this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
165 points (93.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54574 readers
518 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And said government will be funded by it.
Every government is partially founded by taxes, are you suggesting we should avoid economical transactions with every citizen of a state you disapprove? Or is it just a Russian thing?
Over the table, yes I am.
I would like to provide as little funding toward the expansion of territory in which transitioning gender presentation is a crime as possible.
I don't disagree with that principle. I disagree with the idea that "buy something from a company that will eventually pay some taxes to a country" can be considered "provide funding" to that country government.
You don't think money going to a country ...is money ...which goes to that country?
If I bought something for €40 off some guy who pays their nation 2.5% tax on the transaction is that €1 paid not a Euro the nation would not have had I declined to make the purchase?
Come on, you understand what I mean. I'm just saying that I personally feel wrong to drow the line at that when looking for boycotting criteria.
I despise lots of government and I refuse to support, partake and work in anything involved directly with such government or strongly affiliated company. I think it's important to remember than people are not their government and that especially citizens of bad government need to see this kind of comprehension.
It's ok if you disagree, it's a complicated matter. Noone know the one true truth.
I don't. I don't support what the Russian government is doing and I want to provide a little funding towards the endeavors of which I do not approve as possible.
An amount that is not ₽0 would appear to enter Russian coffers if I buy this product, and it is possible to provide "< not 0" by not buying it.
Which is why I wouldn't have a moral problem with buying this product if I knew for a fact the producers were cheating on their taxes.
You should when you can.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. You will ends up condamning people for their government decision, which sounds problematic to me (especially considering the low agency they could have in such decisionmaking).
That sounds like a boycott which is absolutely a thing. Choosing how to spend your money as a representative from of who you support is nothing new.
One thing is boycotting a company because you don't support how it operates or their moral position. Another thing is boycotting a company just for the sole fact that it's based in a country that makes political decision you disagree with. It's just geography, not a solid criteria for boycotting something IMHO.
Uh no. It's helping to support the country as well. It puts pressure on individuals and corporations to also push their local/state government to adjust their policy as well.
If you don't want to support slavery you can absolutely choose to not buy from countries that use slave labor at parts of the supply chain.
Suggesting that it's just a location based boycott is disingenuous to the conversation of it being about countries that you as a buyer are supporting. I'm not saying I don't buy products from people who live in swamps or wetlands, but from a country that is engaged in politcal issues that are quite major in scope.
If you want to excuse it away and embrace that opinion, that it's fine cause it just is a location, fine. Your desire to buy is able to let you ignore the moral dissonance; and it's what humans do best, ignoring reality because they want something; but, it doesn't make you any less in the minority on this.
I was elaborating my answer, but honestly I don't think you deserve more of my time. You are way to aggressive and judgmental.
I don't think to be right, and I honestly don't have any strong opinion on a matter like this. I was just finding interesting to discuss about a position that I was finding too extreme.
Have a nice day.
So playing devil's advocate for a scenario you don't care about and didn't put any thought towards as a game to entertain yourself while it has impacts on the real world?
You choose to redefine a boycott because of a thought experiment you didn't even want to deal with people having a differing opinion on? How incredibly lazy and centrist pointed for no reason other than ignore nuance and reality.
Have a good one, person who ignores issues because it is more fun to just not have an actual opinion on and play the middle like it does anything.