|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnchristopher
2648 days ago
|
|
|
I understand you don't like it but every choice, every act has a political significance. I believe it doesn't follow that you actively support or promote whatever comes with a choice but the fact remains that choosing a tech only on tech merits or choosing a tech despite who you support by buying it is still a political choice. That's why I use Firefox and not google chrome even though at some points one is better than the other. > We’ve gone from “not choosing is a choice” to “every choice is political”. > I’m sorry but the latter doesn’t immediatly follow from the first. Nobody said or implied that. > Similarly you should argue that eating meat is a religious choice, since some religions prohibit meat consumption. Now that's a bogus reasoning and I don't see why you twist the analogy like that since it loses relevance. |
|
|
I am not sure this reasoning is bogus. Let me try to pick up on the analogy and develop it further:
Situation 1: I (hypothetically) am shopping for a laptop. I am used to Unix, dislike Windows, and couldn't get desktop Linux work for me. I am impressed by battery life of the latest Macbook Pro, as well as by its glorious screen, decent sound, and responsive touchpad. After certain deliberation I decide to buy a Macbook Pro. Apple’s corporate track record doesn't even enter into the calculation. And yet, I am told that my choice is political.
Situation 2: You (hypothetically) are about to order a burger. You are hungry and like burgers, and the animal suffering involved in the production of that burger does not even cross your mind. Yet you are told that you have made a moral choice. (Alternatively, you are told that you’ve made a religious choice, because in Jainism meat is not allowed; and obviously you couldn’t care less about Jainism.)
What I, as the previous commentator, find so objectionable is that it shouldn't be said of you that you are making a political choice if you are not involved in an act that you recognize as political. I can’t imagine that it is reasonable to expect of everyone to be constantly engaged in political activity, or to put political considerations before any other. I think it’s quite possible to be vaguely supportive of democracy, freedom, workers’ rights or the rule of law (and thus to be politically on one side of the spectrum), and at the same time not care that a corporation complied with undemocratic demands of an authoritarian regime or used legal loopholes to avoid taxes (and thus is on another side of the political spectrum).