Why is it so hard for rightists to understand this?

Why is it so hard for rightists to understand this?

They think the free market is magic and will solve everything. They think that when people are given the choice, only altruistic and good business practices will thrive. That's why they say you should just find a new job if you're unhappy with your employer. Centrist libs do the same thing. A vegan diet only shifts the exploitation onto the backs of the farm workers.

So if I grow my own food that is worse or better than if I purchase food from say, Tesco? Slightly less exploitation went into me growing the food than if some Mexican did it. Sure, I mean the tools themselves are from capitalism and blahblahblah but isn't this just some bastardisation of

from the edgier than thou left?

You bought your seeds and tools from someone who bought them from a wholesaler who bought them from a manufacturer who paid peanuts to its workers, gave them shit benefits, maybe employed child workers in some shithole country, threatens farmers for using trademarked seeds and not paying royalties or for using non-trademarked non-GMO heirloom seeds which threaten BigAg's crop fields, etc. etc.

in short: 'no'

Purely masturbatory. You growing your own crops is not helping anything other than your own sense of moral superiority. You bought the seeds, the tools, and the land from exploiters.

I covered this point. Doesn't change the fact that the I removed one of these sites of exploitation, namely, the agricultural worker would have grown it. However small this is, its better than buying from Tesco

right, but like I said, i removed one facet of this

Somebody post that picture of the Holla Forums discussion about how Sonic is actually a stooge for an authoritarian government.

If they understood things they wouldn't be rightist

who cares

Sonic is anprim

"More ethical" is not "ethical"
Woo hoo you theoretically removed one aspect: there is still no ethical consumption under capitalism

Please convince capitalists with a better argument

What if I am a subsistence farmer? Am I not ethically consuming my own products?

That's as close it can get, but you still had to get your tools somewhere and you best not be claiming private property of that land you grow crops on.

Nazi Here. I agree with OP. I'd probably join an anarchist movement if you fags would agree we need to also gas the kikes

you're not engaging in capitalism, so the ethics of your consumption are irrelevant to how ethical any particular consumption under capitalism is.

Only the bourgeois jews.

The only way selective consumption could work is with combating pollution, but even then people don't care enough because they have all their goodies.

It's *marginally* better, yes, but it doesn't make your use/consumption ethical.

Egoism is literally a school of ethics you retard.

They think that stepping outside of ideology is like stepping outside of civilization so partaking in anything that ideology gave to civilization like modern consumer goods is an act of surrender so they can come at us and and and dump the dust bin of ideology.

damnit Holla Forums you cant just gas parts of the proletariat

literally what the fuck has a poor jew ever done to offend you

we'll gas the bourgeoisie though will that make you happy

It implies, or at least is easily interpreted as "all consumption is equally unethical". But clearly buying products from, and thereby economically encouraging, a slave run factory that releases toxins in to the ground water, is less ethical than buying from a unionized factory that follows strict procedures to minimize environmental impact.
So the slogan comes across as dogmatic and nuanced.
The *correct* interpretation, I assume is that since labor theory of value states that the capitalist mode of production relies on exploitation of the workers labor in order to create profit, we can by extension conclude that all consumption is unethical. ..or something like that. I have no problem understanding that rightists aren't eminently blown away by this logic.