#there is no option for people of low income to do things ethically

[cachien]

my biggest frustration rn is the complete inability to buy or even find ethically sourced products online. i go on etsy, i look through seventeen pages of drop-shipped products, i give up. i go on amazon. i see the same products for $2 cheaper. i go on temu. i see the same products for $3 total. i know all of these products are made by child slaves or else low-paid workers in horrendous conditions. i need an item. i have to buy the item. i go back to etsy. i search and search for two hours. i finally find a version of the item from the US, lower quality, looks handmade. perfect. shop based in ohio. i buy the item. shipping label printed in china. i scream.

[maxdibert]

It may be improper of me to speculate on someone’s intellect, but all the hatred directed at Severus by snaters/mstans is bizarre to me. In a world consumed by violence, it’s illogical to look at this character’s situation so superficially and spout nonsense like, “Being poor, bullied, or other hardships aren’t excuses to join ‘racists’ or ‘the equivalent of Nazis.’” This completely ignores tangible examples of what such environments can do to a person. How many stories are there about literal children bringing weapons to school as an attempt to retaliate against their bullies? How many news articles talk about children joining gangs or adults who, for various reasons, ended up involved in criminal organizations? This kind of thing isn’t hard to find—it’s all around us.

Many people who join criminal groups are vulnerable individuals, often from low-income backgrounds, with no adequate support system. These people are easily manipulated by the smallest crumbs of respect, affection, or acceptance. Vulnerable individuals will cling to anything that offers them a shred of security, no matter how questionable or malicious it may seem to others.

Is Severus responsible for his own choices? Of course, and he knows that himself. But expecting a child who never had proper support, never had the chance to grow and heal, and clung to the one stable thread in his life to turn away from it in favor of people who treated him worse than garbage—who tormented him simply for existing and ignored or silenced his suffering—is so detached from reality that it’s absurd.

You can hate Severus—I’m not arguing or imposing otherwise. Everyone has their preferences, and that’s fine. But it’s arrogant to expect someone who has only ever known violence and neglect to live up to some idealistic and egocentric notion of what is “good” or “evil.”

Is he perfect? No. Is he likable? No. But none of his flaws justify dismissing the suffering and trauma that shaped him. I guess an unrealistically “clean” victim, free of emotional scars, would suit this fandom better. But who am I to say anything, right?

This turned out a bit longer than I intended—sorry.

Honestly, I have nothing more to add because I completely agree, and this is something I’ve repeated a thousand times to the point that I’m starting to feel like a broken record: the idea that Severus had a "difficult" past isn’t meant to make people feel sorry for him, forgive him, or see him as some poor uwu. When we talk about the importance of his past, it’s because understanding his decisions requires us to comprehend his context and the way it significantly influenced those decisions.

People need to take a moment to think, step outside their bubble of privilege, and really reflect on what options a poor boy with no social resources or familial support could have had in an environment where he was marginalised by the "good guys" and where only the "bad guys" gave him a social space and some recognition, despite his blood status and social standing. Consider how that space and recognition were the only escape routes he had from poverty and violence and how that played a fundamental role in his decision-making.

Severus didn’t have the luxury of choice. He couldn’t refuse to align himself with his housemates because outside that house, he was faced with a group of bullies making his life miserable. And he couldn’t return to where he came from because that was a place of sheer poverty and more violence. He had no alternatives. Whatever he chose, it was going to turn out badly for him. So, he made the decision that seemed the least problematic at the time.

And that decision doesn’t need to be "less problematic" from an ethical perspective—it’s about stepping into his shoes, not viewing things from the comfortable position of a morally superior spectator at home who can judge without pausing to think and consider the situation as more than just black and white.

[giantkillerjack]

the average person doesn't expect you to be a perfect ethical consumer, that's not possible for the vast majority of us. but what youre saying is it's better to do nothing at all and choose the worst possible options (sweat shops, overseas shipping waste, idea/product theft, all wrapped up in SHEIN) than to put even the tiniest effort in where you can.

[they are referring to this post]

What I said was "some people are doing literally everything they can to survive and have no extra bandwidth to spend extra time and money on their purchases, and it is cruel and therefore un-punk to gatekeep punkness and add additional shame to these people's lives based on that fact."

I think it's still a good thing to try to ethically consume; I literally never said it wasn't. I had never even heard of SHEIN before. Rather, I am much more concerned about what I saw as arbitrary gatekeeping based on ability and income.

And frankly how dare you claim that I am supporting sweatshops and abuse by saying that this additional work you are demanding (in this case, presumably, vetting every clothing company you buy from) is not always possible for people. It is not a light accusation to accuse me of supporting abuse.

"How dare you say we piss on the poor", Etc. 🙄 this isn't Twitter. You are determined to enforce moral purity, but you are failing to see the nuance.

Because when I say "no extra bandwidth," I mean no extra bandwidth. This is not the "car shows it's on E but actually secretly it has a lot of gas left" situation that abled people constantly assume disabled people mean when they say they are at their limit.

This is "the car has stopped moving, and to move it I'd have to break my body pushing it." This is "at a certain point, people will hit a wall in terms of money and time and energy, and any energy spent after that comes directly out of their life force."

So the argument "okay but just spend a little more time money and energy actually" is not a valid one.

And the argument "if you are not able to do this specific task, then it means you're not doing anything else to make the world a better place" doesn't exactly impress me either. You said yourself that it is impossible to be a perfectly ethical consumer for most people.

How do you know what else people are doing to resist oppression? How many hours per week until your standards are met?What if someone works 3 jobs? Does that mean it's harder to be a good person if you're poor?? Why do you get to decide what specific avenue of bettering the world is the most morally repugnant or acceptable? What kind of proof of goodness and effort would make you satisfied enough to lay off on the shame?? Who are you helping??

Clothing is a fundamental human need, and some of us have to buy cheap fucking clothes quickly. Billionaires are buying their seventh yacht this month. The people who own fast fashion companies are abusing their workers and putting local affordable clothing stores out of business - and this applies for basically every company with price points that low because governments are failing to regulate corporations to enforce basic human rights.

I have $300 to spend on a new wardrobe as my old clothes have fallen apart or become too small. Do you have a way for me to get a new winter coat, 3 flannels, 10 shirts, 3 dress shirts, new sandals, 10 pairs of pants, 5 bras, 12 pairs of socks, and 10 pairs of underwear within that budget and also definitely 100% ethically sourced, with free returns in case it doesn't fit? Or will I simply have to use the cheap stores?

I have about an hour to spend on this per week. Many mainstream stores doesn't make clothes in my size, and I am now in *year 5* of needing an electric wheelchair and being unable to get one; plus I live up a flight of stairs, so I can't even bring my walker out with me - so thrift shopping is not gonna cover this. Should I continue to wear small and tattered clothing until I have the time, money, and energy to meet your standards?

Did you know there are more empty homes in this country than homeless people? If I decide to splurge on only 100% ethically-produced products, and I can't make rent, and I become homeless, are YOU going to be there for me?? Or are you too busy litigating the endless tiny shames of poverty in your own community?

So I ask you again, are you SURE this is where you want to direct your punk energy?

Because there are a whole lot of rich people relying on people like us punching down and to the side instead of looking up to see where the money is going.

Because energy and time, as it turns out, are limited resources. And I would never expect you to secretly have more than you claim to have.

[shallowrambles]

wait are you pro-ship or aren't you

I'm live and let live. Ultimately, I don't view female-predominant fandom spaces as much of a threat. If at all.

But, contrary to popular option, I don't actually think ideas and fantasies are harmless, and deep down, even with our lip serve to "killing the cop inside," we all know this.

Ideas matter, and ideas affect real life. We're almost always in the process of judging how dangerous an idea is, how much we think that idea attenuates actual behavior, and to what degree we allow them to exist and spread. Much of that involves observing the context of where and how the idea appears.

It's why I will always love the movie Quills. It's a bit of an unanswerable ethical question, really. Sociological behavior is multi-factorial. These things are notoriously hard to study. Average folks muddle our way through best we can.

Part of it too is, "do I feel like the spread of this idea affect attitudes that in turn affect behavior that in turn affects my real life in a meaningful way?"

That's just life. We're all doing it to some degree.

Lotsa folks are anti-censorship until they perceive the other side as spreading "dangerous propaganda and brainwashing." Lotsa people are "pro-free will" until the other side starts supporting the Wrong Things (TM).

It's why people are good with shutting down MAGA shit and Blood-and-Soil crap on campuses. We call the censorship the "consequences of free speech," "oh, it's just the majority rising up in dissent" etc etc. But the reality is, we have judged the idea to be harmful. Contagious. And even when people are freely choosing the trap of these ideas, we think the harms to society outweigh the benefits of the unfiltered freedom on a megaphone.

So, yeah. I'm "proship," but because I think the degree of harm is very small, not because I think some written ideas are magically harmless and insulated from having an effect on real-life behavior. That's just not what history shows. I don't find it to be based in reality.

For the record, I actually view the gleeful fetishization of incest and low-class stereotyping as actually affecting the lives of the very poor. I think it perpetuates attitudes that have immediate effects on our medical but also indirect ones on our access to jobs, education, etc. And people don't care, because the aesthetic and the belief systems of the region are too shitty to deserve respect, and there's this idea that Those People Deserve the Jokes, or Can't Help it if it's True...they're so "hateful that they deserve it." (Meanwhile, want shorthand for incest? Give 'em a hick aesthetic. Flannel! Want shorthand for stupidity, give 'em a hick accent.)

The fact is, ppl would rather bask in low-country incest jokes and toothless jokes than extend meaningful help...or even lobby for increased dental care or access to education. "Those people do it to themselves," we say. We can look at other regions in the world and see the chokehold of propaganda, zealous nationalism, and lack of resources/education, but we sometimes can't see it in our own backyard.

But THAT SAID, I don't think being proship is harmful to most people or society at large, not in the the way that structural pollution is to low-income areas, and inequitable funding for education is. Rich bitches beating off in the privacy of their own homes to the fetishization of the results of poverty and the neuroses of the downtrodden in is a dime a dozen. To them, it represents a sexy, "forbidden" release from the horror of their boring, mundane lives.

For me, it boils down to this; it annoys me, so don't put it in my inbox. In the end, that's all that really matters. My opinion is separate to my boundary.

[brehaaorgana]

I just said some of this in the comments but you cannot assume that all fashion brands which ensure fair/living wages and decent treatment of factory workers are selling $180 t-shirts or whatever all of the time, and so therefore you "can't afford to buy more ethical products."

Op touched on some of this too, but like:

Step one: reduce consumption.

Also repair what you already own and like! Mend it, spend a little money to get it tailored, etc. Reuse what you can.

The thrift/secondhand clothes market is absolutely flooded with clothing because the fashion industry overproduces SO MUCH at such high volumes. There is more clothing than thrift/consignment stores can possibly ever sell. It's also easier than ever to find decent quality clothing secondhand online. There's no reason to ever shop ultra fast fashion like shein or temu, because there's still nice quality stuff for under $20 or under $10 in real life and online thrift/used markets all the time.

As for slow/ethical/eco fashion and clothing companies: Yes, sometimes they sell a T-shirt for $64 or $118!

But do you know what else I have seen these companies do?:

They have a wide variety of bonus discounts people can qualify for (including literally "low income discount.")

They often have their own secondhand markets for their clothing, so you can buy their clothing used and at a discount easily!

Some of them have textile recycling programs that are either free or involve purchasing the recycling return label bag, and the items you send to be recycled then grant you a credit towards shopping. (I just got a $25 gift card to a shop this way.)

They may have mistaken overstock of a specific color or size sales! (Wow that $168 dress is now $25 because they screwed up and ordered too many.)

They significantly discount retiring prints/patterns/styles or low stock items!

They have sample, archive, or seasonal end sales at big discounts.

Hell, it's April. A lot of them are discounting things for earth month.

Like if you're at a place where you can afford target new, and you're not able to find something used for what you need, then you need to know there are more ethical, sustainable, or accountable options out there with equivalent prices when you check sales.

Guess which one(s) is/are Target Brand at full price, and which are just things on sale at companies that do offer documentation on their factories, supply chain, their fair labor/trade certifications, employee guarantees, environmental impact reports, etc etc for all the clothing made?:

V-neck tee $18

Slim fit v-neck tee $15

Billow sleeve tee $20

Mock turtleneck long sleeve tee $20

Open front cardigan $30

Babydoll romper $30

Terry side zip pullover $25

Belted tea length dress $28

Organic cotton tee $15

Ruffled column dress $37

Men's fleece hoodie $35

Men's graphic hoodie $33

Halter jumpsuit $50

Ribbed tunic sweatshirt $30

Pointelle rib cardigan $18

Long sleeve shirt dress $45

Twill pencil skirt $25

V neck peplum top $23

Yes, I did ensure to include plus size inclusive brands!

Answers below the cut:

Target brand items: 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, and 16.

"crochet can't be made by machines" went from being a cool fun fact to being a call to action of "so if you see mass manufactured crochet in Target, that was made by a person and they were underpaid and you should boycott it" which is true, it was made by a person, but EVERY item of clothing you own (that you did not purchase from a company using ethical labor) was made by a person being underpaid (at *best*.)

Sewing machines are operated by *people*. Knitting machines are operated by *people*. Yes lots of the process is automated but you cannot tell a machine "make me a t-shirt" or "make me a knit cardigan".

Higher awareness of fast fashion, and the true human labor and abuse behind it, is GREAT, but let's not pretend that the crochet hat in target is THE problem. Every article of clothing in target is the problem. "All clothes are made by people" is the jumping off point here into understanding this issue it's not just crochet it's the whole thing ahhhhHHHHHHHHHH

[artg210sustain]

Summary #2

The first reading covers in-depth packaging and the environmental damage it causes. This is not just the damage caused by overpackaging and the waste from packaging but the harm caused by production, materials used, and shipping as well. The reading also discusses the difficulties of presenting clients with greener options like time constraints and costs of research. I have covered some of this in my packaging class as well and it's all very eye-opening. We as designers must step up and start to push for change.

The second reading focused on advertisements and in particular the abuse of advertisements. It pointed out the flaws in ads and the issues they can present. Ads are targeted towards groups of people based on age, gender, race, and income. Knowing your audience and demographic is one thing when making ads but taking advantage of specific audiences or demographics is another. Targeting low-income communities with products proven to be harmful and provide no real value whatsoever to profit off of the communities is morally wrong. So are ads targeted towards children especially those who don't know how to distinguish the lies and truth being presented to them and are being conditioned from a young age that has negative effects on them for the rest of their lives. Countries that have banned advertising towards children have the right idea and I feel others should follow suit. 

The final reading “Should Designers Take Responsibility for the Ethics of Their Clients?” by James Cartwright, talks about the responsibility of the designer to look at the ethics of their clients. This is a tough topic because while you can choose to work or not to work for a client based on their ethics it is similar to what was stated in “The Conscious Creative”, that sometimes designers just need to take a job for their survival. I feel that when it can be afforded designers should look at who they are creating for and what they stand for. However, if it is necessary then that doesn't necessarily fall on you to change a client's ideals and there are other opportunities to make impactful and meaningful designs elsewhere. Sometimes you do not have the luxury of designing with conscientious clients and companies and while there are still lines you shouldn't cross as seen in the second reading it isn’t on you as the designer what your clients practice or believe. Be aware of who you are designing for and for what purpose, understand how much you can take, and find a balance between helping make change and survival.

Manifesto Statements:

Design is Power

Advertise with respect

Change starts with design

Protect Youth

Package responsibly 

Find Balance

[onemomstrash]

The Ethics of Reselling

As a parent, you always want to lead a positive example for your kids. Most subjects and lessons aren't black and white - there are pros and cons to consider and sometimes you have to step back and calculate what does more harm than good. Reselling is no exception.

If you're new to reselling, you may not know that there is a hotly debated question that every reseller needs to think about: Is it ethical to purchase items from a thrift store to resell, or should thrift store goods be reserved for low-income shoppers who plan to use the items for themselves.

No one can answer this question without some bias. Your current and past personal finances, attitude about money, location, and more are going to affect how you feel about it. As you've probably figured out, I consider the pros of reselling to far outweigh the negatives, which is why I feel good about reselling in order to support my family.

But if you browse Reddit (as I do daily) for posts about reselling, you'll see many like this one from r/ThriftStoreHauls in December 2022: "Reselling goes against what thrifting is really all about and resellers have damn near ruined thrifting. The 'side hustle' is killing the hobby and killing a place for people with low income to buy half decent clothes."

I want to cover the pros and cons of reselling and point out some things to consider when thinking about the ethics of shopping at thrift stores and reselling.

Reselling Keeps Items Out of Landfills

Global warming - heard of it? Consumption and waste is a massive issue today, and the best ways to cut down on waste are to 1) avoid buying more stuff and 2) reuse the stuff you already have.

According to TheRoundUp.org, the world produces 92 million tons of JUST textile waste per year, with China contributing 20 million of that and the U.S. contributing 17 million. 66% of unwanted clothing ends up in the landfill, with less than 15% of it being recycled and 19% of it burned.

That's a TON of waste.

A lot of textile waste from developed countries is also sent to Africa or Asia. This is often referred to as a "gift" to these areas when in reality the textiles are often unusable, causing communities to have to figure out how to dispose of them. As you can read in this Greenpeace article, textile waste is literally sitting along African riverbanks because there is no other way to deal with it. With so many cheap clothing options being sent to these regions, textile waste is also crushing local textile markets with consumers choosing cheap prices over quality.

Resellers keep items from making their way to the landfill - and global riverbanks. And since we are talking about oversupply...

Most Thrift Stores Do Not Have An Issue of Low Inventory - Rather the Opposite

I'm not quite sure where the myth that there is not enough to go around when it comes to thrift stores came from - but it's absolutely a myth. Sure, there may be a limited number of designer items available at low thrift store prices, but when it comes to functional, warm, stylish clothing, thrift stores are literally overflowing.

Anyone who has ever been to the Goodwill Bins can attest to this. At the bins, donated items are dumped into large bins, where shoppers can sort through and pick up what they want, then pay per pound for their treasures. Certain larger items may be a higher, flat, price, but the general pricing for bin items is between $1 and $2 per pound.

Thrift stores get so many donations, that the goods are often not even sorted before heading right to the bins, meaning that they are never looked through in order for workers to pull items to sell at Goodwill retail stores. Because of this, you often have a better chance of finding designer goods at the cheap Goodwill bins than Goodwill retail stores, as many designer items are pulled from retail stores in order to be sold online at Goodwill auctions.

Many resellers are also niche resellers. They might focus on selling vintage, designer, or band tees. Some of the most popular and well-loved clothing and shoe brands don't resell for much, which means that they are often untouched by resellers. These items still provide warmth, comfort, and functionality, and are ALL over thrift stores. I've never been to a thrift store that wasn't filled with American Eagle jeans in a variety of sizes and Gap sweaters in tons of colors! I could easily take another reseller friend and a non-reseller friend with me to the thrift store, and all of us would find things to buy while leaving plenty for others.

Since I brought up bins pricing, I feel I need to mention a thrift store pricing reality:

The Goal of Most Thrift Stores is NOT to Provide Low-Priced Goods

Many thrift stores' main goal is to fund initiatives like career growth, NOT to provide low-priced items to shoppers. Even Goodwill, probably the first name you think of when you hear thrift store, has this as a mission statement:

"Goodwill® works to enhance the dignity and quality of life of individuals and families by strengthening communities, eliminating barriers to opportunity, and helping people in need reach their full potential through learning and the power of work."

Their #1 goal is to earn money, and resellers often spend more at thrift stores than regular shoppers. Browse through the Reddit thread I linked above, and you'll see a comment from a thrift store worker who said that they are a top three store in their region largely due to sales to resellers. Resellers keep thrift stores in business so that they can reach their goals and still continue to offer items at reasonable prices for low-income shoppers.

Resellers CAN Inflate The Prices of Sought-After Items - But So Can Thrift Stores

I often see resellers being blamed for inflated thrift store prices. People believe that because resellers are selling brands for resale-level prices and making content in order to promote brands that they like to pick up, they are giving thrift stores all of the information they need in order to mark up prices.

But here is the thing: Thrift stores are in charge of their own pricing. They may see that a brand is selling for hundreds online and then decide to price their item at hundreds as well - but this is a corporate choice. They get free donations, and they obviously want to profit off of these donations in order to stay in business, but sometimes their markup can get pretty ridiculous. I've seen my fair share of items that still have tags selling for $5 at the thrift when I can clearly see the original $3 price tag. Sometimes this pricing can benefit us as buyers, as overpriced and unsold items also often end up at the Goodwill bins to be sold by the pound.

Under this heading is also where I want to mention a type of reselling that I personally don't find to be ethical at all: The buying up of retail items such as medical equipment, basic necessities, or children's Christmas gifts to be resold at a profit.

Almost every Black Friday, I see someone with a pallet of the season's hottest toys and get embarrassed that they call themselves resellers. Last year it was Magic Mixies that started to pop up for triple the cost once they sold out of stores. The year before that, parents couldn't get a hold of Cocomelon dolls. During the pandemic, you had people marking up toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and other things that people needed to stay safe and healthy. To me, this is a completely different type of reselling and one that I can't support. If you're willing to have someone become ill or ruin a child's Christmas morning because you wanted to make a fast and high profit, I don't consider you a reselling peer.

Reselling Isn't Just Selling

It's hunting for the right items. It's washing and stain-treating them. It's mending holes or tie-dyeing away stains. It's steaming and photographing and listing and shipping. Reselling might be fun to those of us who do it, but it's also WORK. No reseller is sourcing for inventory and then laying around watching the money roll in. Many reselling skeptics will say that they feel it's okay to upcycle thrifted goods, but much of the work of reselling goes unnoticed. But this work is important! Often the difference between something heading to a landfill vs. heading to a new home after it sells on Poshmark is a deep cleaning and someone to believe in it.

Low-Income Shoppers May Not Be Able to Make it to the Thrift Store in Time to Nab Treasures

One of the most complicated aspects of reselling ethics is that there are so many factors related to someone's opportunity to shop and the amount of money they can spend. At what point does someone no longer qualify as low-income? Is it ethical for someone in poverty to start reselling in order to improve their financial situation? And does everyone have the same opportunity to shop for the same goods?

The answer to that last one is a complicated no. The area you live in is going to affect what is available at your thrift stores. This is the case when it comes to the quality of the items and the kind of items. A higher-income area will often have higher-dollar items donated. A store in the south will probably not be a great place to source for outerwear.

Schedules also play a big role in reselling. The more time you have to browse thrift stores, the more opportunity you have to source something good. I've seen many people point out that low-income shoppers also often work longer hours or multiple jobs, meaning that they have less free time to spend finding deals at the thrift store. Again, something I feel needs to be mentioned in order to paint the picture that reselling is a gray area.

Some People Want Thrifted Items but Don't Want to Thrift

I feel like it's not talked about enough that thrifting just isn't for everyone. It's time-consuming. It's overwhelming. It takes a lot of knowledge in order to make good buys. And sometimes it's just plain gross. I LOVE it, but if I didn't love it, I would absolutely buy from a reseller in order to get something I really wanted without all of the searching and cleaning. Luckily, I find that this is how most non-thrifters look at thrifted goods: I'm happy to pay a price we agree upon, especially because I didn't have to go hunting in a basement to find it.

Reselling Offers a Flexible Way for People to Earn Income

I started reselling 6 years ago when my son was about 6 months old. I was not living in poverty. We had just made the decision that I would be a stay-at-home mom because my mental health was struggling postpartum. Most of this was because I was working for a startup that offered me almost no resources as a new mom. I didn't get any paid maternity leave. They chose not to bring me on as a salaried employee but rather keep me on as a contractor so that they would not have to offer me benefits. I worked from home, which seemed like an amazing deal for a new parent, but they expected the baby to not be seen or heard. I was trying to do the bulk of my work at night, which meant that I handed the baby off to my husband when he got home and locked myself in my office.

Eventually, we couldn't take it anymore, and he told me I could quit. Because we were planning on me working, we had not been saving up for this transition. We very abruptly lost more than 33% of our household income and had a new baby who needed lots of things. So I started to shop for baby clothes at thrift stores. One day I found a nice pair of shoes that weren't his size, but they were SUCH a great deal. They were priced at $3 and I knew my in-laws had recently bought him a pair at the retail cost of $45. I decided to see if I could earn a little bit from them, went home to make an eBay account, and sold them the next morning for $15.

That's how it all started.

I could go on all day about how our country treats new mothers, but I'll focus on the fact that it is REALLY hard to be a mom and earn any kind of money. Whether you're a working mom who is having a hard time balancing it all, a stay-at-home mom who is struggling with not contributing financially, or a mom who just simply wants to earn some extra income for a special trip, new stove, or kids' activities, I love the flexibility that reselling has given me, and I want to help women make it work for them too. When I decided to stay home with my son, it was the first time that I hadn't worked since I was 15 and the first time I was financially dependent on someone since I was 18. That was tough for me. Until I discovered reselling, I felt like the only way to spend time with my kids and make money was to join a sketchy MLM and work for pennies while never looking away from my phone.

I'm happy that I found another option.

I'd love for this to be a post I come back to over and over again to edit. For it to be an accurate and insightful take on the ethics of reselling. So I'd love for you to drop your comments below and keep the conversation going.

[jackawful]

So we all know that Grocery Stores Bad, right? Like second maybe to housing, food is one of the basic things people need to live that currently costs money, and sometimes a lot of money, and that's pretty ethically fucked up. But there are plenty of ways around this, both through the state and outside of it, and I think it's worth talking about. I've especially noticed that folks raised middle-class & folks who have leftist sympathies but currently lucrative jobs have trouble with this, so I put together a handy guide.

Ways to Fight The Commodification Of Food And Also Eat For Free:

Research, utilize, and support your local food banks! Plenty of food banks get funding based on how many people use them, so by getting what you can from a food bank, you're usually helping them stay afloat. Some food banks are means-tested, especially the ones that get federal funding, but often the coolest volunteers will help you wiggle around a way to present your household finances that'll let you qualify (not fraud, mind - just different ways to present the same situation) or not require paystubs/proof of (no) income. Plenty of food banks are not means-tested. Try to find secular food banks, and failing that, low-pressure religious food banks can be great too. Often the "shopping" experience feels a little bit like a food scavenger hunt & they often get fun weird stuff that grocery stores couldn't sell enough of. Consider donating the money you would've budgeted for groceries if you have spare cash, or volunteering if you have spare time.

Check to see if you qualify for food stamps, and apply. Each state administers EBT differently, and will have different rules, but actually taking the step of signing up and de-stigmatizing the use of EBT when you talk to others is important. I've seen too many people assume they made too much money to qualify, miss out on benefits for months, and then get a fair amount when they do. If you wind up consistently having extra SNAP dollars, consider using them on shelf-stable emergency food or (and you're technically not supposed to do this) giving away staples to projects under number 4 based on community need. If you're in a state where benefits don't roll over month-to-month, do a big shopping trip or go to a take-and-bake restaurant like Papa Murphy's on the last day of the month so your excess dollars don't disappear.

Dumpster dive! Every city and state has different laws and regulations on this, and you'll have to decide how to engage with those. Sometimes just asking employees is good - oftentimes especially places that have ready-made food, like pizza and donut shops, differ on both corporate policy on end-of-day disposal and individual employee convictions. Be mindful of padlocks and "no trespassing" signs. For grocery stores, be mindful of expiration dates and packaging conditions. Dumpster diving for food is a thing that takes a lot of personal risk assessment, and especially if you intend to distribute the food to other people, it's important to know what condition that food is in and what risks may come with eating it, BUT generally you're pretty likely to find good quality stuff. Which, speaking of distributing to others, brings me to:

Other free food projects! Food Not Bombs is the big notorious one, but plenty of cities have similar projects that work on similar models (PDX, for example, has a group that broke off so they could serve non-vegan dumpster'd food). Freeboxes and Little Free Libraries often have food pantries for shelf-stable food, and part of the pandemic mutual aid boom was the Free Fridge project. As with food banks, if no secular projects exist in your area, finding the lowest-pressure religious option in your area is a solid route (Sikh Gurdwaras are usually best, Salvation Army worst, imo). Stuff like this is often lowest barrier to entry of the things on this list, and also easiest to be both a contributor and a recipent of the free food. Google is your friend here, but also, these are things that are comparatively easy to start if you don't have resources in your area - don't be afraid to reach out to more established projects nearby to ask about how they got started!

Grow or forage your own food! As opposed to the last thing, this one is pretty high barrier IMO, involving either having land to tend (owned by you, used with permission, or guerilla gardened) or becoming good at plant identification. Honestly, though, you'd be surprised at how many of thr plants around us are edible and tasty - I just had my first acorn muffins this year and they're great! Checking into native plants and low-effort gardening and compost systems and foraging laws and processing what you get can be labor-intensive, so usually I reccomend people pick one familiar thing to start: blackberries, walnuts, acorns, dandelion, even urban fruit trees. This is another thing where knowing your local laws and assessing risk becomes important, but on top of that, connect with local indigenous groups and learn how to respect the land you're engaging with

I'm not mentioning buying local or CSAs or farmers markets here because while a lot of that stuff can be good, it still costs money, and I firmly believe food should be free. That said, you don't have to become a full freegan overnight, or ever, to take these steps. Each thing I've listed is its whole own rabbit hole of research for you to do, especially because all of them will look different in different places.

Ultimately, though, every bit of free food you get or help others get is a load off your wallet and helps build an alternative food system. No one person is going to be able to abolish grocery stores and institute universal free food, but if everyone does what they can to get less money involved in their own food consumption, that makes our non-monetary food systems more robust and resilient. Everything I've mentioned here is also what people turn to during natural disasters or supply chain collapse, and it's worth building these systems up ahead of time so that they're more able to handle the shock of increased demand.

Eat free food. Help other people eat free food. Fight the idea that this should be tied to your income, give back where and when you can, and encourage the people in your life to reduce their dependance on the grocery system.

[lorbanery]

If you live in the US and you're looking longingly at Zillow and you've assessed your finances and realized that you could afford a mortgage, but you don't think you could afford a down payment and you don't think you could get a loan from a bank

Step 1: Do a little research into your state financial aid services to see if they have aid available for first time home buyers. I know this is a program in Vermont and I find it highly unlikely they're the only state that does it. Vermont's program is quite picky, they don't like fixer uppers, or houses that need a lot of work done to be up to code, which can be an issue in a state with a whole lot of early-to-mid-century houses.

Things we were warned by our realtor would be potential red flags: Mouldering siding, stains from water damage, lead paint, flaking paint,an older tree less then five feet from the house, knob and tube wiring (if it's the active electric wiring, if they just didn't bother removing all of it but there's no electricity running through it, it's fine), secondary structures on the property (eg sheds, detached garages).

It's also only available to people buying a home for their personal residence. And we had to go through a relatively quick, self-led, free online course about the process of buying a house. It was genuinely helpful in terms of letting us know what to expect, and defining all the esoteric financial terms.

The program had a list of all the banks that we could apply to the program through. All we had to do was pick out the one we wanted to work with, tell them what we wanted to do, and we were walked through the whole process every step of the way.

Step 2: If you're looking to buy a house in a rural area, if you've been rejected by the bank for a loan, if you've been rejected by any First Time Home Buyer program your state might have, you might be able to get a loan and aid through the USDA. No, that is not a typo. The USDA, the government agency we usually hear of in terms of meat and produce safety, has a department within it, Rural Development, whose whole purpose is helping low-income folks buy houses in rural areas.

And that doesn't just mean tiny villages with populations under 1,000 people or farming towns where your nearest neighbor is a mile down the road. My town has ~12k people, an Amtrack station, public transportation, and a major area hospital. That was rural enough for the USDA.

You do actually have to provide them with proof that you applied for loans through other avenues, including a bank, and were denied, which makes the process take longer. That could potentially be an issue with an impatient seller. But they have multiple options available with benefits and drawbacks to them all. And you might also qualify for down payment aid where they just ... pay your down payment. Like, it's not part of the mortgage, it's not a separate loan that you have to pay back. They just. Pay it. For you.

There are organizations and agencies that do, actually, recognize that we no longer live in a world where it's feasible for most people to just save up and buy a house, or save up for a down payment and get a loan through their bank. Especially when you don't already have a house that you can sell and then put that money towards the new house. It's unfortunate that that's the only narrative we're fed and that the programs set up to help mitigate these issues aren't more well-known.

You all can debate the ethics of single-family homes all you want. If this post helps even one person even just reconsider that they might be able to buy a house someday, I call that a win. Because not all of us were built to live in an apartment building.

How about this. Buy your own property. Live on the streets. Or rent one. You can't build anything on any property that isn't yours. That would be illegal. Be thankful that people rent out their property to share so you don't have to deal with the property tax.

Or people could not buy houses they don't need? Owning a house you rent out is a way of generating profit from people who have less money than you, like a reverse robin hood

Plus it reduces supply of houses, which means house prices are inflated and even more people are forced to rent because they can't afford to buy. Deposits for a mortgage are generally more than a year's wages. So if you want to buy, you gotta scrimp and save for years whilst paying someone else's mortgage

Hell, even better them not buying houses you don't need, we could actually recognise housing as a human right and make sure people have what they need to survive

And finally, lol, I rent in the uk, I pay the property taxes

[blueboyluca]

In Jill Lepore’s latest episode of The Last Archive, she shares her idea for a third branch of US government: the tree branch. It’s an exercise in imagination; what if the US government took nature into account, legally, when making decisions?

Imagination is one of the most important aspects of cultural change, in my view. Without imagination, how will we be able to change anything that needs to change?

I’m not a dog trainer or a veterinarian or a shelter worker or a researcher. I don’t have any power, recognition or qualifications in the dog world. But I do have my own vision for the future, an imagined possibility that I think would benefit all of us who love and care for dogs.

Here is my tree branch: a community pet hub. Each council area in Australia would have one. It would be funded by local government, state government, sales and donations. It would fold in many different pet-related services as a central hub for the community – pound, shelter, training facility, vet clinic, dog park and education centre.

The pound and shelter service would be joint community and charity run. They would carry out current council services around roaming and lost pets, as well as provide a first base for rehoming animals that require it. It would utilise an in-house facility, as well as a network of fosters that helped to manage pets and allocate suitable homes for them. Community members who need to rehome their animals would be helped to find the best solution on a case by case basis.

The training facility and education centre would offer low-cost training services, including workshops, classes, seminars and private walk-in sessions for advice. Positive-based training and husbandry would be taught and resources would always be on hand. There would also be information for all other pet-related services and businesses across the council area, emphasising local suppliers.

A vet clinic would be on site for the shelter side of things, but also as a non-profit low-cost option for low income community members.

A large dog park would be adjacent with appropriate facilities to provide a safe, friendly and somewhat-supervised exercise area for dogs.

The hub would also have connections with Dogs Australia and local breeders to provide all relevant information about acquiring pets ethically and giving them appropriate care. Both shelter dogs and purpose-bred dogs would be advocated for. People interested in breeding their own dogs would be welcomed to find information and discuss the pros and cons of doing so without being shamed.

Many councils already offer a lot of these services, but not in a centralised location. I think by creating a community hub for these services, it would unite fragmented parts of the pet industry together under a common cause. None of these things need to be at odds or in competition, as they are all working together. By having things centralised, referring between each part of the hub would make it easier for community members to get the information and help they need.

The culture from the beginning would need to be focused on empathy, kindness, positivity and solution-finding. Community members would have a safe space to receive help, to learn, to make connections and to improve the lives of their pets.

I don’t know if this is the answer, but I feel that we need to start with these blue sky ideas. We need to imagine a future before we can be in it.

[theres-no-you-and-i]

GUIDE TO ETHICAL THRIFTING

Hi! You've probably seen some posts floating around about ethical thrifting, but they're usually focused on one aspect of it. Thrifting is more complicated than you think! When you thrift because you want to and not because you have to, be conscious of every decision you make at the store! These are spaces & merchandise there to help low income communities, and you are a guest in that space. Be respectful. As your resident Person Who Only Had A Childhood Bc Of Thrift Stores, here are some things to keep in mind :)

• Choose your store wisely! Stay out of low income areas where thrifted clothes might be more needed or in higher demand. When people unnecessarily thrift in low income areas, it limits options and raises prices. And see where your money is going! Look to shop at non-profits like Goodwill that look to support & create change in their communities. Avoid Salvation Army. They're abusive, homophobic, and transphobic.

• Stay in your size range. There is a massive shortage of plus sized clothes and kid's t shirts. Plus sized clothes are typically more expensive, which means fewer people who need them can afford them at retail price. If you want a crop top, buy one. Don't get a kid's t shirt from a thrift store, where you're taking it from someone who needs it. If you want an oversized t shirt or jeans, get them somewhere else. Plus sizes and kid's sizes should be reserved for the people who fit in them. If for some reason you absolutely NEED them in those size ranges, try a regular store (wild fable brand at target has good crop tops!), someone's depop (as long as it's not a re-sold thrift store fine), or a higher priced, for-profit thrift store that's targeted towards higher income customers.

• Some things are just off limits. Stay away from socks, sneakers, winter boots, rain + snow gear, and cleaning supplies. These are things people NEED, and if you can afford to buy it elsewhere but don't, you're taking life saving resources away. If you want to buy anything listed above (except the cleaning supplies) used for ethical reasons, try Play It Again sports! They've got no shortage of products, they're slightly cheaper than retail, and buying second hand is good for the environment! If you have winter gear in good condition that you don't want anymore, you could bring it to a ski swap and trade it out for new things!

• Don't buy just to re-sell on Depop. Buying in bulk just to raise prices on Depop/Poshmark/Mercari is not okay. Lots of people doing this raises prices at the stores themselves, the clothes are less saline than what you're settling them for (which is unfair to the customers) and you're making good clothes inaccessible to the people who need one. It's totally fine to sell old clothes online, but they should be your clothes or your friends'/family's clothes. If you're going to sell clothes you thrifted at a higher price, they should be enhanced or transformed somehow. Adding a button or one ribbon isn't enough. Do something creative. Embroider a jacket, rip some holes in those jeans, rip that t shirt up and patch it with safety pins.

• Give back. When you shop at thrift stores unnecessarily, remember that you're using a service meant for somebody else. In order to keep the system running and not hurt it by thrifting, you need to replace what you take. That doesn't always mean donating to thrift stores (although that's always a good plan!). It could mean donating money to an organization that gets low income students in your community access to new clothes and school supplies. You could volunteer at a local school to help pack meals for low income families over the weekend. You could take time to sew new clothes and donate those if that's something you enjoy. (Bonus points for donating clothes to thrift stores: you're throwing out fewer clothes & reducing your carbon footprint!)

• Avoid the toys, the caps and gowns, the kid's books, the prom dresses, and the wedding dresses. Obviously some of this is seasonal! If it's Halloween and you need a dress or a cap & gown or something for a costume, if you can't get it cheap anywhere else, go for it! I'm not about to tell you to go buy a several hundred dollar dress for your zombie prom queen outfit. But when you hit the second half of the school year, leave that shit alone. It's not cheap, so if you can afford it elsewhere, do it. Low income kids deserve a prom dress and a cap and gown just like you do, and the thrifted supply is really limited already. As far as toys and kid's books, those are important developmentally! All my books as a kid were from Goodwill. It was most of what we could afford, and they weren't being bought up too quickly so I loved reading. Most of our games were from Goodwill, too, which is how my parents kept my sister and I occupied so they could work, and how we spent a lot of time together. Little kids deserve those things no matter how much money their parents make. If you want older books, go to a secondhand bookstore (more expensive than Goodwill & generally more books). For games, try eBay!

If anyone has anything to add,let me know and I'll put it on the post!!!

[hazard-and-friends]

i watched the first episode of canine intervention tonight, here’s some uncensored liveblogging featuring my spicey dog training takes:

“my dog training system is known all over the world" mhmm. lemme google this guy.

by clicking through his in person training site to his online remote training course, i found a whole lot of big red flags: "Establish pack leadership" dogs don't have pack leaders. anyone who wants to make you a leader is not using a good understanding of dog behavior "Time your praise and corrections" the times when i use corrections are when i'm the least on my game. my goal is NEVER to use corrections/positive punishment. why should i? it's concerning that he uses it as a core part of his method. "Exercise and reinforce your leadership as a way of life" more leadership bullshit.

fancy letters are not the end-all-be-all, and there are trainers i seriously respect who have none of them. but they don't talk about leadership and corrections. it's concerning that he talks about his sports team as a kid, where he went to high school, and his celebrity clients, but not his mentors and education in training.

back to the show

why does his facility have enough dogs to keep them in kennels? how does that teach aggressive dogs how to be safe in a home environment?

not all of the dogs in the first shot of a class (~1:38) have two collars on but a lot do. that's not a red flag (i worked sydney in two collars [her flat collar and a martingale, because syd was very gear smart and it was nice to tell her that we were doing heeling now]) but with what i saw on his website? it's quite likely that one of those is the dog's normal flat collar with tags, and the other is a prong, choke chain, or electric collar

also: "I help the dogs that no one else will" is a flat out lie

if you're willing to take on any human aggression cases, generally you’re willing to take on all of them. now, some of these cases may generally lead to a recommendation of euthanasia. but that's in the best interests of the dog and owner

oop class shot where it's clear that they're wearing prongs

here's two points not about this guy specifically: 1) it is hard (impossible?) to do humane, ethical dog training in a 45 minute episode slot. it's not good tv. it's slow as hell. there's no drama. the aggression trainers i know? have never been bitten. many have never been CLOSE to being bitten. no tv value. 2) the positive dog training community is OVERWHELMINGLY white and middle class.

it's also full of racists.

"Nearly a million dogs are euthanized yearly and over 40% of them are pit bulls" i've calculated that first statistic myself, but it's important to put it in context: this is USA specific, and that's down from 3-4 million 20 years ago. the second one, i would love to see his source.

he's right that it's important to understand where aggression comes from

anyway back to those two points, at the same time that it's really, really hard to do compelling TV with ethical dog trainers, it's also really REALLY important that the positive dog training community be working on being anti-racist. and it's really, really important that low income dog owners and people of color are getting good dog training.

alright first case! he's had her 3 months, 3 bites in that time. 10 attempted attacks. she's a young adult bully breed mix who had one front leg amputated after being shot. owner walks her in a muzzle which is a) too small and b) not bite proof.

"I see what we're working with" he says, after approaching a dog in her crate. hazard responds similarly to someone coming in, but he's not a bite risk. that's not a good evaluation.

he is correct about lady macbeth's motivations: this is a dog who's scared as hell and making herself really big and scary so that everyone leaves her alone.

okay he's also right that playing with her around strangers is really, really good for fear aggression

"frenzied just chaotic state" yeah no

reality check for y'all: i am not an aggression specialist and i have seen more freaked out dogs

she was on edge! she was unhappy! but holy shit was she not even remotely close to what dogs are capable of

"she just bit me!" she nipped your cheek, not breaking skin. that's a level 1 or 2 (of 6). that's not NOTHING but it's well within normal for a dog who's being restrained when she wants to be somewhere else.

[note that at no point in the episode was the owner ever given any sort of indication that lady macbeth is not this horribly aggressive Pit Bull TM. nor was there any discussion of a bite scale.]

"The only option we're gonna have is to [board and train] for 3 weeks" "I have no choice but to take her back to my facility back in San Jose and work daily with her" no!!!!!

[15 minute break]

lmao sorry i had to go yell at gf about how much this board and train is not necessary and in the process penny decided to cause Drama again

ANYWAY, the b&t is not necessary because all of those aggressive incidents bar the first could have been avoided if the owner was on the ball. this is not JUST a lady macbeth issue, this is ALSO an owner issue. both of them need to relearn how to handle new people.

as a bonus, lady macbeth needs to learn to trust her owner, which she categorically cannot do in a b&t

"The box is an important training tool to teaching new behaviors. It's also a first step in establishing pack leadership" ok this is new to me

and new is not a good thing here

text: Obedience depends on a dog's trust and respect for their pack leader calculus depends on your trust and respect for your math teacher! if you respect them a lot you will magically be able to do calc!

I WAS HOPING. I WAS TRYING.

i was HOPING that his training for her fear aggression would be based in toy play.

instead he's got a fake arm and he keeps reaching out to poke her, and the owner says "no!" and does a leash pop (leash wrapped around her neck) every time she tries to bite.

"She doesn't know it's not his hand" it smells like plastic what would she THINK it is

also funky that we're 19 minutes into the episode about an aggressive bully breed mix and the trainer's childhood bully breed mix who killed a dog, and like. not a single mention of what these dogs were bred for.

let's go back to "how are you teaching aggressive dogs to live nicely in a home, if they are spending most of the day in a wire kennel"

for shits take, high school doesn't teach you how to handle your emotions! why should obedience class teach your dog the same?

and then like, every time she breaks the down he yells NOPE and leans over her??????

dude you're scaring her into being obedient. while you're talking about how it's important to treat her fear.

text: Fear based aggression can be reduced by desensitizing the dog to strangers you're right! it sure can! THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE

you've got a dog on her side with one hand over her, the other on a skinny check chain on her neck. every time she does anything but lay flat, the leash is popped and you say no. you are flooding this dog and creating learned helplessness.

jo summed it up well with this: he's good at seeing the behavior, he knows what he's looking at, he just can't change it. he only knows one method.

jo and i are now trying to figure out if "dog training but marie kondo not cesar milan" is a viable tv show

jas correctly stops the friend and changes how he approaches the dog, that's a good response

i'm laughing bc after a 3 week board and train which is not going to be less than $4k, he's giving the exact same "how to meet new people" directions that i would give to a similar client--at the start of our time! not at the end!

"I can't imagine imagine a dog having it too much worse than she did, the fact that she took a gunshot, the fact that she had no security for years of her life" alright dude a) think worse, this PALES to abuse cases b) let's not? shittalk? the care that people without reliable housing give to their dogs (and occasional cat!)?? because what they do for their pets is incredible, and it isn't necessarily connected to her opinions on strangers

so yeah still laughing bc like. that "happy ending" would be my first session with a client. that's how you START handling stranger danger. and for this the owner paid thousands.

[crippl-hacker]

Hiiiiiiii I’m currently broke as heck and am in Jobcorps. For context Job Corps is a trade program for low income folks (16-24) and disabled people (of any age) to get training and free college. One thing about it though is you can’t leave the campus. At all.

If I want to get anything I have to have it shipped to me. I DIY my stuff but I have to order supplies to do the DIY. There is no ethical option for me to get the spikes I want at a price I can afford. I make less than $70/month - buying spikes from an indie spike seller (Spikes and Studs) is more than I can afford right now. Walmart doesn’t sell what I need and that’s the only place they take us. Unfortunately I am at a point where Amazon and Temu are the only ways I can afford things.

Do I support fast fashion? No. Do I buy a ton of shit that I don’t need because it’s cheap? No. Do I try and minimize as many purchases as I can? Yes. But making better choices and supporting Indie sellers is a luxury when you only have $20 of fun money.

Normally if I was at home I would be going to my local punk scene and taking advantage of the community. I would be able to dumpster dive and thrift and sell my patches to afford spikes from an indie seller. There are options - but sometimes you are in a position where those options don’t exist.

When I have money you bet I will stop shopping from these corporations- but until then I’m trapped and other people are in the same boat.

anyone else feel like people who preach "if you buy from amazon/chains you're a poser" is sort of classist and ableist? we're living in a society run on capitalism where these could be someone's only way to be able to afford things for hobbies or just to make life easier

also if you're a punk kid who's parents use amazon there's no need to feel guilty for also buying off of it if there aren't better options. i always say buy second hand or diy but if there isn't any other options you're not a bad person man

this isn't the 70s anymore and amazon is worth 1.81 trillion. keep your mental health safe and focus on what's important: standing up for those who can't

reminder of your palestine daily click

[severelynerdysheep]

gaytheiestbandkid

My last response below, because while I respect that you blocked me (though I have no clue why) the fact that you did you after making your own response that I then cant respond to via reblog is a tad iffy. And I at least feel that I should be able to post my own response anywhoo even if I cant do so directly. If not only cause I spent a heck of a time writing this “^^

“ done yet? if you have the idea that there’s a “carnist bias” in my post then you’ve got me all wrong. i wholeheartedly support taking down the animal agriculture industry.”

Well it certainly looks like you don't support the abolishment of the animal ag industry since you pay for it when its possible and practicable to avoid doing so. You literally called the social justice movement dedicated to taking down this industry along with every other form of animal exploitation a “cult” and you make a post filled with lies and misrepresentation about animal agriculture and plant based diets. As well as promoting as supporting the needless consumption of animal flesh/secretions as a “personal choice tho”. If that isn't bias then water isn't wet.

“ by means that actually work rather than putting a band-aid on a gushing arterial wound, by means that people can get on board with rather than moral absolutism.”

Any solution which doesn't include the avoidance of all forms of animal exploitation as far as possible an practicable as the very least that people with moral agency have a moral obligation to do. Any solution which spreads lies an misinformation about the form of injustice attempting to be abolished, any solution which places sole blame on capitalism, which absolutely doesn't work with animal exploitation since is would exists in any system. Is not a solution in any sense of the word.

By your logic its fine to support/inflict violence against women because having the basic requirement that people shouldn't inflict  violence/exploitation absent others as individuals is just a “band aid” for a gushing would in any social justice movement. Instead of holding said people who claim to oppose said injustice while inflicting it accountable as adult in control of their own actions. And yes being opposed to people needlessly exploiting, abusing/torturing and murdering other sentient beings of another species for their own personal pleasure is intrinsically an issue of rights and wrongs. Just like its an issue of rights and wrongs when victims are humans because all victims are sentient. If saying needless violence, exploitation and murder is wrong is moral absolutism. Then I would hope that the vast majority of people would happily sign up to stand on that hill.  

“ and your response to the “buying local” point is clearly emotion-based and disingenuous. the point was clearly about environmental impact, yet you made it about the poow suffewing animaws”

Fist of all, you simply said “the only way to truly have a low-impact diet “ So you could have been talking about either the ethical or environmental impact. Secondly, you seemed to have missed the whole of the part before I talked about the ethics (which is the most important issue, and its simply disgusting that you would joke around about that. Yes they are suffering and people like yourself are responsible) And I will link to the section where I explained why your “buy local” for the environment argument is wrong.

So locality means very little when it comes the the environmental impact of a food, with transport costs being just one small fraction of the overall footprint of a food item as It has been demonstrated that an average of 83% of a food product’s carbon footprint is caused during production. And transportation accounts for only 11% of the product’s greenhouse gas emissions. This means that choosing a plant-based option will always have a far lower impact than even the flesh of locally raised, exploited, abused/tortured and murdered animals, even when it is imported from abroad. Simply put, the idea that “buying local” in in any way comparable to (let alone better than) doing your best to avoid supporting the injustice that is animal agriculture as a consumer when it comes to either envionemtat impact is simply not based on facts.

“i don’t remember saying people should go out of their way to buy meat locally? only that they should buy locally in general if they claim to be making near-zero impact”

I mean in a post dedicated to spreading falsehoods about animal agriculture, I think its pretty safe to assume that you were trying to claim that a diet than including animal flesh/secretions that is entirely locally brought has a lower impact on the environment than a plant based diet which isn't fully local. Which isn't true. I’m happy to be corrected though, if you weren't saying that, and you recognise that even a fully local diet that includes animal flesh/secretions has a much bigger impact than a non local plant based diet.

“ by holding those in power rather than the everyday civilian accountable for massive-scale ecological destruction (telling me the 71% statistic is about fossil fuels in no way undermines the broader point of bringing it up.”

Your specific claim was “100 companies are responsible for over 70% of human-linked carbon emissions; as an everyday civilian, your carbon footprint is very nearly zero compared to that of big corporations, which are the real problem to begin with” This is a complete misunderstanding of the study and absolutely undermines the broader argument that you were trying to make. Since it in no way supports that argument. The study shows that 100 companies produced 71% of the fossil fuels which are then used by other industries and by consumers via their individual actions. 100 companies aren’t causing 71% of emissions, they’re producing 71% of fossil fuels. Those are completely different things. Completely different. Heck, the animal flesh industry (the industry exploded in this study) is responsible for as many GHG emissions as 70 of these companies combined. An industry which is exists entirely due to supply and demand. Individuals carbon footprints are included to make up both those 71% of fossil fuels as well as the GHG emissions from the animal flesh industry, let alone other animal ag/animal exploitation industries.

“ your pound-for-pound examination of food costs is yet another poorly-thought-out point without any nuance. 1) the low pound-for-pound costs of plant based foods are typically attributed to bulk prices and 2) you can’t ignore calorie density. someone unemployed or living paycheck to paycheck can feed themselves for longer on a $5 bag of chicken nuggets than on a bulk purchase of plant-based foods, many of which will go bad within the same time frame anyways.“

Again, this isn't true. I wasn't talking about pound just as in weight, I was talking about pound as in money. So say an average daily intake of 2500 calories is generally the cheapest when it comes to pounds (as in £) worldwide compared to the same amount of calories on a diet that included animal flesh and secretions. Which is one reason why the poorest population subsist on primarily plant based diets. This is because the cheapest items are the staple items such as the rice, pasta, potatoes, beans and lentils, tinned veg/fruit, oats, etc. All of which are staple items which are included in the diet of those who consume animal flesh anyway. For example, people can feed themselves for longer on pasta and tomato sauce, or rice and beans, than a bag of breaded chicken flesh. And the bag of breaded chicken flesh will go of sooner than the former foods. with the former being full meals as opposed to breaded chicken flesh which you would eat with something else.

Sure, bulk buying is a great way to shop if you can, but even if you aren't talking about bulk buying, a plant based diet is still the cheapest worldwide. As I explained in my original response. Not surprising then that double the percent of vegans are in the lowest come bracket compared to middle and higher incomes.

And your original claim was that many people cannot go plant based (or vegan) because vegan products are more expensive than their non vegan counterparts. Never mind that fact that you don't have to eat plant based meats, cheeses, ice cream etc.. of a plant based diet.

But lets use these plant based alternatives to compare to their non vegan counterparts for a sec:

~  At Asda you can buy 8 plant based burgers from their own brand frozen range much cheaper than Asda’s own brand frozen animal flesh burgers. 1.75p for 8 plant based burgers vs 2.00p for only 4 animal flesh burgers. And this is the same for pretty much every UK Food store brand.

~ Let’s look at cheese and look at its costs at Tesco, another popular supermarket. A 200g block of own brand Tesco cheese is exactly the same price as 200g of vegan cheese being sold.

Of course if you include these plant based products it will be more expensive than sticking to the staples, your diet will probably be closer to that of someone who doesn't eat a plant based diet. But if you stick to the staples then yes, its absolutely cheaper. And I did link to lot of sources of more information which it looks like you didn't check out unfortunately.  

!i’m hesitant to bring up this point because it really does get misused by non-vegans a lot, but the industries for plant-based foods aren’t the pinnacle of morality. many plant food industries– including those that vegans partake in far more than non-vegans, subject workers in developing areas to literal slave labor in downright horrible conditions.”

Can you tell me which specific industries vegans take part in more than non vegans which are ethically worse than the non vegan equivalent? Keeping in mind both that no vegan claims to be 100% cruelty free as a consumer, and that the diet of a non vegan includes far more plant crops (and therefore more crop labour/worker exploitation) than a vegans does. Nobody is saying that being vegan is the most you can do, its literally the least you can and should do. Its the baseline, the starting line, the very basic requirements for anyone who claims to have consideration for others. And really, I don't see what this has to do with any of the falsehoods made in the OP? It’s is a pretty big deflection it seems from any of the claims made in the OP.

“ there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. getting hung up on the specifics of what kinds of consumption are/aren’t ethical implies that absolutely everything we eat or use or otherwise consume is a product of exploitation, misses the point, and designates the public as the public enemy rather than the ones running the system.”

Are you trying to use the statement “there's no ethical consumption under capitalism” to justify the individual actions of consumers place all of the blame on capitalism? Because that is completely bananas.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

This fab article by WorkingClass Vegan

A great post on this very site by @mickibuddy here

Quick edit: @mohs-hardness-scale I saw you reblogged my response with a  response of you own, though I can only see the first part of your reply that says “its not my job to provide you with sources. Google exists” since your friend blocked me and deleted almost all notes on their post. I wonder why. But please feel free to repeat your response via reblog of this post So I can have the common curtesy of being able to respond. Or if you don't want a public dialogue my ask box is always open. 

[raeseddon]

A Covid-Adjacent Appeal To the Disabled Community

Something that's been on my mind since last year.

There's a reckoning coming for the disabled community, and it's coming from several fronts. The first is, while it's great that we've forced especially corporate America (and to extent the literal corporate world) to extend the ability to work from home, and thus allowing more disabled individuals to not have to leave home to work-- it's going to play into the conservative desire to not make public spaces accessible. Look at how the GOP is talking about the infrastructure bill: when they say, in essence: "if it's not a road, a highway or a bridge. we're not paying for it" the implication has always been the bare minimum of a road/highway/bridge-- which means no ramps, no elevators to subway platforms, nothing. So yeah, working from home will allow people who literally cannot leave their homes to have an income, but if people who are mobile over-rely on it, the GOP/conservative argument will be "well, the ramps and elevators aren't being used as much, so why do we have to repair the existing ones, let alone build more?" We cannot afford to give them more of an excuse than they already have to fuck us over.

Over-reliance plays into the second and third fronts as well: ordering things on-line and especially reliance on ride share companies to deliver food. Ride-shares like Uber are the epitome of everything evil and wrong with the gig economy: impossibly low wages, zero insurance of any kind and for the companies that rely on cyclists instead of cars, the death rate is nuts. (Source: The Guardian Australia). If we as a community want to have more ethical consumption under capitalism, we have to start going out to buy our food, and we have got to shop as close to home as possible. It's more expensive, and I understand that not everyone will be able to afford it, but if you can, I am begging you to try. The lure of the cheap option is strong, but the damage we're doing to the environment and our communities by not investing in them will only accelerate the death of those communities, not to mention the earth itself.

I don't want to have to crawl on my hands and knees up the capital steps like our fore-fathers and mothers did in the 70's just to make the point again that the disabled community deserves to exist in society, in the sunlight.

The internet has given us opportunities that so many of us almost gave up ever having, but relying on it too much will put us back where we were in the mid 60's. I get wanting, and even needing to take a win for a win, but it's been over a year since the start of the pandemic-- what made all this possible-- and now it's really time to consider the other shoe before it drops.

[qbrooklyn1056]

We Belong Too!

Black and Latinos have been displaced in New York City school’s systems for a very long time. Let's talk about a time where Blacks/Latinos were in place with these specialized high schools. In the late 70s and 80s Black/Latinos were in these specialized schools in dozens. Throughout the years this has declined drastically, because of gentrification, wealth, and power, now these schools are filled with Whites/Asian, with Asian taking the lead in these specialized high schools. This makes it harder for disadvantaged children to even get their applications looked at. Schools like Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant High, and Bronx High School of Science were once seeing high numbers of Black/Latino students. You have former students and people of the community, and even Mayor Bill De Blasio is getting in on this topic and is causing a lot of controversy.

Stuyvesant high school seems to be one of the schools that a lot of Black/Latino’s teens were able to attend. There was a special placement test that you had to take to be accepted to the school and all though got many minorities placed in these specialized schools. This same test would also be the reason for so many other minorities not to get in, till this day this is a big issue/topic. Like back in the day, these schools were already coming from segregation, so it’s not like it's far-fetched that a lot of minorities would attend these schools anyway. There was hope in the 70s, with the raise of Black/Latino students in these gifted schools.

A lot of these students were from underprivileged families and low-income neighborhoods. They had hard work ethics and drive, and had to study twice as hard to even get a chance to take the placement test to enter these schools. The hunger and fight in those future Lawyer's, Anthropologists, and Scientists is what made them who they are today. I bet these teenagers thought they had started a long-time goal, which was to have more people who looked like them attend these "Gifted " schools. How was they supposed to know that after them the number of minorities in elite high school would almost not exist. Not because the children aren't smart, but because some didn't feel a need for minorities to attend schools with their will to do kids, or some felt they were being bumped because of affirmative action. Whatever the reasons are, we should not still be having the same debate in this day and age, from any other people or will to do with people.

It seems like in the 90s things got worse. You still had some minorities in these elite schools but very few as the previous years. It made it seem like all the white/Asians were the only smart people for a while. You had low-income children who were smart but didn't have the money or didn't even get a chance to take the placement test because it seemed like the school met their minority quote or something. This was so unfair to a lot of Blacks/Latinos, because if you don't know, I'm here to tell you, Blacks/Latinos are some of the most gifted and creative people you will ever come across, because they are born with so much flavor. That’s could be why you do see a lot of minorities at performing arts schools. (The elite performing art schools also are biased when selecting students, but that is another topic). But, what about the minorities that are just as book smart as the next person, just always don't get the opportunity to show it. Plus, test prep is always where a lot of students take when trying to get into one of these schools, but the problem is, the cost starts at $1000, and most low-income families can't afford that. That seems like a way to keep a certain class of people out of these schools, knowing certain people can't afford it. This is why programs for people of color are so important to have so that our children can be on the same playing field as the next.

I spoke with somebody who was around and went to school in New York at the time. My neighbor Mr. Carlos Ramos, whose 57 said back then it was more pride and seem like way more value in going to school back then 

ME: Mr. Ramos how did it feel going to an elite school back in the late 70s early 80s?

CR:  It felt like winning the lottery, when you see/or hear you got accepted to one of these great schools. This is because, back then times were really hard, and me and my family lived in Bushwick. This is the time when the crack epidemic was happening and wasn't safe at all to be in my neighborhood. 

ME: How many minority students did you see in your school if you can recall, also what school did you go to? 

CR: I was accepted into Brooklyn Technical High School, in the downtown Brooklyn area. It was mostly Asian kids and whites, but at that time we did have a good two hand full of minority students. I know it doesn’t sound like a lot but I promise you it was.

Me: Were you nervous at all going to an Elite school?

CR: I knew I was just as smart and worked twice as hard to get into that school and nobody was going to stop me. NOBODY! I was at times a little fearful, because as you know racial tensions in this country seem to always be high. Overall, I knew how to defend myself.  I mean I was raised with 10 brothers.  Lol.

ME: Are you still friends with any of the minorities who went to Brooklyn Tech with you? Also, why do you think there is a lack of minority students in these elite schools in this day and age. 

CR: Yes. I have built lifetime friends with a lot of them, not just my minority peers. We are all doing really great.  I’m a computer engineer/Bio scientist, and some of them are lawyers, doctors, and high-priced realtors. To answer the second part, I believe the reason you see a lack of diversity in these elite schools is because they don’t want the playing field to be equal.  Too many minorities are making something out themselves these days, and white race doesn’t like that. We’re owning too much property for them, so they're making up laws that you never heard of, or locking minorities up at a higher rate, so that our youth won’t succeed.

Back in, I believe 2009 former Mayor Michael. R. Bloomberg "implemented a citywide test-based threshold for gifted and talented programs." (ES) This was supposed to be a way for the city to diversify these elite schools but it backfired and excluded even more Black/Latinos. A lot of these areas where some of these elite schools are placed are in wealthy neighborhoods that don't want what they call people from the ghetto entering their schools or being around their kids. In fact, our current Mayor Belsio is trying to do away with placement tests in general, which is the way to get into the school. This would eliminate the top performing students and place over 50 % of Black/Latinos in these schools and Asian students would lose half of their spots. As you see in the charts Asian have become the leaders of specialized schools, so honestly, they can just get put on another schools list, because honestly speaking they still may get picked over a Black/Latino person in the next school anyway. I'm just saying they basically have a better shot at getting in any elite school, than Black/Latinos. This is causing wealthy parents to sue the school district over feeling their kids are getting mistreated and it’s not fair to have these kids from the ghetto go to school with their "precious and brilliant, perfect kids" YEAH RIGHT!!!!! The ones from the low-income backgrounds are the one who should be given a chance to show what they can do, since it seems like everyone knows what the kids already in those schools can do. It's like saying we never heard of somebody having a lot of money or going to an elite school would commit a crime... Lol. We all know that’s B.S.

Don’t get me wrong Blacks/Latinos have come a long way and are making history in this world today, but to get the same respect and options is what we need just as much. Let kids be kids and let kids be great. How can they be great or all they can be if the people leading them can't even get it together for them.