” by Ehrenreich. But I think it’s important to remember that just like there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, there’s very little ethically paid work under capitalism, too.

Even non-profits can be and are controlled by the system of capitalism. Their workers are notoriously under-paid and over-worked and highly exploited because they’re in a field that they love so much.

So idk. I’d keep the job that allows for more mutual aid unless it’s crushing your soul and causing you mental health issues. Every company does harm. You’re not going to escape that by jumping over to what appears to be greener pastures.

-mod a

[lotronprimesucks]

It's just such a culturally conservative and dishonest position to afford leniency to old things because they already exist and vitriol to new things because the circumstamces of their creation are insufficiently socialist. It's the attitude of my literature teacher who didn't talk about anything created after 1960 because it couldn't compare with the classics. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, it'a just that your opinion is based in some really sketchy assumptions. Like... do you think most artists and screenwriters can get work outside the studio or streaming system? Do you think there exists ethical consumption under capital? When Amazon and Disney are the biggest employers on the market, serving their own interest with their products, should we avoid all those products because they're not made ethically? Nothing is made ethically. Should we just stop enjoying all art until the revolution comes? (Before you say it - yes it can be art even if it's made for profit by a megacorporation). Your position here feels like cultural veganism. And much like veganism, it reeks of naivety, privilege, a patronizing attitude and a first-world-online-leftie approach to politics.

You know what, anon, sure, I'll bite. I've got nothing better to do this Thursday.

more or less in the order you brought them up:

I stated in my previous answer that I don't afford leniency to the Jackson films. Stating the truth - that they exist, that they're undeniably good works of cinema, that they exist because someone pitched them rather than because a studio commissioned them, and that they fail both as adaptations and as modern appraisals of Tolkien's racism - is not leniency, neither is saying that if they were being made right here and now I would be among the naysayers. At what point is it lenient to acknowledge that I was a child when these films were being made and had no ability to comment on their production or the ethics of blockbuster films?

There is not ethical consumption under capital(ism) and what that means is not "you can do whatever you want because it doesn't matter! yay! nihilism!" - everything you do has harm and moral weight, and it's your choice to decide for yourself how to engage with that. In my case, yes, that does mean avoiding everything Disney and Amazon does, both because reports from these specific companies about working conditions and corporate politics and exploitative unionbusting and anti-union filmmaking tactics are worth paying attention to and because if they aren't going to pay their workers what they're worth they don't deserve to exist. Again, at what point is it controversial to say "large corporations are the enemy and anyone calling themself a leftist has a moral imperative to oppose them"?

Trying to argue with me that the only possible paths we can take are "no art until the revolution comes" and "embrace our corporate-oligarchical overlords" is relying on a strawman representation of what I'm saying. Indie film and indie projects exist. Independent creators and novelists and artists and podcasters exist. Millions of artists without a marketing budget are out there trying to make their dreams happen; money I might otherwise spend on a streaming service is spent on Patreon and Gumroad and Ko-fi. The people breaking their backs for the sake of corporate greed deserve better, and the idea that the only way these people could ever make good art is through employment by Amazon and Disney is both stifling long-term creativity (think of how many projects Disney shelved when they acquired Fox) and insisting that artists now should just accept that they're stuck in a system that sees them as interchangeable cogs in a machine.

On that note, yes, the idea of a Revolution coming and changing everything with no effort is shortsighted and immature. That's why you have to actually do things to start the revolution! Small steps and small outcries are how we get bigger steps and bigger outcries. Yes, ultimately I want both Amazon and Disney to go down, because I don't think that the art they commission as propaganda to advance their corporate goals is something they deserve to be able to keep making. I don't like seeing them manipulate innocent people who can't see what their ad campaigns are doing, and I don't like seeing them churn out lesser and lesser quality work because they know they don't have to compete to rise to the top. (Before you argue otherwise, this is definitely happening with both companies' output, Disney in particular, and not only in media but in experiences and physical products and park experiences. I will happily provide sources upon request, for this or any other point I make.)

In conclusion, I might be a cultural vegan but at least I'm not a bootlicker.

[ironwoman359]

Why is merch so expensive especially Thomas Sanders merch?

I mean I’m not an economist but usually merch is expensive because products cost money to make, and for merch to actually be profitable (or at least make enough to break even) it has to be priced accordingly. So for youtubers who are going for higher quality items (such as the unus annus merch), it’s going to be a little more expensive than just your average t-shirt from walmart. Also, you aren’t just paying for the base item, you are also paying for the Brand of whatever influencer you just bought something from. Why is Gucci so expensive? It’s not just because of the production cost/quality of items, it’s because of The Brand. And some youtubers especially take advantage of that by selling poor quality items at high prices because they know their fans will pay for something with their name/face/brand on it. This is, as we say in layman’s terms, a dick move. 

Thankfully, Thomas’s merch does not fall into that category. It’s not perfect, of course (particularly I’ve heard from friends that the sizing for the plus sizes is not the greatest) but Thomas and Co aren’t trying to take advantage of fans or rip people off. The jam in particular is on the pricier side for reasons I talked about in this ask; don’t forget that most of the time, super cheap things are cheap because somewhere, someone’s labor is being exploited. Clothing especially should be far more expensive than it typically is, and the reason we expect it to be cheaper is because of major textile and design corporations ripping off workers and skewing our perception of the Value of an item. Since Crofters is a family owned company that uses organic, fair trade ingredients, it’s going to be a little more expensive. But that’s a cost I’m happy to pay in exchange for a good product that is at least slightly more ethical to consume (because remember, say it with me, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism)

[nightswithkookmin]

G I R L

I just saw y the HYBE x Ithaca Holdings video and it really hit me with some realisations. HYBE partnering with them is bound to change some things in a huge way. Collabs and economics notwithstanding, Ithaca is home to NUMEROUS big name artists. I want to focus on the fact that: (1) Beiber is a heavily tattooed dude, I wonder if this fact will give some leeway for Kook to be a bit more free with his existing tatts or allow him to continue getting more. (2) Demi is an openly queer woman. This, along with how open Ithaca’s artists are with their support for the LGBTQ+ community, makes me wonder how it will influence HYBE artists who might be queer themselves (looking at Jikook 👀). I fully know that culturally Korea is its own thing and HYBE its own entity, but I think this might open up some doors for our boys both musically speaking as well as regarding their own selves. Dearest Goldy of mine, what do you think?

Hmmmmmmm

That's an interesting question.

I do agree that this provides a huge economic opportunity for BTS as a group and as investors in Hybe and for frankly anyone within Hybe labels- there's a lot of talents who would kill to be part of this company now. I just know it.

Hell I wanna be part of Hybe and I can't even sang. Lmho.

Cute, if you think I can dance. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

BigHit just got cooler you know.

But I think you are basically asking if this new acquisition will in effect impact the lifestyle of BTS, specifically Jikook as queer people in any way?

I'd say no- especially on the issue of tattoos. But I might be wrong. I just think it takes more than a business merger to undo a person's lifestlye and or socialization or even influence it.

Unless of course, this merger guarantees them certain universal rights and protections outside their culture and political system I don't see how it's to profit them as queer people in any major way.

Whatever impact I'd say is rather intangible.

If you know what I mean.

I've said a few times now how BTS by virtue of their presence in the international community, in my opinion, are socialized and are expected to be socialized a tad differently from the average regular conservative or even liberal S. Korean person with no external influences whatsoever on their socializations.

Your socialization informs your lifestyle.

Justin, Troye, RM and other artists have undoubtedly had and perhaps continue to have an influence on Jk musically and lifestyle wise, to some extent, but he has his own unique values and beliefs and morals that has been acquired and instilled in him through the years independent of these influences.

He is his own person afterall.

Plus did you see the arm sleeve on the director of the MV for Home? He is surrounded at the work place with people that are tatted too. It can't be just Justin B.

He saw a girl with tattoos and said that was something he'd love to have one day when he got of age and he got it- in spite of Suga's objection. He's always expressed interests in tattoos and wanting to become a tattoo artist.

He got these tattoos in spite of the inconveniences they pose to his expressions of self within his career and society- as tattoos are still pretty much stigmatized in S.K and aren't legally allowed on certain broadcasts within S. Korea. And he continues to add on them, draw over them etc way before this merger came into existence.

If he decides that's what he wants he will get them but it wouldn't be because Justin Bieber is heavily tatted or because his company expanded.

I'm not sure what you mean by leeway, but in a recent Run episode (the one with the famous chef) we saw his full arm out and I think that was the first time we had seen his tats on full display on run.

Contrastingly, he had his whole arm bandaged in the Let's BTS interview on KBS.

He covers his tattoos most times because of broadcast rules that prohibits (regulates) not just tattoos but alcohol consumption, cussing, nudity etc on public television that require specific ratings.

Merger or not he will still have to adhere to the laws of South Korea, including entertainment and media broadcasting laws and hide his tattoos as and where.

On the topic of queerness, I think now more than ever BTS would have to become socially, racially and culturally conscious and aware the instant this deal is concluded in May.

Ithaca has one of the most diversified group of artists under its belt- from Quavo who is black to Demi who is queer like you pointed out.

Now more than ever they are at the center of the global conversations we are having in our generation- from racism, to LBGTQ plus marginalizations, to all oppressions of minorities and minority groups.

And with that proximity comes a need to keep themselves in check now more so than ever- which include a check on the cultural appropriation bit, the queer baiting, drawing on queer aesthetics in their 'fan service' culture and other problematic issues that is characteristic of KPop.

What they do now matters more than ever- socially speaking of course.

When Jin started eating a lollipop JM gave him provocatively, JM asked him not to do that on camera but to reserve things like that for the group off camera.

If 'gay' is not gay but their 'culture' I think they know better to keep it to themselves off camera and act 'right' on camera- especially now.

I'm not about to stan a group that capitalizes on the trauma and oppression of me and my people in the name of entertainment. That's just tacky.

On the plus, I think it's great that they be surrounded by other queer folks in the business and be part of a community that welcomes and support queerness so they don't feel like they are the only ones.

That's not to say they aren't surrounded by queer people in their dialy lives.

I mean they have a large staff and I know damn well some of those staffers are queer as well- why wouldn't they be. Lol.

They've always had that 'supportive' environment to foster their relationship- well except for that one time a manager tried to bitch slap JK. Lol. Sorry.

It's not funny at all. Serious face.

They've always been free and loose in places outside Korea- Japan for one, to be themselves in certain 'controlled" areas of their lives.

I think if anything there's gonna be a focus on creating conducive and inclusive work environments and ethics for everyone not just queer people within the company at large.

I think Jikook can relate more, have certain essential conversations in the group, be exposed to and be part of the 'community' in a way that just felt so distant to them prior to the acquisition- in my opinion.

There is strength in numbers after all. Other than that those two companies might operate like night and day with a few eclipses in between.

The bigger question for me is how SK is going to react to Hybe as an international company from now on. No elite Korean company has openly admitted queer artists within their label. Such revelations presumably is bound to impact their social and economic standing...

Seems in acquiring Ithaca though Hybe have circumvented the conservative problem within Kpop and their culture as they have acquired openly queer artists.

Not that they care about an artist's sexuality. Bang have made it perfectly clear he prioritizes a person's talent over their sexual preference and thus hire artists based on their skills regardless of their sexuality.

But that is also not to say that the company wouldn't be met with harsh criticisms and suffer economic loss should they openly admit the sexuality of certain artists they work with.

I mean he did advise Jo Kwan on the risks he would be taking in going in the direction he wanted to go in with his heels schtick. So he is aware of the risks involved in going public with an artist's sexual orientation.

He talked about Korean companies playing it safe and not taking certain risks especially when it comes to deeds that are deemed 'rebellious' against the Korean conservative way.

-Watch and learn people, if you can't hire openly gay talents acquire their company. Problem solved. Lol.

From May, Hybe will technically officially become the first elite Korean company with openly queer artists under its labels that openly touches on and advocates for LGBTQ plus rights.

I'm waiting for Pride month with a cup of tea. Mu haha ha.

BTS has performed with queer artists in the past, dabbled in LGBTQ plus conversations which was mostly met with mixed reactions from the general public- some oblivious to who these artists were much less that they were queer. (Sis laugh with me. Hehe. If you know you know)

BigHit is gradually evolving the status quo.

It's an interesting development I must say, one I'm very much invested in at this point.

BigHit has always aimed beyond the borders of Korean commercial verse often straddling the line of conservatism, literally just became an international company within South Korea governed by both Korean and American laws that in all essence conflict with eachother morally and constitutionally.

Bang has some heavy balls I'll give him that.

Also, since this is an acquisition and not a merger I doubt if much will change in the structures of either company- the family photoshoots would be interesting to watch.

Imagine trying to get Arianna, Justin, BTS, TXT in one large studio for a photoshoot. I'm literally cackling. Lmho.

Scooter Braun will become part of the board of Hybe to manage the company and he is part owner of Hybe along with Justin, Ariana and BTS who also have shares in the company- until they decide to sell their shares that is.

That's about it.

I'm not sure how these Asian haters are gonna respond to an Asian company taking over 'America.' That's something to watch out for.

Then there's this whole issue of 'scandals' and both campanies view on it.

Western companies feed off chaos and drama and scandals, Kpop is the exact opposite.

Most of these Artists under Ithaca have had some pretty bad records and are prone to scandals and stuff like that. In case of an inevitable future scandal, the news would read 'BTS's so so and so.'

They are gonna make it all about BTS.

I mean when BigHit went public with their IPO and it went south it was all about BTS' 'failed IPO' in the news rather than the company it's self.

I have mixed feelings about this acquisition.

It's obvious BigHit is saving Justin Bieber's label. You don't sell unless you are in some huge financial decline blah blah.

Hybe is keeping them in business while building their own portfolio in the industry. BTS may not have a Grammy but Hybe has several artists with Grammys under it's belt now. Smirk.

The success of Justin, Ariana and all these artists are the success of Hybe which together with the powerhouse that is BTS gives Hybe more prestige- it's like watching the game of thrones but this time it's a bunch of nerds with chapsticks and Prada. Lmho.

At least now people will think twice before they peddle the 'they are not gay, it's their culture' nonsense.

Not sure if this answers your question?

I purple you💜💜💜💜💜

Signed,

GOLDY

[david-box]

I'll try to be concise but some of the surface level discourse around fast fashion frustrates me because people seem to be extremely willing to file it under "no ethical consumption" as in "quit asking me to do shit" instead of "capitalism at it's core is unethical and relies on subjugation beyond the worker-boss dynamic" or any other definition.

Individual consumer choices (...made as a group) are an important part of handling the negative effects of the textile industry. We obviously need to change the industry, we can do this in part with different habits around our clothes -> decreasing the demand for a clothes, it's not impossible at all, and the political changes are going to require consumer ones either before they're made or after.

I'm going to skip over the part where I talk about how the industry makes too much clothes and too much of it plastic etc. etc. because I feel like people on here already know that but here's the epa report anyway. Like if you've clicked on this I assume you already know about microplastics and sweatshops and shit on at least a surface level.

A lot of people complaining about industry effects on the environment seem to just not want to think that a change in demand could do anything at all and will directly say that it doesn't, but it does, I swear to god. If people buying more of their clothes online can kill Forever 21 imagine what we can do like, on purpose.

Like I think we all saw the supply chain issues being partially because people didn't buy shit for a good amount of time, so supply went down. Because demand went down. I don't know how to keep explaining this I'm just tired of people saying or implying this.

The fast fashion industry relies on, is fueled by, and drives demand for cheap, quick clothes. You need sweatshops if you want it cheap, you need petroleum if you want it fast, and you need a marketing team for people to buy your cheap quick shit clothes. The people who drive this collective western habit have every ability to ignore the marketing that drives it.

The demographic who does buy H&M or whatever has the ability to change their habits. They aren't too poor to change, again it's common knowledge poor people already shop secondhand and try to make their clothes last like we they have for literal centuries. They aren't struggling to find their size and therefore can't stop, because most of the time fast fashion doesn't carry non-"standard" sizes (I had to learn to sew lol). Frankly, it's people offline that like to shop for clothes and keep up with trends that don't know what the industry is like or don't keep it in their heads, and people online wanting ad money for $200 hauls.

A change in the fashion industry is already happening to a certain extent: people asked for more sustainable fashion and the industry responded and made it a selling point. I don't know how honest this response is, but you get my point.

We will not be able to effectively regulate the textile industry on a national or international without changes in the way we buy and treat clothes. We can demand fairer wages for the people who actually sew the clothes, but if companies still have tons of profit from their polyester bullshit it'll be harder to fight them (although the effects of boycotting during any labor activism is it's own discussion but again you get my point I hope). We can demand better dumping practices for unsold clothes but if we never decrease the amount made it'll be harder because those clothes have to go *somewhere.* We can try to control dumping from the secondhand industry (because that's how much clothes we have, even secondhand stores have to dump perfectly good shit) but again, if we have the same amount of secondhand clothes... you see what I mean.

Frankly, if we do completely reshape the fashion and generally the textile industry into something more sustainable and less sweatshop-polyester-nightmare-y without changes in habits, our habits will have to change anyway. Better wages don't *have* to make prices go up but they will probably hike those prices up realistically speaking. Less dumping areas across seas might not make production go down, but it probably will, so there'll be less supply, so higher prices again unless demand goes down with it. Even if it doesn't, less clothes being made/available will require those middle-upper class consumers and everyone else to have different clothing habits. Genuinely why not just start now.

Individual consumer choices are not a rat race towards $300 ultra sustainable bullshit or living off the grid. Buying less clothing and making what you do wear last longer helps!!! It's necessary, it works, it can continue to work, it's very possible, and our habits are going to have to change in the long run anyways. We need to leave this "oh but what about the fact that ALL clothes are unethical :-///" discussion behind and focus on how we will actually make these changes on the ground level and then *do them*.

[luckystarchild]

That thing with nestle, I feel so ashamed for being so ignorant of what was happening behind closed doors. I remember nestle was my childhood and now ugh, there is always a price for good things. Obviously I'm not buying from them well as much as I can possibly avoid. This is so inhuman of what they r currently doing. Just wtf fuck man

I don’t think you should feel ashamed. Not knowing something isn’t a moral failing. Clearly you’re listening and willing to learn; that is a moral triumph. Sitting in ignorance is comfortable; challenging yourself to learn is not. You know some of the things Nestle has done, now, and you are thus willing to help further change. That is only a good thing. Just move forward trying to be as ethical as you can. That’s all anyone can ask of you.

“There can be no ethical consumption under capitalism,” as they say. Our current system ensures that it is HARD, if not impossible in many cases, to make ethical choices that don’t support immoral companies. When immoral companies hold monopolies, you cease to have the option to consume with a mind for ethics. The companies conducting business with no regards to ethics and only regard to profit are the ones truly destroying the world and our planet. They, far more than you as an individual consumer, are the ones who need to be held accountable. 

[date-an-anarchist-suggestions]

Just so you know, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and boycotting huge companies like chick-fil-a does next to nothing because not near enough people ever participate for it to matter, and almost never makes a dint in a companies profits. Literally every major industry is kept alive by global slavery, exploitation, and extreme poverty. How is buying from chick-fil-a any worse than buying from literally anywhere else? It’s no better locally, with how the poor are used and abused.

Just so you know, Im not even gonna try to type out an actual argument because this is stupid and I dont have to explain myself to you. Are you guilty? You feel guilty you greasy homophobic chicken eating fool?

- Mod Queenie

[kcsplace]

the-insane-fangirl

Well that sounds fucking awful. I haven't heard of it or seen it advertised on any of my products bc I honestly don't look for it. I hate to pull the whole "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" thing, but I buy what I can afford. I'll try to be mindful in the future tho

Oh, absolutely. I have no money, like none. and it’s not about shaming people into things they can’t afford or being ‘bad’ for using somehthing but I still try to educate myself on what is and isn’t a wise purchase and often it isn’t just a case of where I DO spend my money, but where I DON’T.

It’s almost impossible to completely avoid palm oil. it’‘s hidden in a lot of products under a lot of names - for instance if a label just says ‘vegetable oil’ thats likely palm oil. and a lot of products that are made without it can be more expensive.  Some of these can then really rack up if its a product you use a lot like shampoo or detergent (SLS in shampoos and detergents is almost always palm oil and indeed there are DOZENS of names for the stuff so just scanning for ‘palm oil’ in the ingredients often isn’t enough but is a damn good start).

So what I try and do as much as possible is

a)change my buying habits where I can afford to get palm oil free/more environementally friendly variants - ie solid shampoo made in my country that’s shipped in recyleable cardboard and plastic free to lessen the impact of shipping etc.

b) choose to NOT buy items that can be bought without palm oil or that are a luxury item I don’t need. for instance, I freaking love Reeses Peanut Butter cups.  this is the body peanut butter built (sadly). But they contain palm oil.  I do not need them to live. I do not need them in my life.  so i no longer buy them.  I’m voting with my lack of dollar by not purchasing from a brand that uses palm oil.  Same with Nutella. I freaking love it. But I can get a palm oil free version for not much more and so I do that when I really crave it.  I no longer give my money to a company that uses palm oil for an item that I don’t actually have to have.  so I haven’t spent any more money, in fact I’ve saved some because not buying certain products is just as impactful as buying different products.

c)educate myself.  I won’t buy anything from Whole Earth because they try to greenwash their products with *sustainable palm oil* when it’s a scientific fact that there is no such thing and it’s actually even more damaging.  They DO make prooducts in the exact same price range without the palm oil, so they don’t need it, but they chose to use it.  I will not buy from them, palm oil or no, because they’re lying to consumers and trying to (and succeeding) in profitting off looking environmentally friendly when they’re not.  When I asked Whole Earth about it, they just said their products were very tasty.  What The Actual Fuck?!

d) when I cannot change a product due to allergies or literally requiring it to live, I try to make changes in other areas where I can - recycling as much as possible, walk as much as possible, no straws, as little single use plastic as possible, tote bags, switched to plastic free floss, reusable makeup pads, beeswax wrappings, menstrual cup, anything I can do that doesn’t require me to spend money I don’t have/or perhaps a little upfront but then none after but can be done to lessen my impact on the world. 

I was raised as a scuba diver by a scuba diver and our motto is ‘take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but bubbles’.  I’m just trying to live that motto as best I can