How to counter the "American abundance" argument.
July 8, 2016 8:13 AM Subscribe
We Americans have too much stuff in general. This is not a controversial statement.
But when I say something like this to friends or acquaintances (and I phrase it non-accusatorially! Gently! Practically wrapped in cotton batting!) some people counter with, "Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own."
There is almost no variation in this response from person to person, by the way.
This way of thinking maddens me no end. How can I blast though this blind, no-nothing way of addressing our consumption (and subsequent waste) problem? I want an argument that's as concrete and final as, well, concrete.
There is almost no variation in this response from person to person, by the way.
This way of thinking maddens me no end. How can I blast though this blind, no-nothing way of addressing our consumption (and subsequent waste) problem? I want an argument that's as concrete and final as, well, concrete.
Response by poster: Oh christ, all right then! Just give me a good counter-argument!
posted by BostonTerrier at 8:20 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by BostonTerrier at 8:20 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah sorry, I'd respond like this if I wanted to shut down a conversation where I felt someone's rant coming on (and I actually kind of agree with you, I just don't care to talk about stuff like this).
posted by lovableiago at 8:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [47 favorites]
posted by lovableiago at 8:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [47 favorites]
You could point to the trend of minimalism that's super hot right now, but that one is pretty easy to rebut simply because that sort of minimalism basically requires the privilege to abandon your physical goods knowing you can re-purchase them later if necessary.
Otherwise, there's really no good counterargument to "I am happier with more than enough things than less than enough." It doesn't sound like they're disagreeing with you, just that your point is subsumed under the fact that our cultural trajectory is toward personal security which is inextricably tied in with physical objects.
posted by griphus at 8:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Otherwise, there's really no good counterargument to "I am happier with more than enough things than less than enough." It doesn't sound like they're disagreeing with you, just that your point is subsumed under the fact that our cultural trajectory is toward personal security which is inextricably tied in with physical objects.
posted by griphus at 8:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
The problem here is that "too much stuff" is an inherently subjective judgment. Too much by what measure? Are you sure that you're defining "too much" in a way that your friends and acquaintances would agree with?
I mean, I am totally in agreement with you that Americans generally have too much stuff. But to me, this is an argument that is not worth having. Even if you win, you're likely to come off as some kind of holier-than-thou hypocrite who gets all sanctimonious about other peoples' life choices. You certainly won't change any minds.
Why do you want to have this argument? What do you hope to get out of it? Do you have a goal here, other than starting and winning arguments with people?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:29 AM on July 8, 2016 [37 favorites]
I mean, I am totally in agreement with you that Americans generally have too much stuff. But to me, this is an argument that is not worth having. Even if you win, you're likely to come off as some kind of holier-than-thou hypocrite who gets all sanctimonious about other peoples' life choices. You certainly won't change any minds.
Why do you want to have this argument? What do you hope to get out of it? Do you have a goal here, other than starting and winning arguments with people?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:29 AM on July 8, 2016 [37 favorites]
Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own
Why are you looking for a counter-argument? Do you think this is not true?
You may think you are phrasing your point "non-accusatorially, gently, practically wrapped in cotton batting". But, if you are telling someone that "Americans have too much stuff in general" you are setting yourself up to be argued with. Is that what you want?
posted by John Borrowman at 8:30 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why are you looking for a counter-argument? Do you think this is not true?
You may think you are phrasing your point "non-accusatorially, gently, practically wrapped in cotton batting". But, if you are telling someone that "Americans have too much stuff in general" you are setting yourself up to be argued with. Is that what you want?
posted by John Borrowman at 8:30 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
"I'm glad we have the choice" is usually code for "I am not interested in having this discussion." It's not even a contradiction, really; you can be grateful for abundance and opportunity while still thinking Americans on a whole have too much crap.
I could easily see myself saying a similar response, despite agreeing in a general sense, if I thought the other person was gearing up for a debate or lecture.
posted by Metroid Baby at 8:30 AM on July 8, 2016 [54 favorites]
I could easily see myself saying a similar response, despite agreeing in a general sense, if I thought the other person was gearing up for a debate or lecture.
posted by Metroid Baby at 8:30 AM on July 8, 2016 [54 favorites]
This is not a controversial statement.
Well, no, it clearly is controversial, as you've discovered. That's like saying "People of color are oppressed in America. This is not a controversial statement." What you mean is that you believe it, and everybody you respect believes it, therefore it shouldn't be controversial. But that's not the same thing. The sky is blue on a sunny day; that genuinely is not a controversial statement. If you went around telling people the sky is blue, you wouldn't get an argument. But you don't go around saying it, right? Think about the difference. Genuinely noncontroversial statements are boring.
> Why do you want to have this argument? What do you hope to get out of it? Do you have a goal here, other than starting and winning arguments with people?
Yup, these are all important questions that you should be considering.
posted by languagehat at 8:35 AM on July 8, 2016 [30 favorites]
Well, no, it clearly is controversial, as you've discovered. That's like saying "People of color are oppressed in America. This is not a controversial statement." What you mean is that you believe it, and everybody you respect believes it, therefore it shouldn't be controversial. But that's not the same thing. The sky is blue on a sunny day; that genuinely is not a controversial statement. If you went around telling people the sky is blue, you wouldn't get an argument. But you don't go around saying it, right? Think about the difference. Genuinely noncontroversial statements are boring.
> Why do you want to have this argument? What do you hope to get out of it? Do you have a goal here, other than starting and winning arguments with people?
Yup, these are all important questions that you should be considering.
posted by languagehat at 8:35 AM on July 8, 2016 [30 favorites]
Also, your premise is flawed. "We Americans have too much stuff in general" obviously is a controversial statement, or else you wouldn't be getting pushback when you bring it up to people. I find that most of my fellow Americans are actually either fine with the amount of stuff they have, or want more stuff. Relatively few of them are actively interested in having less stuff, even with minimalism being so trendy right now. So while I think there are many powerful arguments in favor of having less stuff, and while I personally think that it would be a great thing if Americans had less stuff, it's definitely not an uncontroversial position to take. For most people, stuff is wealth and wealth is happiness. That's the dominant cultural narrative, and going against the dominant cultural narrative is pretty much inherently controversial.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:36 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:36 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are you trying to say "Americans have too much disposable stuff," or "American culture is too focused on expressing ourselves through ownership," or "I'm an adherent of Voluntary Simplicity [or etc]" or what? If you're making a cultural critique argument, and they're making an economic (?) argument, there's nowhere for the discussion to go. If you can refine what you're trying to communicate, that might be helpful.
"Americans have too much stuff."
"Well, I'm glad we have the choice to amass a lot of stuff if we want to!"
"I'm glad we have plenty of choices too, but I wish our culture wasn't so focused on _____ or ______."
or
"I wonder if all the abundance has a negative impact on our culture, though, in terms of conspicuous consumption,"
or
"Me too, it's a catch-22 because I'm glad I can buy, say, mid-century modern knockoff furniture at Target, but at the same time, I realize it's disposable and crappy and bad for the earth even if it's good for my living room seating."
I don't think you'll argue someone out of being happy they have choice and abundance.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 8:39 AM on July 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
"Americans have too much stuff."
"Well, I'm glad we have the choice to amass a lot of stuff if we want to!"
"I'm glad we have plenty of choices too, but I wish our culture wasn't so focused on _____ or ______."
or
"I wonder if all the abundance has a negative impact on our culture, though, in terms of conspicuous consumption,"
or
"Me too, it's a catch-22 because I'm glad I can buy, say, mid-century modern knockoff furniture at Target, but at the same time, I realize it's disposable and crappy and bad for the earth even if it's good for my living room seating."
I don't think you'll argue someone out of being happy they have choice and abundance.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 8:39 AM on July 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
I'd suggest coming up with a line or two, rather than a counter-argument, that makes people think, if only later. Something more subtle, said with a smile, that doesn't make them feel defensive enough to argue.
Or maybe a question: Man, do you ever feel like we all just have way too much stuff?
posted by bluedaisy at 8:41 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or maybe a question: Man, do you ever feel like we all just have way too much stuff?
posted by bluedaisy at 8:41 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
We Americans have too much stuff in general.
This is controversial because there is no universally agreed measure of the right amount of stuff to have. More importantly, an abundance of things doesn't mean that you should buy everything. Freedom of choice is what your statement seems to want to deny people.
posted by Kwadeng at 8:46 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is controversial because there is no universally agreed measure of the right amount of stuff to have. More importantly, an abundance of things doesn't mean that you should buy everything. Freedom of choice is what your statement seems to want to deny people.
posted by Kwadeng at 8:46 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
You could always play them this NSFW George Carlin skit.
posted by kimota at 8:46 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by kimota at 8:46 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think if you said "We have too much stuff" or "People have too much stuff" you'd make more headway. I mean when you say that, no one (in the US) will think of anyone other than Americans, so your argument will be no less precise. But if you start with "We Americans" you're setting it up as "as opposed to non-Americans" with an implicit Americans are wrong other people are doing it better, which is what makes people defensive.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:49 AM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:49 AM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own."
This does not actually contradict the statement that "Americans have too much stuff in general." They have not disagreed with you.
So maybe you should explicitly agree with them: "Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't have such abundance or freedom of choice about what to buy. I just think that Americans should exercise their freedom of economic choice more judiciously."
If you actually do think that America would be a better place with less abundance (not just less exercise of that abundance, but less abundance itself), or less freedom of choice, you should explicitly say so.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:49 AM on July 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
This does not actually contradict the statement that "Americans have too much stuff in general." They have not disagreed with you.
So maybe you should explicitly agree with them: "Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't have such abundance or freedom of choice about what to buy. I just think that Americans should exercise their freedom of economic choice more judiciously."
If you actually do think that America would be a better place with less abundance (not just less exercise of that abundance, but less abundance itself), or less freedom of choice, you should explicitly say so.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:49 AM on July 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
There is a false equivalence between "have too much stuff" and "have freedom/money/abundance" even if everyone can agree on one it's not the source/cause of the other.
Many nations people have significant personal wealth and access to goods but don't own things in the quantity Americans do. So this is a cultural quality we have in general and it's caused by a lot of factors way outside any one individual's control.
Just one example: Consider time. Americans don't have a lot of it. Low-Mid wage workers work a lot. A lot more hours than some other developed nations. Much less paid leave as well. Almost no paid childcare. This adds up to weeks and months of time per year. With a limited bandwidth to use time to express enjoyment/affection for ourselves and those we love we use stuff. So we buy gifts, and food, and furniture and toys for kids to fill that gap.
It's hard for the individual to tilt this equation.
So making the argument one merely about willpower or merely about abundance is flawed on both sides.
posted by French Fry at 8:56 AM on July 8, 2016 [18 favorites]
Many nations people have significant personal wealth and access to goods but don't own things in the quantity Americans do. So this is a cultural quality we have in general and it's caused by a lot of factors way outside any one individual's control.
Just one example: Consider time. Americans don't have a lot of it. Low-Mid wage workers work a lot. A lot more hours than some other developed nations. Much less paid leave as well. Almost no paid childcare. This adds up to weeks and months of time per year. With a limited bandwidth to use time to express enjoyment/affection for ourselves and those we love we use stuff. So we buy gifts, and food, and furniture and toys for kids to fill that gap.
It's hard for the individual to tilt this equation.
So making the argument one merely about willpower or merely about abundance is flawed on both sides.
posted by French Fry at 8:56 AM on July 8, 2016 [18 favorites]
Who are your friends and why are they so monolithic in response? I'd estimate that most of my friends are in agreement that too much consumption is a problem, personally and socially, and talk about ways to get rid of stuff - lots of clothing swaps, Freecycling, give aways.
I'd also say that American abundance is closely aligned with class status. Middle class and up folks can acquire a lot of stuff, but those in poverty aren't necessarily awash in stuff.
posted by RajahKing at 9:02 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd also say that American abundance is closely aligned with class status. Middle class and up folks can acquire a lot of stuff, but those in poverty aren't necessarily awash in stuff.
posted by RajahKing at 9:02 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
What's the point? What are you trying to achieve? If you said that to me, I'd say I agree. When I bring an item into my house, one goes out. Every purchase I make is carefully considered. Am I ok or do you still want to argue/make a point? Are you an ultra minimalist? If I have a chef's knife AND a paring knife am I an over-consumer? Where do you draw the line? You're doing a sort of shifting goalpost thing where it's impossible to agree with you no matter what I say.
posted by fixedgear at 9:07 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by fixedgear at 9:07 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
How can I blast though this blind, no-nothing way of addressing our consumption (and subsequent waste) problem?
What about this way of thinking is necessarily blind or [know]-nothing??
I KNOW that consumption patterns can create waste and may be unsustainable. I'm still hella glad that I have enough clothing to be comfortable and appropriate in Chicago's 7635 seasons. Both of these things can be true at once.
I'm not blind to the carbon footprint of my consumption or to the sources of that clothing--which is why I largely purchase used clothing or splurge on sustainable companies when I can. But I am also aware that I don't know anyone else's life, man. I'm absolutely grateful that so many (though by no means ALL, hello, have you looked at our poverty stats lately?) can find the things they need to make their lives comfortable or pleasant.
I can't suggest a reasonable counter-argument for you until I know what you hope to achieve or why you're even having these discussions. But I can say that any effective counter-argument is gonna be one that doesn't assume its interlocutor is a big dumb world-gobbling idiot.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:09 AM on July 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
What about this way of thinking is necessarily blind or [know]-nothing??
I KNOW that consumption patterns can create waste and may be unsustainable. I'm still hella glad that I have enough clothing to be comfortable and appropriate in Chicago's 7635 seasons. Both of these things can be true at once.
I'm not blind to the carbon footprint of my consumption or to the sources of that clothing--which is why I largely purchase used clothing or splurge on sustainable companies when I can. But I am also aware that I don't know anyone else's life, man. I'm absolutely grateful that so many (though by no means ALL, hello, have you looked at our poverty stats lately?) can find the things they need to make their lives comfortable or pleasant.
I can't suggest a reasonable counter-argument for you until I know what you hope to achieve or why you're even having these discussions. But I can say that any effective counter-argument is gonna be one that doesn't assume its interlocutor is a big dumb world-gobbling idiot.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:09 AM on July 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
What you're saying is an accusation. You're saying "you have too much stuff." People are going to defend themselves, pointing out that it is not your business to judge or police how much stuff they have.
If you want people to agree with you, you can always say "I feel like I have too much stuff" or "I get so scared when I walk into a store and wonder where on earth all this plastic shit is going to wind up." That's how I feel, too, and I'd be happy to commiserate. But if you come at me with judgment, I'm going to shut you down, just like all the other people you've been lecturing.
posted by fingersandtoes at 9:25 AM on July 8, 2016 [41 favorites]
If you want people to agree with you, you can always say "I feel like I have too much stuff" or "I get so scared when I walk into a store and wonder where on earth all this plastic shit is going to wind up." That's how I feel, too, and I'd be happy to commiserate. But if you come at me with judgment, I'm going to shut you down, just like all the other people you've been lecturing.
posted by fingersandtoes at 9:25 AM on July 8, 2016 [41 favorites]
OP, I think the context that you want to use these statements might help us address the answer. Is this an everyday conversation that you have? An underlying belief you must share with the world every day? Are you trying to help a person or people get rid of stuff (as in, it can be pathological if the person or people are hoarders).
That aside, if you really wanted to discuss this with someone and get them to see other points of view, I would change how you are approaching this entirely. I'm speaking as someone who owns probably what 10% of the average person in my demographic owns (so I agree with the concept), but I would absolutely give you a 1 sentence answer to send you on your way because I would not want a lecture, which it sounds like the preface to. I think these issues are very complex, and unless a person wanted to engage it in that manner, I wouldn't want to engage in a random "let me tell you whey you are doing it wrong" conversation.
Instead, why not use an "I" statement. "I don't own a lot of stuff" or "I don't want a car" or whatever it is because of [reason(s)] Then let the conversation proceed from there, they either may or may not decide to engage with you on it. But starting with the premise "Americans" can sound judgey and attacking their mode of life.
I would also try to understand why people own stuff. Ask them. Some people might hold on to an object or objects because it was given to them by their child and made it with their own hands, or long-lost relative, or whatever.
If you are truly trying to help a person get rid of an object for a need reason, the same would apply: Find out why and help find other ways to address it. I had a friend trying to get his elderly parents to downgrade into a smaller place for financial and health reasons (so massive amounts of stuff had to go). He started out by trying to get them to sell their stuff, but he would take things out to sell, and they would haul it all back in when he turned his back. Then they started giving gifts to everyone (here is your crib from when you were born in 1958. Surprise!) But after discussions with his parents, he found out that they had memories attached to the items, and they wanted their children to what they thought and felt, etc. He helped them replace the "owning" by writing about it for each object, and sharing the story with their kids. But I'm going to stress here that they originally went to him and asked him to help them move into smaller place, etc., and it wasn't a sit down in their living room one day and start lecturing them about room full of objects.
posted by Wolfster at 9:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
That aside, if you really wanted to discuss this with someone and get them to see other points of view, I would change how you are approaching this entirely. I'm speaking as someone who owns probably what 10% of the average person in my demographic owns (so I agree with the concept), but I would absolutely give you a 1 sentence answer to send you on your way because I would not want a lecture, which it sounds like the preface to. I think these issues are very complex, and unless a person wanted to engage it in that manner, I wouldn't want to engage in a random "let me tell you whey you are doing it wrong" conversation.
Instead, why not use an "I" statement. "I don't own a lot of stuff" or "I don't want a car" or whatever it is because of [reason(s)] Then let the conversation proceed from there, they either may or may not decide to engage with you on it. But starting with the premise "Americans" can sound judgey and attacking their mode of life.
I would also try to understand why people own stuff. Ask them. Some people might hold on to an object or objects because it was given to them by their child and made it with their own hands, or long-lost relative, or whatever.
If you are truly trying to help a person get rid of an object for a need reason, the same would apply: Find out why and help find other ways to address it. I had a friend trying to get his elderly parents to downgrade into a smaller place for financial and health reasons (so massive amounts of stuff had to go). He started out by trying to get them to sell their stuff, but he would take things out to sell, and they would haul it all back in when he turned his back. Then they started giving gifts to everyone (here is your crib from when you were born in 1958. Surprise!) But after discussions with his parents, he found out that they had memories attached to the items, and they wanted their children to what they thought and felt, etc. He helped them replace the "owning" by writing about it for each object, and sharing the story with their kids. But I'm going to stress here that they originally went to him and asked him to help them move into smaller place, etc., and it wasn't a sit down in their living room one day and start lecturing them about room full of objects.
posted by Wolfster at 9:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean, I think we have way way waaaay too much stuff, of course (fast-motion Koyaanisqatsi montage of garbage gyres/Hoarders clips), but I nevertheless blazed out in the comments of the blog of the enraging Colin Beavan back in the day. Are you, like the Beavan scourge, totally infuriating everyone you meet by, for instance, insisting that the best way to handle the conundrum of not having a to-go mug for your morning coffee is to trashpick a mason jar and fill it with blazing hot coffee that you made on your Manhattan rooftop twigfire and throw it in your trashpicked backpack like a visitor from another universe that has totally different physics? Ignoring the wise counsel of saintly commenters telling you that the best way to handle the conundrum of not having a to-go mug for your morning coffee is obviously to head to Goodwill and buy a used vacuum-sealed steel cup to put it in?
AAARGH, I'm remembering more... Why was Colin Beavan trying to use a swamp cooler in Manhattan!? Why couldn't he think about how a swamp cooler functions and skip making one because it won't work in humidass New York, surrounded by water on all sides? Okay, we all know why: because he needed blog content; he was trying to manufacture a dramatic arc. But hello, helloooo, you're not achieving your supposed goal of encouraging less consumption by trying to seem like a herculean warrior and making this look impossibly hard for everybody else who might otherwise be inspired to make some changes. Why did he insist on riding his bike everydamnwhere and yelling at everybody scared to ride a bike in Manhattan (or not able to ride a bike full stop, hello, ableist, we're not all 35 and ripped) when New York has great public transportation?
In short, efforts to guilt-trip people out of wanting stuff when there's so much awesome stuff everywhere will not work just like haranguing everybody to take military showers isn't going to prevent the upcoming waterwars and eventual extinction of the species. If you want less stuff, have less stuff and publicize the awesomeness of less-stuff living. Have people over to your no-extra-stuff abode and make sure they have a good time. If you do a vlog about it, show how it is easy, beautiful, and fun. Also, realize that none of this is going to do any good at all because the solution to the toomuchstuff problem is out of our individual hands, the same as the solutions to the toomuchwaterused and the toomuchfertilizerinthewaterways problems and myriad other global problems of too much capitalism. Even if everybody starts bathing in creeks and collecting rainwater today and forevermore, we're still going to run out of water because we grow our food in idiotic waterhogging ways and we deal with fertilizer and waste in idiotic waterwrecking ways. Hollering at people for buying crap at Wal-Mart might make you feel better and if you convince your friends it might make their interiors more aesthetically pleasing to you, but it does zero to solve the problems that will end most mammalian life on earth.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:35 AM on July 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
AAARGH, I'm remembering more... Why was Colin Beavan trying to use a swamp cooler in Manhattan!? Why couldn't he think about how a swamp cooler functions and skip making one because it won't work in humidass New York, surrounded by water on all sides? Okay, we all know why: because he needed blog content; he was trying to manufacture a dramatic arc. But hello, helloooo, you're not achieving your supposed goal of encouraging less consumption by trying to seem like a herculean warrior and making this look impossibly hard for everybody else who might otherwise be inspired to make some changes. Why did he insist on riding his bike everydamnwhere and yelling at everybody scared to ride a bike in Manhattan (or not able to ride a bike full stop, hello, ableist, we're not all 35 and ripped) when New York has great public transportation?
In short, efforts to guilt-trip people out of wanting stuff when there's so much awesome stuff everywhere will not work just like haranguing everybody to take military showers isn't going to prevent the upcoming waterwars and eventual extinction of the species. If you want less stuff, have less stuff and publicize the awesomeness of less-stuff living. Have people over to your no-extra-stuff abode and make sure they have a good time. If you do a vlog about it, show how it is easy, beautiful, and fun. Also, realize that none of this is going to do any good at all because the solution to the toomuchstuff problem is out of our individual hands, the same as the solutions to the toomuchwaterused and the toomuchfertilizerinthewaterways problems and myriad other global problems of too much capitalism. Even if everybody starts bathing in creeks and collecting rainwater today and forevermore, we're still going to run out of water because we grow our food in idiotic waterhogging ways and we deal with fertilizer and waste in idiotic waterwrecking ways. Hollering at people for buying crap at Wal-Mart might make you feel better and if you convince your friends it might make their interiors more aesthetically pleasing to you, but it does zero to solve the problems that will end most mammalian life on earth.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:35 AM on July 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've grown weary of "let's discuss another way in which I as an American suck" conversations. Why not start a conversation about a person or group in America who you think is doing the consumption thing right? Like, "hey did you hear about this woman who can fit 4 years of her trash in a 16oz mason jar?" Inspire others through good examples rather than judging everyone with the same broad stroke argument.
posted by cecic at 9:40 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by cecic at 9:40 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
People are trying to get out of having an argument with you because "too much stuff" is not actually quantifiable a and is, in fact, utterly 1000% relative. No one I personally know would get into the rah-rah they hate us for our freedoms flag waving in response to the statement, but it's still a discussion I would try to escape from as quickly as possible with whatever platitude I could produce. And then there'd be a me-shaped hole in the wall from how fast I'd flee. Because that opening is not the start of a conversation, it's the start of a harangue. And frankly, unless you've been to my house and opened all my closets and quizzed me about the provenance of all my items? You don't know me or how I live, so.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:47 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:47 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's unclear to me why you feel such a strong need engage your friends and acquaintances in unsolicited debates on this topic. What do you think you're accomplishing by doing this? I understand that it may be something you feel strongly about, but few things are more tiresome than a constant crusader for some pet cause or lifestyle.
As a counterexample, I have a friend who was very much into the zero waste thing -- spent a year without acquiring any new possessions, saved all her trash, composted in her NYC apartment, wrote blog posts, the whole nine yards. We were all aware that she was doing it because she would talk about the challenges or about a blog post she had recently written and that sort of thing. And through our relationships with her, my friends and I did make some lifestyle changes and came to a different understanding about consumerism. But never once did she criticize a single one of our consumption choices, never once did she attempt to corner one of us into a debate about our lifestyles or American consumerism overall, and while she did share this aspect of her life with us from time to time it was hardly a constant refrain on her part. This is how it's done.
posted by slkinsey at 9:49 AM on July 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
As a counterexample, I have a friend who was very much into the zero waste thing -- spent a year without acquiring any new possessions, saved all her trash, composted in her NYC apartment, wrote blog posts, the whole nine yards. We were all aware that she was doing it because she would talk about the challenges or about a blog post she had recently written and that sort of thing. And through our relationships with her, my friends and I did make some lifestyle changes and came to a different understanding about consumerism. But never once did she criticize a single one of our consumption choices, never once did she attempt to corner one of us into a debate about our lifestyles or American consumerism overall, and while she did share this aspect of her life with us from time to time it was hardly a constant refrain on her part. This is how it's done.
posted by slkinsey at 9:49 AM on July 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Best answer: Say something like "I'm sure the Kings of France felt that way about Versailles" but don't expect it to be a good conversation.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:59 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:59 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Best answer: I'm someone who agrees with you at least at this super-basic beginning level to the conversation. Most people have way too much stuff! *I* have way too much stuff! And this could be interesting to talk about - the hows and whys of accumulating this stuff, what parts of it call back to our childhoods, what role marketing plays in selling us crap we don't need, the issues I have with the Konmari "keep what gives you joy and thank your socks for their hard work" thing, how we negotiate our idea of "too much stuff" with those of our loved ones who share living space, how some versions of "paring down" could mean "spending more to replace things with better/smaller/more-efficient version of themselves" and whether that's a good thing, the trade-offs I personally make in regards to "things that make it easier for me to manage a life that is complicated by mental health issues even though I would not own/use those things if I had my shit together as much as I would like to". There's a lot of super-interesting stuff to talk about.
But I can absolutely see that depending on the approach someone took to starting this conversation with me, or even just how much mental energy I had that day (see above re: mental health issues), I might blow them off with a one-liner. Probably not precisely what you've heard, because bringing some kind of weird nationalism into it seems...well, weird, to me. But I might offer some variant on "Yeah, I often feel the same way, but I've decided I don't know the details of other people's lives and it's not my place to say how much stuff they need", and then try really, really hard to change the subject.
If it's really very specifically that kind of nationalism-based answer ("it's great how America in particular lets us have lots of stuff!"), I guess you might try something along the lines of "Yeah, it is great that we have lots of options available to us, but I worry about some of the long-term ramifications of the trends in how we choose among those options." Maybe? Sort of the "Yes, and..." approach - I'm validating what you're saying and that it's not necessarily opposed to what I'm saying, so can we now together move into talking about the implications of this thing we've both agreed has some value?
No idea if it would work but maybe that's what I'd try in your shoes.
posted by Stacey at 10:03 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I can absolutely see that depending on the approach someone took to starting this conversation with me, or even just how much mental energy I had that day (see above re: mental health issues), I might blow them off with a one-liner. Probably not precisely what you've heard, because bringing some kind of weird nationalism into it seems...well, weird, to me. But I might offer some variant on "Yeah, I often feel the same way, but I've decided I don't know the details of other people's lives and it's not my place to say how much stuff they need", and then try really, really hard to change the subject.
If it's really very specifically that kind of nationalism-based answer ("it's great how America in particular lets us have lots of stuff!"), I guess you might try something along the lines of "Yeah, it is great that we have lots of options available to us, but I worry about some of the long-term ramifications of the trends in how we choose among those options." Maybe? Sort of the "Yes, and..." approach - I'm validating what you're saying and that it's not necessarily opposed to what I'm saying, so can we now together move into talking about the implications of this thing we've both agreed has some value?
No idea if it would work but maybe that's what I'd try in your shoes.
posted by Stacey at 10:03 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: This thread is a colloquy worthy of the old Chautauqua circuit.
you're likely to come off as some kind of holier-than-thou hypocrite who gets all sanctimonious about other peoples' life choices
I agree that's how I sometimes appear; and that's not me! I'm no paragon of right-living; I eat hot dogs and watch freak tv like "My Strange Addiction." Sometimes simultaneously!
Why do you want to have this argument? What do you hope to get out of it?
To smack people over the head with how dumb they are, I guess. I know; not a good instinct.
I think if you said "We have too much stuff" or "People have too much stuff" you'd make more headway.
True. Their usual response strikes me as wrapping themselves in the flag. Your answer doesn't give them that opportunity.
Who are your friends and why are they so monolithic in response?
Some friends; some acquaintances. Not most, or even many.
If you want less stuff, have less stuff and publicize the awesomeness of less-stuff living. Have people over to your no-extra-stuff abode and make sure they have a good time.
I like this. It's on the agenda!
After ruminating about this in the shower, I've come up with a come-back.
Person:
Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own.
Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this video?
Most of my friends are on the same page as me, so i'm not concerned with alienating anyone. And I am a bit of a haranguer, if the truth be told.
Thanks for your responses, everyone. They've made me see it's not a binary issue.
posted by BostonTerrier at 10:07 AM on July 8, 2016
you're likely to come off as some kind of holier-than-thou hypocrite who gets all sanctimonious about other peoples' life choices
I agree that's how I sometimes appear; and that's not me! I'm no paragon of right-living; I eat hot dogs and watch freak tv like "My Strange Addiction." Sometimes simultaneously!
Why do you want to have this argument? What do you hope to get out of it?
To smack people over the head with how dumb they are, I guess. I know; not a good instinct.
I think if you said "We have too much stuff" or "People have too much stuff" you'd make more headway.
True. Their usual response strikes me as wrapping themselves in the flag. Your answer doesn't give them that opportunity.
Who are your friends and why are they so monolithic in response?
Some friends; some acquaintances. Not most, or even many.
If you want less stuff, have less stuff and publicize the awesomeness of less-stuff living. Have people over to your no-extra-stuff abode and make sure they have a good time.
I like this. It's on the agenda!
After ruminating about this in the shower, I've come up with a come-back.
Person:
Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own.
Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this video?
Most of my friends are on the same page as me, so i'm not concerned with alienating anyone. And I am a bit of a haranguer, if the truth be told.
Thanks for your responses, everyone. They've made me see it's not a binary issue.
posted by BostonTerrier at 10:07 AM on July 8, 2016
Best answer: "To smack people over the head with how dumb they are, I guess. I know; not a good instinct."
Be careful with this. People change, you will change, and you might be embarrassed about not being more careful with people's feelings in future.
I have a close friend who used to be vegan, VERY minimalist, and an eco-activist. I got bashed over the head with each and all of those things, regularly. It got to be that every time I spoke to them, in person or on the phone, I was painfully guarded, feeling constantly judged and belittled.
The funny thing is that a few things changed - they fell in love, had a kid, got a bit older and wiser, and they have since mellowed a lot on almost everything they used to be sanctimonious about. It's simultaneously great (we can talk again! I can relax!) and infuriating (now they have new opinions they think they're 100% right about, The End).
Anyway I don't remind them of the old stuff they used to say. But I could, if I was more petty. If your friends are at all petty, I recommend you don't give them ammo against your future self.
Be kind, baby, be kind.
posted by greenish at 10:17 AM on July 8, 2016 [29 favorites]
Be careful with this. People change, you will change, and you might be embarrassed about not being more careful with people's feelings in future.
I have a close friend who used to be vegan, VERY minimalist, and an eco-activist. I got bashed over the head with each and all of those things, regularly. It got to be that every time I spoke to them, in person or on the phone, I was painfully guarded, feeling constantly judged and belittled.
The funny thing is that a few things changed - they fell in love, had a kid, got a bit older and wiser, and they have since mellowed a lot on almost everything they used to be sanctimonious about. It's simultaneously great (we can talk again! I can relax!) and infuriating (now they have new opinions they think they're 100% right about, The End).
Anyway I don't remind them of the old stuff they used to say. But I could, if I was more petty. If your friends are at all petty, I recommend you don't give them ammo against your future self.
Be kind, baby, be kind.
posted by greenish at 10:17 AM on July 8, 2016 [29 favorites]
I was named executor of a loved one's estate a few years ago. Besides paying bills and closing account, I had to dispose of ALL of their worldly possessions. You don't really have a good grasp on that phrase until you are faced with disposing them. It is a conversation that I needed to have with myself even if I don't have it with someone else because someday, I will be dead and my shit will be left for someone else to dispose of. My loved one died suddenly and before she thought she would, so no plan. I after friends and family got the things they asked for, there was a literal tone of stuff to try to sell, destroy, throw out or donate. I was broken hearted with each bag full. It has made me get rid of most of the stuff in my own life, some of which I didn't even remember I had and others that I realized is just there to make me not feel empty. And I have tried to have the conversation with my parents because, it will be mostly me who will eliminate their estate. I've learned I don't need 80% of what I had. People always say, "When I'm dead, I won't care about my stuff." Do whatever. I thought that, but now I think that is what someone who doesn't care about the effect on those they leave behind says.
posted by CollectiveMind at 10:22 AM on July 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by CollectiveMind at 10:22 AM on July 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
To be honest, you accuse others of being blind, know-nothings, but what you've said in this question (and thread) doesn't convince me that you know better. You conflate a lot of issues: the amount of stuff, the disposability of stuff, the economic cost of stuff, etc. These things do travel together to an extent, but not necessarily.
If you want people to agree with you, nuance can help. Being more specific about the issues that you care about, rather than leveling a poorly formulated, blanket condemnation of American culture, can help.
I think you'll find that your particular concerns -- waste, economic justice, climate change -- are not as controversial. Most people agree that waste is bad, sweatshops are bad, and climate change is bad. (There are people who don't, but I get the impression that your social circle is more like mine.) And you can make a clear, concrete argument about how consumption patterns contribute to these problems.
The thing is, though, that there is no magical argument that will make people shut up and stop disagreeing with you if they disagree with you.
I mean, what if I had just as much stuff, but it was longer-lasting, higher-quality stuff produced under fairer economic conditions?
Make it about the issues, not moralizing about how many things someone has in their apartment.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:27 AM on July 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
If you want people to agree with you, nuance can help. Being more specific about the issues that you care about, rather than leveling a poorly formulated, blanket condemnation of American culture, can help.
I think you'll find that your particular concerns -- waste, economic justice, climate change -- are not as controversial. Most people agree that waste is bad, sweatshops are bad, and climate change is bad. (There are people who don't, but I get the impression that your social circle is more like mine.) And you can make a clear, concrete argument about how consumption patterns contribute to these problems.
The thing is, though, that there is no magical argument that will make people shut up and stop disagreeing with you if they disagree with you.
I mean, what if I had just as much stuff, but it was longer-lasting, higher-quality stuff produced under fairer economic conditions?
Make it about the issues, not moralizing about how many things someone has in their apartment.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:27 AM on July 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
> Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this video?
Most of my friends are on the same page as me, so i'm not concerned with alienating anyone.
You probably should be, though. As you can see right in this thread, even people on the same page as you are alienated by your aggressive approach. "At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh? At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this video?" Yeah, I wouldn't be your friend much longer if you kept coming at me with that stuff. Set a good example and, like the man said, be kind.
posted by languagehat at 10:31 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this video?
Most of my friends are on the same page as me, so i'm not concerned with alienating anyone.
You probably should be, though. As you can see right in this thread, even people on the same page as you are alienated by your aggressive approach. "At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh? At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this video?" Yeah, I wouldn't be your friend much longer if you kept coming at me with that stuff. Set a good example and, like the man said, be kind.
posted by languagehat at 10:31 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
I am a have-a-lot-of-stuff person, but I'm also a live below my means and get joy out of simplicity type of person. When I feel like having these discussions/arguments with people, I try to make it more about me and how my worldview makes me happier; more about the whys than the hows. It's hard for people to disagree with you (as you're seeing firsthand here from the other side) when your argument is "well for me, personally," instead of acting like there's some moral absolute.
So, for instance, this Americans have a lot of stuff problem. I look at it less that the stuff is the problem, and more that the problem lies in craving the stuff. There's a huge keeping up with the Joneses thing going on here. It causes people to buy more, work longer hours, make choices counter to things that actually make them happy to continue to achieve the goal of more! newer! better!
There's some official term for this, I don't know what it is, but humans have the remarkable ability to not be happy. You get to a certain level of comfort, your happiness plateaus, and then you start to feel unhappy. And that's what drives a lot of the (what I see as) poisonous, self-defeating behavior.
I personally have made choices that have held me back in a lot of ways (I absolutely 100% underachieve at my job and take on roles well below my skill set, because it's more important to me that I not carry work stress home with me and keep my free time free than it is for me to have more money. It makes my life harder in some ways and it's more difficult to explain my choices to, for instance, my parents with their constant disappointment about my wasted potential, but I'm happy and I'm comfortable enough. I have everything I need, many of the things I want, and have learned to make the conscious decision to shut down my envy for the rest by knowing that in order to have x, I'd have to give up my y, and I value my y too highly.
So that's the kind of argument you need to learn how to make. Taking a hardline this is right and you are wrong stance is going to lose friends and make you look like a complete bag of dicks (which hey, you may be fine with, no judgement). Frame your opinions in terms of how they inform the actual choices you make, and the ways your world is better for them. Discuss your personal positives with others and let the conversation go from there.
posted by phunniemee at 10:32 AM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
So, for instance, this Americans have a lot of stuff problem. I look at it less that the stuff is the problem, and more that the problem lies in craving the stuff. There's a huge keeping up with the Joneses thing going on here. It causes people to buy more, work longer hours, make choices counter to things that actually make them happy to continue to achieve the goal of more! newer! better!
There's some official term for this, I don't know what it is, but humans have the remarkable ability to not be happy. You get to a certain level of comfort, your happiness plateaus, and then you start to feel unhappy. And that's what drives a lot of the (what I see as) poisonous, self-defeating behavior.
I personally have made choices that have held me back in a lot of ways (I absolutely 100% underachieve at my job and take on roles well below my skill set, because it's more important to me that I not carry work stress home with me and keep my free time free than it is for me to have more money. It makes my life harder in some ways and it's more difficult to explain my choices to, for instance, my parents with their constant disappointment about my wasted potential, but I'm happy and I'm comfortable enough. I have everything I need, many of the things I want, and have learned to make the conscious decision to shut down my envy for the rest by knowing that in order to have x, I'd have to give up my y, and I value my y too highly.
So that's the kind of argument you need to learn how to make. Taking a hardline this is right and you are wrong stance is going to lose friends and make you look like a complete bag of dicks (which hey, you may be fine with, no judgement). Frame your opinions in terms of how they inform the actual choices you make, and the ways your world is better for them. Discuss your personal positives with others and let the conversation go from there.
posted by phunniemee at 10:32 AM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Your "At what cost?" argument needs to be a pain point for them, not people in third world countries.
The suggestion above about the scarcity of time is a good place to start. I suggest you read up on it. There are good articles and books. Also, most Americans are deeply in debt, which is a threat to security. So our material abundance is not actually a source of security.
If you do manage to walk the walk, I suggest you get way less preachy. When you walk the walk, saying anything carries more weight than if you are doing the "Do as I say, not as I do" schtick. You will get insane amounts of pushback for so much as raising your eyebrow at their choices. People will be super sensitive and seek to justify their choices even before you open your mouth. They will try to launch a defense before you can say anything.
If you really want to set the example and lure people over, you need to walk the walk and then bend over backwards to say "Oh, I know. This isn't for everyone. You will get no judgement out of me. I am just so much happier this way." And then talk to people who actually want to hear why you are so much happier this way and stop talking to people who will freak out at the slightest suggestion that their consumption is immoral and needs to stop.
It helps to genuinely be happier about having more time and less debt and a fuller, less burdened life. It also helps to be genuinely slow to judge and genuinely not starting from the assumption that their lifestyle is immoral and they MUST change.
Best.
posted by Michele in California at 10:38 AM on July 8, 2016
The suggestion above about the scarcity of time is a good place to start. I suggest you read up on it. There are good articles and books. Also, most Americans are deeply in debt, which is a threat to security. So our material abundance is not actually a source of security.
If you do manage to walk the walk, I suggest you get way less preachy. When you walk the walk, saying anything carries more weight than if you are doing the "Do as I say, not as I do" schtick. You will get insane amounts of pushback for so much as raising your eyebrow at their choices. People will be super sensitive and seek to justify their choices even before you open your mouth. They will try to launch a defense before you can say anything.
If you really want to set the example and lure people over, you need to walk the walk and then bend over backwards to say "Oh, I know. This isn't for everyone. You will get no judgement out of me. I am just so much happier this way." And then talk to people who actually want to hear why you are so much happier this way and stop talking to people who will freak out at the slightest suggestion that their consumption is immoral and needs to stop.
It helps to genuinely be happier about having more time and less debt and a fuller, less burdened life. It also helps to be genuinely slow to judge and genuinely not starting from the assumption that their lifestyle is immoral and they MUST change.
Best.
posted by Michele in California at 10:38 AM on July 8, 2016
Americans are inclined to pontificate on how others should live their lives and their own way is the best way. That's not a controversial statement either but I have a feeling you wouldn't want me to argue at you more about it. I would suggest reading "Getting to Yes" and some other books on persuasion.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:48 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 10:48 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Person:
Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own.
Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this yt video?
Ah, I see. You want to be an internet troll in real life. I would respectfully suggest you think about what your end goal really is - do you want them to get rid of their stuff? Do you want them to agree with you and then go out and harangue other people? Do you want to start a protest or rally? I think figuring out your actual desire will help you lead the conversation in the direction you are hoping for. However, if it is just to needle people and smack them upside the head, don't be surprised if you don't get a positive or favourable response.
posted by valoius at 10:53 AM on July 8, 2016 [40 favorites]
Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own.
Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
At the cost of increasing climate change? How about this yt video?
Ah, I see. You want to be an internet troll in real life. I would respectfully suggest you think about what your end goal really is - do you want them to get rid of their stuff? Do you want them to agree with you and then go out and harangue other people? Do you want to start a protest or rally? I think figuring out your actual desire will help you lead the conversation in the direction you are hoping for. However, if it is just to needle people and smack them upside the head, don't be surprised if you don't get a positive or favourable response.
posted by valoius at 10:53 AM on July 8, 2016 [40 favorites]
Based on this comment, one of my favorite favorites, I suggest saying something along the lines of "You know, I find that owning things doesn't bring me happiness, no matter how many or how few in number. It's what I do with them that makes me glad. Having isn't using." But only say this if you actually agree with this, and only if you want to come off as a holier-than-thou grump.
posted by infinitewindow at 11:04 AM on July 8, 2016
posted by infinitewindow at 11:04 AM on July 8, 2016
I want to mention-- I think there are a few premises you are taken as givens that are not entirely accurate.
I’m a person with a lot of stuff. But when it comes to American style consumerism, I’m a huge failure. I don’t buy cars or boats or expensive clothes or vacations or houses. I don’t care about brand names or prestige products. I use out of date electronics because the old versions get very cheap as soon as the new ones come out. I also use out of date electronics because they still work, and as long as something still works I will keep using it.
So why do I have a lot of stuff? Firstly, because I love secondhand stores. If I can buy a single teacup for 25 cents, then I will. I love finding old objects that have been discarded and making them mine, and making them useful.
Secondly, as the previous point perhaps made clear, I am a crouton-petter. I have deep attachments to a lot of the things I own, and the idea of getting rid of them often feels like betrayal. I recognize that this is silly. However, when I was five years old, I was turning my doll’s tiny socks into sleeping bags for smooth river stones I had “adopted”. It’s a longstanding impulse.
Thirdly, I have anxiety. For me, a lot of my things soothe and comfort me. Knowing that I have them around makes me feel more secure.
I don’t list all of this stuff because I’m feeling defensive, but because I think it is easy to assume that other people engage in certain behaviors for simple, easy-to-judge reasons, when the actual reasons are often more complicated. If you saw that I had a lot of stuff and decided that I had it because of consumerist culture, I can’t say you would be entirely wrong, but you certainly wouldn’t be describing something I associate much with my purchasing habits. If anything, consumerist culture celebrates easy disposal and the upgrade, two practices I dislike. If you talk to me about sweatshops when I already buy most of my things secondhand, I’m going to be puzzled. If you tell me an uncluttered life is objectively best when I associate absence of certain objects with panic, then our conversation is dead before it begins.
I try to unclutter when I can, and I certainly try to critique my own purchasing/ownership habits. But a lot of what you’re saying here seems far more simplistic/reactionary than anything that might spur meaningful discourse or change.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:17 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
I’m a person with a lot of stuff. But when it comes to American style consumerism, I’m a huge failure. I don’t buy cars or boats or expensive clothes or vacations or houses. I don’t care about brand names or prestige products. I use out of date electronics because the old versions get very cheap as soon as the new ones come out. I also use out of date electronics because they still work, and as long as something still works I will keep using it.
So why do I have a lot of stuff? Firstly, because I love secondhand stores. If I can buy a single teacup for 25 cents, then I will. I love finding old objects that have been discarded and making them mine, and making them useful.
Secondly, as the previous point perhaps made clear, I am a crouton-petter. I have deep attachments to a lot of the things I own, and the idea of getting rid of them often feels like betrayal. I recognize that this is silly. However, when I was five years old, I was turning my doll’s tiny socks into sleeping bags for smooth river stones I had “adopted”. It’s a longstanding impulse.
Thirdly, I have anxiety. For me, a lot of my things soothe and comfort me. Knowing that I have them around makes me feel more secure.
I don’t list all of this stuff because I’m feeling defensive, but because I think it is easy to assume that other people engage in certain behaviors for simple, easy-to-judge reasons, when the actual reasons are often more complicated. If you saw that I had a lot of stuff and decided that I had it because of consumerist culture, I can’t say you would be entirely wrong, but you certainly wouldn’t be describing something I associate much with my purchasing habits. If anything, consumerist culture celebrates easy disposal and the upgrade, two practices I dislike. If you talk to me about sweatshops when I already buy most of my things secondhand, I’m going to be puzzled. If you tell me an uncluttered life is objectively best when I associate absence of certain objects with panic, then our conversation is dead before it begins.
I try to unclutter when I can, and I certainly try to critique my own purchasing/ownership habits. But a lot of what you’re saying here seems far more simplistic/reactionary than anything that might spur meaningful discourse or change.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:17 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
People all over the world have the same freedom to buy. Americans just have more stores trying to sell them sonething. Other cultures often deliberately choose not to foster that.
Plus, most Americans are clueless -- malinformed -- about the rest of the world.
If people define themselves as consumers, then they will think the only freedom that counts is the freedom to buy.
posted by justcorbly at 11:30 AM on July 8, 2016
Plus, most Americans are clueless -- malinformed -- about the rest of the world.
If people define themselves as consumers, then they will think the only freedom that counts is the freedom to buy.
posted by justcorbly at 11:30 AM on July 8, 2016
I agree with those who would also shut you down if you're coming at this in a confrontational way. I don't debate on demand, so if you come at me like you are getting ready to lecture, I might just disagree with your basic premises as a way to cut you off, whether I genuinely disagree with you or not.
So, no. Those puppies are grotesque. They lack basic life skills, their heads are too big, and there are far too many of them piled into that basket. I'm deeply offended that you've broached this topic. A good day to you, sir.
And your argument seems pretty vague. What do people have too much of specifically? Are they washing and saving too many jars and pieces of foil? Do they have too many books? Are their music collections too big?
Do they have too many clothes and too many electronics? Does it mitigate the problem if they get rid of things as they get replaced and thus don't maintain large collections of those things? Or is the problem the number of things they buy overall?
In other words, is it OK to keep buying all that stuff as long as you get rid of the ones you're not using, as a lot of self-professed minimalists I know do?
Because those are two entirely different problems, consumption and accumulation.
And what do you think causes that? It's not as though there is some fundamental, uniquely American character trait that causes people to overconsume. There are huge, overarching cultural factors involved, including whole massive systems geared toward encouraging people to buy things. Everyone pretty much needs to be able to use the internet to function normally in US society. Not just people with knowledge about and an interest in technology, but everyone. So there are huge, very wealthy, well equipped companies that do nothing but exploit that. You kind of have to know what you're doing if you don't want to replace your phone and/or your computer every couple of years or so, and most people don't have the necessary skills and interest in doing that. So they get stuck in a cycle of planned obsolescence dictated by service providers and hardware manufacturers. Fashion works much the same way.
People also get trapped in the low barrier to entry thing, where you can have a $20 thing right now or a $100 thing later, but they end up having to replace the $20 thing ten times.
There are also a lot of things Americans don't have access to. Decent, reliable health care. Job security. Free time. Social support systems. A lot of people are just plain tired, sick, and unfulfilled. And we have huge industries designed to exploit that. To subtly conflate their products with the things that people are missing, like security and health and community. So yes, a lot of people are going to jump at the promise of the lifestyle they are missing out on. Most people realize at some level that it's stupid, but in a way, it does kind of work in a short term. You're having a horrible week, you're exhausted, you're working all the time or not enough, and a silly little gadget or a new shirt or something might be just enough to lift your spirits, and maybe even let them entertain a little fantasy of a better life.
Maybe, if you really feel a need to talk about this with people, hone your argument a little. Define the problem more closely, rather than starting out with a wholesale blistering indictment of Americans as a whole. That's going to make a lot of people defensive, often for good reason.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:48 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
So, no. Those puppies are grotesque. They lack basic life skills, their heads are too big, and there are far too many of them piled into that basket. I'm deeply offended that you've broached this topic. A good day to you, sir.
And your argument seems pretty vague. What do people have too much of specifically? Are they washing and saving too many jars and pieces of foil? Do they have too many books? Are their music collections too big?
Do they have too many clothes and too many electronics? Does it mitigate the problem if they get rid of things as they get replaced and thus don't maintain large collections of those things? Or is the problem the number of things they buy overall?
In other words, is it OK to keep buying all that stuff as long as you get rid of the ones you're not using, as a lot of self-professed minimalists I know do?
Because those are two entirely different problems, consumption and accumulation.
And what do you think causes that? It's not as though there is some fundamental, uniquely American character trait that causes people to overconsume. There are huge, overarching cultural factors involved, including whole massive systems geared toward encouraging people to buy things. Everyone pretty much needs to be able to use the internet to function normally in US society. Not just people with knowledge about and an interest in technology, but everyone. So there are huge, very wealthy, well equipped companies that do nothing but exploit that. You kind of have to know what you're doing if you don't want to replace your phone and/or your computer every couple of years or so, and most people don't have the necessary skills and interest in doing that. So they get stuck in a cycle of planned obsolescence dictated by service providers and hardware manufacturers. Fashion works much the same way.
People also get trapped in the low barrier to entry thing, where you can have a $20 thing right now or a $100 thing later, but they end up having to replace the $20 thing ten times.
There are also a lot of things Americans don't have access to. Decent, reliable health care. Job security. Free time. Social support systems. A lot of people are just plain tired, sick, and unfulfilled. And we have huge industries designed to exploit that. To subtly conflate their products with the things that people are missing, like security and health and community. So yes, a lot of people are going to jump at the promise of the lifestyle they are missing out on. Most people realize at some level that it's stupid, but in a way, it does kind of work in a short term. You're having a horrible week, you're exhausted, you're working all the time or not enough, and a silly little gadget or a new shirt or something might be just enough to lift your spirits, and maybe even let them entertain a little fantasy of a better life.
Maybe, if you really feel a need to talk about this with people, hone your argument a little. Define the problem more closely, rather than starting out with a wholesale blistering indictment of Americans as a whole. That's going to make a lot of people defensive, often for good reason.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:48 AM on July 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
You clearly have strong feelings about this topic, so beyond living as a personal example of owning less and buying more durable goods from reputable sources, you can also do things that support your views, like buying such durable, well-sourced goods as gifts and making sure (as best as you can) that the recipient actually will use that item, volunteer at local institutions like Habitat for Humanity's ReStores that accept donations of "new and gently used furniture, appliances, home accessories, building materials and more" to sell in support of local organizations, and such. Then you can do outreach through example.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:06 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by filthy light thief at 12:06 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've come up with a come-back.
Person: Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own.
Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
This is an especially poor comeback for two reasons:
First the majority of the goods in that particular factory, the site of that particular horrible tragedy, were made for EU and British companies. That tragedy is more a 'cost' of EU consumerism than US.
Second, this is a major conflation and one that is not causally connected to over-consumption. The grave sins of Fast-Fashion and global clothing production is part of greater discussion but is not a 1-1 cause and effect of American consumer culture. If everyone only wanted 3 high quality shirts, they could still be made in Bangladesh in a deathtrap building. International cut-and-sew manufacturing scales amazingly.
posted by French Fry at 12:54 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Person: Well, I'm just glad I live in a country that provides so much abundance, and where we have freedom of choice about what we own.
Me: I disagree. At what cost? At the cost of that 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh?
This is an especially poor comeback for two reasons:
First the majority of the goods in that particular factory, the site of that particular horrible tragedy, were made for EU and British companies. That tragedy is more a 'cost' of EU consumerism than US.
Second, this is a major conflation and one that is not causally connected to over-consumption. The grave sins of Fast-Fashion and global clothing production is part of greater discussion but is not a 1-1 cause and effect of American consumer culture. If everyone only wanted 3 high quality shirts, they could still be made in Bangladesh in a deathtrap building. International cut-and-sew manufacturing scales amazingly.
posted by French Fry at 12:54 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Isn't this a classic case of following the "how to make an argument" rules you learned back in speech class back in high school?
First, define what the actual problem is. "Too much stuff" isn't, in itself, some tautological thing. You think having lots of things is bad. Why? If it's due to, say, buying too many things that are made cheaply by an exploited labor force, then you could lead in with an anecdote about how you've read up on that and cut back your wardrobe to long-lasting items from conscientious companies.
I mean, just bounding in with a pronouncement is some "gonna wake up the normals" attitude and nobody has time for that. People don't want to hear about what they're doing wrong, especially when they're doing something that seems completely in line with their peers. Tell them a different way to do things right, or something that works for you that invigorates you.
Really, if I was your friend and you approached with this angle, I'd think "man, this guy really doesn't like having all kinds of stuff and is putting everyone on blast to make us all feel bad about it instead of figuring his own shit out"
posted by mikeh at 12:54 PM on July 8, 2016
First, define what the actual problem is. "Too much stuff" isn't, in itself, some tautological thing. You think having lots of things is bad. Why? If it's due to, say, buying too many things that are made cheaply by an exploited labor force, then you could lead in with an anecdote about how you've read up on that and cut back your wardrobe to long-lasting items from conscientious companies.
I mean, just bounding in with a pronouncement is some "gonna wake up the normals" attitude and nobody has time for that. People don't want to hear about what they're doing wrong, especially when they're doing something that seems completely in line with their peers. Tell them a different way to do things right, or something that works for you that invigorates you.
Really, if I was your friend and you approached with this angle, I'd think "man, this guy really doesn't like having all kinds of stuff and is putting everyone on blast to make us all feel bad about it instead of figuring his own shit out"
posted by mikeh at 12:54 PM on July 8, 2016
There's also the possibility of this - you're preaching to the choir. I have too much stuff. One of my problems is I'm bad at organizing my stuff, but you know what? I like buying new stuff.
One might argue that consumerism can be a cheap thrill (or a very expensive one, depending on your habits and taste), much like eating a little too much food. But it makes you feel some joy or gives you a temporary fix when you buy a cool coffee mug to add to your dozen at home, because this one is cool in a different way. If you're going to tell people the things they're doing is bad, at least give them something else to do.
I mean, this is why people do all kinds of self-destructive things that are much worse than owning all kinds of crap. Imagine someone who loves to drink and is told it's bad for their health. Their inner monologue might be "life sucks, but I can have a beer when I get home from work" and you're offering them "life sucks and this guy is telling me I can't have beer"
posted by mikeh at 1:01 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
One might argue that consumerism can be a cheap thrill (or a very expensive one, depending on your habits and taste), much like eating a little too much food. But it makes you feel some joy or gives you a temporary fix when you buy a cool coffee mug to add to your dozen at home, because this one is cool in a different way. If you're going to tell people the things they're doing is bad, at least give them something else to do.
I mean, this is why people do all kinds of self-destructive things that are much worse than owning all kinds of crap. Imagine someone who loves to drink and is told it's bad for their health. Their inner monologue might be "life sucks, but I can have a beer when I get home from work" and you're offering them "life sucks and this guy is telling me I can't have beer"
posted by mikeh at 1:01 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
The mindset you talk about is not really something that can be overturned through a concrete rational argument... what you're looking to perform is more like full-blown anti-capitalist missionary work.
The problem with that is that conversion away from one belief system invariably requires something else to take its place, and the history of thought and deed of the past few hundred years (sadly) hasn't really turned up a lasting, successful enough alternative to the benefits or a sufficiently persuasive argument against the ills of market-driven consumerism for it to be adopted with the zeal needed for this to happen.
The thoughts that things are better today than they were yesterday / better here than they are elsewhere are monolithic mental constructs that tap into instincts with roots deep in our evolution and prehistory. People are generally not, on a day-to-day basis, aware of how hard-wired into us the root urge to preserve sufficiency and store excess against possible adversity is.
Add on the simple assurance that things will grow to be better tomorrow and forever, for everyone, everywhere, as long as we all keep performing the same rituals... and cycling your money back into the market in exchange for stuff takes on a quasi-spiritual importance which gives the act of acquisition much of the same import, at a cultural level, as religious devotional acts have done and still do.
Worrying at this instinctual and cultural edifice is, to my mind, what you're coming up against and why you're finding some quick and relatively harsh pushback for bringing the question up in blunt terms in the first place.
As the above shows, I have no quick and easy arguments to help you with... if you find any that work please do spread them as evangelically as you're able ;)
posted by protorp at 1:04 PM on July 8, 2016
The problem with that is that conversion away from one belief system invariably requires something else to take its place, and the history of thought and deed of the past few hundred years (sadly) hasn't really turned up a lasting, successful enough alternative to the benefits or a sufficiently persuasive argument against the ills of market-driven consumerism for it to be adopted with the zeal needed for this to happen.
The thoughts that things are better today than they were yesterday / better here than they are elsewhere are monolithic mental constructs that tap into instincts with roots deep in our evolution and prehistory. People are generally not, on a day-to-day basis, aware of how hard-wired into us the root urge to preserve sufficiency and store excess against possible adversity is.
Add on the simple assurance that things will grow to be better tomorrow and forever, for everyone, everywhere, as long as we all keep performing the same rituals... and cycling your money back into the market in exchange for stuff takes on a quasi-spiritual importance which gives the act of acquisition much of the same import, at a cultural level, as religious devotional acts have done and still do.
Worrying at this instinctual and cultural edifice is, to my mind, what you're coming up against and why you're finding some quick and relatively harsh pushback for bringing the question up in blunt terms in the first place.
As the above shows, I have no quick and easy arguments to help you with... if you find any that work please do spread them as evangelically as you're able ;)
posted by protorp at 1:04 PM on July 8, 2016
Now there are seven kinds of CokeX, "See How We Are"
500 kinds of cigarettes
This freedom of choice in the USA drives everybody crazy
posted by kirkaracha at 1:30 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am concerned about the speed and volume at which we are extracting and processing petroleum.
I am worried about the creation of many huge landfills, and about the plastic in the oceans.
I fear the effects of monocultural mass agriculture on the nitrogen cycle.
It makes me mad that there are species going extinct due to deforestation and climate change.
I wish that anyone who is lonely had the chance to comfort themselves with community, and I suspect that some people comfort themselves by purchasing things, instead. Likewise I believe advertising makes some people feel inadequate, which feeling they temporarily assuage with consumption.
I am fascinated by the growth of the storage industry.
I do not like to receive material gifts that I will not get extended use out of.
I think if more people had access to a living wage, they might choose to buy products that would last longer and be more satisfying to use.
None of these are particularly controversial because it would be silly to argue with me about my concerns, fears, and fascinations.
(If you wanted to ask me about these, you could--you could ask me what I've heard that makes me hold those beliefs, and offer me ideas or facts that I might not have encountered.
But you could leave it alone if you didn't want to get into it).
posted by Edna Million at 3:32 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am worried about the creation of many huge landfills, and about the plastic in the oceans.
I fear the effects of monocultural mass agriculture on the nitrogen cycle.
It makes me mad that there are species going extinct due to deforestation and climate change.
I wish that anyone who is lonely had the chance to comfort themselves with community, and I suspect that some people comfort themselves by purchasing things, instead. Likewise I believe advertising makes some people feel inadequate, which feeling they temporarily assuage with consumption.
I am fascinated by the growth of the storage industry.
I do not like to receive material gifts that I will not get extended use out of.
I think if more people had access to a living wage, they might choose to buy products that would last longer and be more satisfying to use.
None of these are particularly controversial because it would be silly to argue with me about my concerns, fears, and fascinations.
(If you wanted to ask me about these, you could--you could ask me what I've heard that makes me hold those beliefs, and offer me ideas or facts that I might not have encountered.
But you could leave it alone if you didn't want to get into it).
posted by Edna Million at 3:32 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
As someone who somewhat recently returned from living in West Africa I both abhor and marvel the things we have in America. That being said, I cannot adequately explain how happy it makes me to have multiple mugs, a whole kitchen tool devoted to peeling vegetables when a knife would do but more easily cuts me, multiple pans to cook parts of my dinner all at once, seeing kids play with toys that are not made out of old sardine tins, and not relying on one type of soap for everything from hair to pots and pans to clothes. To say "Americans have too much is silly." There's plenty of people without enough. Focus on who you're talking about- the 1%? Middle class Americans? People on Hoarders?
Either set and example with your habits or start the conversation with "I."
posted by raccoon409 at 4:17 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Either set and example with your habits or start the conversation with "I."
posted by raccoon409 at 4:17 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Something that vague would just make me think, "yeah, whatever. Hippie." And then I'd probably say just that.
I doubt you're gonna get anywhere with broad statements like that, especially if said against a backdrop of vaguely anti-consumerist / anti-American / anti-whatever statements you may have said in the past.
And whomever you're saying it to may take it as a criticism of them based on your history with that person.
So I think the most you're gonna get is a neat conversation about the subject, which you would open by asking if the other person thinks that.
posted by jpe at 4:22 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I doubt you're gonna get anywhere with broad statements like that, especially if said against a backdrop of vaguely anti-consumerist / anti-American / anti-whatever statements you may have said in the past.
And whomever you're saying it to may take it as a criticism of them based on your history with that person.
So I think the most you're gonna get is a neat conversation about the subject, which you would open by asking if the other person thinks that.
posted by jpe at 4:22 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wrote a lengthy comment and my Internet pooped out and I lost it. Thus, briefer thoughts. It seems as though you're concerned with particular kinds of "stuff: that which negatively affects the world when produced, used, or disposed of. One way to start a conversation might be to give an example of a way you pared back on problematic "stuff" and the difference it's made for you. By starting with a positive instead of a negative, you let people contribute their own positive stories and make space for a conversation rather than a debate.
posted by epj at 5:26 PM on July 8, 2016
posted by epj at 5:26 PM on July 8, 2016
→ … where we have freedom of choice about what we own
Got a possible angle for you, though it's still a weak one.
The choice we have in North America is an illusion of choice, and not really freedom. We must keep up with our peers and their acquisitions, therefore we force each other to work long hours to be able to spend more on the things that reinforce our place in society. Most of us carry debt that enslaves us to our current jobs. We don't have the freedom to give them up easily.
Similarly, while you can get a tolerably decent coffee in any Starbucks in any SmartCenter/SmartCentre in the content, you can't get a better Starbucks coffee than anyone else. You can get a burger "your way" in any fast food place, but what control do you have over the quality of the product? Your local Target had a dazzling array of goods just ready for your dollars, but can you buy lasting fulfillment there?
posted by scruss at 7:51 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Got a possible angle for you, though it's still a weak one.
The choice we have in North America is an illusion of choice, and not really freedom. We must keep up with our peers and their acquisitions, therefore we force each other to work long hours to be able to spend more on the things that reinforce our place in society. Most of us carry debt that enslaves us to our current jobs. We don't have the freedom to give them up easily.
Similarly, while you can get a tolerably decent coffee in any Starbucks in any SmartCenter/SmartCentre in the content, you can't get a better Starbucks coffee than anyone else. You can get a burger "your way" in any fast food place, but what control do you have over the quality of the product? Your local Target had a dazzling array of goods just ready for your dollars, but can you buy lasting fulfillment there?
posted by scruss at 7:51 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I live in a small house by choice (both for cost and the amount of resources used) and it's a constant struggle to deal with the amount of stuff that comes in, especially because I have a kid and nice people like to give her things. But it's real work to stay on top of the clutter and convince my dear family to let me cull things we no longer need. It's something I deal with on a regular basis most days of the week, and occasionally I will spend days off of work organizing and donating instead of relaxing because my home isn't a restful place when there is stuff everywhere. A few weeks ago I spend nearly a week sorting through my daughter's toys and finding new homes for the stuff we didn't need, only to have much of it replaced with gifts purchased on a vacation.
So if someone said to me "We Americans have too much stuff in general." (implying "You have too much stuff in general") I would probably deflect while internally visualizing punching the speaker in the face. And I'm someone who at one point in her life made all of her own clothes because she didn't want to contribute to an exploitative labor system. It takes so much work to have less stuff around, especially when you have family members who really like their mountains of stuffed animals. It sucks to have someone imply that you're not working hard enough or trying hard enough.
Additionally, sometimes it's good to have extra socks because there isn't enough time in to morning to have to look for a pair. And I totally admit to buying extra coloring books and origami paper just to have a quiet moment now and then.
So, echoing others in this thread, this kind of conversation is not going to get you any kind of positive results. You would do far more good actually helping people instead of lecturing them, perhaps by loaning out tools or kitchen tools so that people don't need to buy their own.
posted by Alison at 8:09 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
So if someone said to me "We Americans have too much stuff in general." (implying "You have too much stuff in general") I would probably deflect while internally visualizing punching the speaker in the face. And I'm someone who at one point in her life made all of her own clothes because she didn't want to contribute to an exploitative labor system. It takes so much work to have less stuff around, especially when you have family members who really like their mountains of stuffed animals. It sucks to have someone imply that you're not working hard enough or trying hard enough.
Additionally, sometimes it's good to have extra socks because there isn't enough time in to morning to have to look for a pair. And I totally admit to buying extra coloring books and origami paper just to have a quiet moment now and then.
So, echoing others in this thread, this kind of conversation is not going to get you any kind of positive results. You would do far more good actually helping people instead of lecturing them, perhaps by loaning out tools or kitchen tools so that people don't need to buy their own.
posted by Alison at 8:09 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you just want a snappy comeback, go dumpster dive some large grocery stores. (That's the source of my usual food waste one-liner. I used to dumpster-dive behind Safeway when I was in college. Have you SEEN how much edible stuff they throw out every night?)
If you want to have an actual discussion instead of delivering a lone quip and putting people on the defensive, you'll do better to reframe your initial statement based on suggestions above: Be specific, and make it about yourself and your own experiences.*
*This is probably why my dumpster-diving thing works, too. It's about my personal experience, not something abstract or second-hand. (Ok, so the food was second-hand, but the experience wasn't!)
posted by sibilatorix at 11:29 PM on July 8, 2016
If you want to have an actual discussion instead of delivering a lone quip and putting people on the defensive, you'll do better to reframe your initial statement based on suggestions above: Be specific, and make it about yourself and your own experiences.*
*This is probably why my dumpster-diving thing works, too. It's about my personal experience, not something abstract or second-hand. (Ok, so the food was second-hand, but the experience wasn't!)
posted by sibilatorix at 11:29 PM on July 8, 2016
Part of what Edna Million was getting at is the concept of economic externalities: I'm not generally against excessive levels of consumerism, good things come from strong economies, but if the costs of that consumerism aren't fully born by the consumer, then people tend to be ignorant of the impacts of their actions on the world.
For instance, we don't see the full impacts of electronics disposal in our part of the world, we feel all virtuous when we take our old computers or electronic toys or whatever down to the local ewaste recycling event and tip the sponsoring organization a fiver, but somewhere in China or India that may be translating into a bunch of people with minimal health protections unsoldering devices and spreading heavy metals over a large area, probably doing some pretty horrendous ecological damage.
Similarly, gasoline taxes and registration fees don't come near to paying for automobile infrastructure, and definitely don't cover the shorter lifespans and health impacts that come from the health side effects of all of our automobile travel.
So for me the big "don't have all of that crap" argument (aside from "don't burden your heirs") is about pushing the costs of my choices on to people who didn't get a say in those choices.
posted by straw at 2:33 PM on July 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
For instance, we don't see the full impacts of electronics disposal in our part of the world, we feel all virtuous when we take our old computers or electronic toys or whatever down to the local ewaste recycling event and tip the sponsoring organization a fiver, but somewhere in China or India that may be translating into a bunch of people with minimal health protections unsoldering devices and spreading heavy metals over a large area, probably doing some pretty horrendous ecological damage.
Similarly, gasoline taxes and registration fees don't come near to paying for automobile infrastructure, and definitely don't cover the shorter lifespans and health impacts that come from the health side effects of all of our automobile travel.
So for me the big "don't have all of that crap" argument (aside from "don't burden your heirs") is about pushing the costs of my choices on to people who didn't get a say in those choices.
posted by straw at 2:33 PM on July 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think if you said "We have too much stuff" or "People have too much stuff" you'd make more headway.
True. Their usual response strikes me as wrapping themselves in the flag. Your answer doesn't give them that opportunity.
Is it . . . important . . . that they have this opportunity?
I'm pretty convinced that you are not arguing in good faith here. Sounds like you just want to bash Americans for being products of American culture, a la "wake up sheeple!", which means that none of this is really about argument or debate strategies, or even convincing people of anything.
In other words, if you truly want to begin this discussion with a statement that encourages people to be patriotic, just so that you can harangue them for their nationalist sentiment, I don't really feel comfortable suggesting any "come backs", even in this argument that has a premise that I agree with.
posted by chainsofreedom at 6:54 AM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
True. Their usual response strikes me as wrapping themselves in the flag. Your answer doesn't give them that opportunity.
Is it . . . important . . . that they have this opportunity?
I'm pretty convinced that you are not arguing in good faith here. Sounds like you just want to bash Americans for being products of American culture, a la "wake up sheeple!", which means that none of this is really about argument or debate strategies, or even convincing people of anything.
In other words, if you truly want to begin this discussion with a statement that encourages people to be patriotic, just so that you can harangue them for their nationalist sentiment, I don't really feel comfortable suggesting any "come backs", even in this argument that has a premise that I agree with.
posted by chainsofreedom at 6:54 AM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:19 AM on July 8, 2016 [23 favorites]