The user @trim posted an interesting question in ~Tech and it made me wonder: what are my forgivable sins? What kinds of misdeeds on the part of companies that are suppliers of goods or services do I tacitly concience or to which I will turn a blind eye?

Whenever there is a scandal, the easy answer is, "I don't know, but definitely not that." This, however, is just an ad hoc definition that can be applied to any unsavory revelation on the part of a service or product provider. What would I be left with? I couldn't retreat from society if I wanted to and the cost of commercial puritanism would be prohibitively high.

What I realized in that topic was that (1) I will not sanction providers merely for doing business with others to whom I am opposed and (2) I will not sanction providers merely for issuing words or statements that I disagree with.

That said, I'm curious about others. What are your criteria for bad behavior in a service or product provider that you would judge to be nonetheless admissible?

I've long been uncomfortable using platforms that have a bad reputation with respect to:

1. Human rights / genocide
2. Disinformation
3. Privacy

All three of those can be connected with advertising revenue, among other things. When I use platforms that are shady in this regard, I know I'm colluding with them and contributing to the problems they create. So it's been a relief to see new platforms like Tildes emerge, as well as those based on ActivityPub.

But even platforms that don't have overt advertising (Telegram?) do have a problem with hate groups that go unchallenged. And I know that if I was running an instance of an ActivityPub compatible platform such as KBin, I mightn't be able to keep on top of moderating things like disinformation.

So I suppose my question is, where do you draw the line? I've deleted my Twitter and Meta accounts and I'm exploring alternatives, but I'm not sure if I'm going from the darkness to the light, or just into shades of grey.

This is a post about the topics mentioned in the title, and how they are related in my life. I suspect it might provide a point of consideration and discussion for other members, as I provide an argument that could be applied to other people and situations.

For good or bad, I put much value on morality, and see the world through a moralizing lens. This is not necessarily a case of reducing everything to "evil choices", it's more complicated than that, but it's been bothering me for a long while. It's partially because I often find myself judging myself too harshly, especially after failing to live up to my moral ideals.

For example, I don't like overconsumption and the surrounding hyperconsumerist ideology, so I hadn't bought any sort of "geeky" merchandise for some years. It's because, even though I thoroughly enjoy fictional works, there's this hyperconsumerist ideology and culture surrounding geekdom. So I thought, and to some extent still think, that buying any kind of merchandise was being tricked by the system.

I bought a simple merchandise item -a mug- the other day, which prompted me to question why I bought it. It feels shameful to write even now, but it's because I thought I should treat myself to something. It was cute, after all. When I thought about this issue, I realized certain things.

For starters, I put too much emphasis on personal responsibility when it comes to moral issues. One reason is I tend to blame myself. I often question myself first before questioning others or the wider picture. Another reason is that there are many, many moral tales that emphasize the role of personal responsibility. Too many stories have the hero look down on the villain and declare: "There's always a choice." And then the hero explicitly or implicitly says the villain just wasn't strong enough.

I think this is to a great degree due to how personal responsibility is mythologized in the contemporary culture. Abrahamic religions often put much emphasis on choosing the morally good choice. After all, the whole afterlife dichotomy is built upon this idea. Furthermore, with the "Enlightenment", the idea that individuals are rational and free to choose has become very prominent. So, both pre-modern and modern beliefs about morality puts much emphasis on personal responsibility.

This has different effects on different people, and I recognize that my experience is not necessarily generalizable, but I do think that it provides a kind of insight on some issues. At least for some people. Basically, I've come to realize that ethical issues have more of an emotional impact on me than most people. I also have a dysfunctional pattern of trying to live up to unreasonable standards. When these two and the emphasis on personal responsibility were combined, it created a very difficult pattern for me. It made me more vulnerable to moral purism.

I've recently realized why this moral purist tendency is straining for me, and there's a very simple why: it's because it's a thought that belongs to a fictional, idealized world. It doesn't consider the complexities and realities of the world I live in, it demands that I should live in that fictional, ideal world. In other words, it fails me, because it doesn't recognize that I'm a human with real needs and wants.

I don't mean this in the cliche "Oh, humans are imperfect," way, because that way of thinking still puts the moral purist way on a pedastal. It just tells you that you are weak and imperfect, and tells you to compromise. I think this is not a good way of looking at it, because it still reinforces the idealized thinking. It just tells you to make concessions, which is unacceptable to a perfectionist.

Instead, I say that it's a shitty psychology. This way of thinking doesn't consider how a human mind works, what it needs to be healthy and happy, and the overall workings of the world. Healthy thinking comes from being able to cope with realities of the world—in a way, it's being in tune with the reality you live in, and that necessitates recognizing your own emotional needs and wants. Moral purism encourages you to neglect your own emotional needs in pursuit of some fictional, impossible person you want to be. It's a fantasy.

In this context, it's healthy to come to terms with your own limits as a single person. The wider picture should be considered. For example, in my situation, buying merchandise now and then doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it make this act morally bad. I live under capitalism, and no matter what I do, as long as I continue to live in a society, I will always contribute to its workings (and healthy people don't go "off the grid"). From my point of view, it's bad that doing things I love contributes to an inequalizing system, but in no reasonable way should I be expected to give up what little or moderate joys I get by participating in this system. Of course, there should be a limit regarding consumption, but the bar is certainly not as high as I thought.

This is my personal experience with moral purism. I think the culture of overemphasis on personal responsibility feeds into it. What are your thoughts about it? Have you had similar experiences? The don't have to be about consumerism, as moral purism is seen many, unrelated issues.

Note: This goes without saying, but this post doesn't suggest that having a better world in mind and striving for it is bad. It just criticizes an unhealthy way of approaching the mentioned topics.

This hit me while watching the latest Gamers Nexus video discussion with Wendell, and Steve recited the quote.

It's often brought up as the inevitability of modern product ownership as company executives push profit-first practices like subscriptions, licenses and anti-right-to-repair designs. However this neglects the fact that these systems don't come from nowhere - they have to be built by programmers, engineers and designers.

I don't know if those same people support right-to-repair and freedom to manipulate what you buy in their private lives (or if they have even thought about it), but it seems like every techie I speak to does support it, yet somehow these things keep getting made.

I want to try and escape my bubble about this. I don't believe the engineers are powerless against the executives - if the engineering community works together and don't backstab, I think these systems can be prevented at the technical level and never see the light of day.

What happens at these notorious companies (John Deere, Apple etc.) that I'm missing? Is the lure of money too great? Is the threat of being back stabbed too large?

I'm going to start with three questions but feel free to propose your own:

1. What if anything have you tried around finding and using more ethical sources of meat?

2. What cooking methods and recipes do you use that reduce the amount of meat you eat in a meal?

3. What vegetarian protein sources do you find palatable and tasty?