Yeah, I agree. Like I said with the first one though, I think it's relevant to those people who choose not to support their friends, not so much us here.

"It's one more app" was the answer I got with signal. "I don't want one more app." Not an hour later we talked about how they had just downloaded like 4 different airline apps. But one app for me was too much?

Never said it was limited to Discord. But it's the easiest thing to change. Getting rid of Discord and replacing it with something someone you've trusted for a long time has set up would be like "Baby's first activism".

Nobody is leaving Discord because they're not feeling the consequences of staying. Those consequences are elsewhere, and a flaw in humanity that keeps consistently disappointing me is if the consequences are not literally happening in front of their eyes, or effecting their own lives, it's somehow just not real enough. And because it's not real enough being mildly inconvenienced by missing one or two mostly inconsequential comforts seems like the bigger problem.

Like how people weren't taking COVID-19 seriously after it didn't end civilisation over night.

Or like how people aren't really taking climate change seriously.

A wonderful example of this was when Australia was on fire, and the Americans were calling them crybabies. But then later that year America was on fire and suddenly forest fires were just the worst!

The upvotes I couldn't care less about lol. I just used it to show that others appear to recognize what I'm saying. It did open me up to being a "polling data farming agitator" I guess, on a niche platform to boot, but 🤷

But "no ethical consumption under capitalism" helps me more than it helps you. That phrase exists to say systemic complicity shouldn't paralyze people into doing nothing, not that individual and collective choices carry zero weight. If choices genuinely didn't matter, boycotts wouldn't be a thing worth having opinions about, companies wouldn't spend money on PR to avoid them, and states wouldn't pass anti-BDS legislation to head them off. Discord rolled back their verification push after backlash. They added the credit card mechanism because of it too, their words, not mine. Public pressure, people being active, brought a material outcome that wouldn't have happened otherwise. You and I wouldn't be conversing if people didn't give a shit because there's no ethical consumption and, according to you, it therefore wouldn't matter.

So which is it? Either collective consumer/user pressure can move outcomes, in which case individual participation isn't irrelevant and the mechanism I described (aware, unaffected, therefore inactive) is worth naming when you see it. Or it can't, in which case the Discord rollback you'd have to explain away didn't happen for the reason it obviously did.

Naming the mechanism doesn't mean every instance of it carries equal weight, and I take the point that reaching for the heaviest possible comparison isn't necessary to make it. But dismissing the mechanism itself with "no ethical consumption, so nothing you do matters" is just a thought-terminating cliche being used exactly backwards.

Since I already answered most of this in my previous comment, I'll just copy pasta it:

I judge people on consumption practices that are easy to change. Not me nor anyone can do anything about all the affordable things we need to survive coming from sweatshops or destroying the environment. But Discord doesn't come even close to approaching any such thing, and it costs literally nothing to collectively dump it. Especially if some technical friends have already done all the technical work _for you._ Fuck anyone who tries to make that comparison.

As for the new thing:

I don't think yoy need to be putting this much moral burden on Discord that it makes you actively shun people who are otherwise probably not monsters.

I can, I should, and I will. So you can go fuck yourself.

Well I guess you won't see it, but the block is mutual, you thin skinned, self righteous hypocrite.

If anyone else reads this, I didn't and wasn't saying they are stupid. You can be a smart self centered prick or hypocrite. Arguably, casting yourself as a powerless victim instead of ultimately responsible for yourself in a situation where you do actually have the power to make a meaningful choice, arguably, that is a rather intelligent, indirect tactic.

What I was saying was stupid was the reasoning they presented in support of their position.

As well as the notion that more or less, capitalism stole their attention span and/or executive function.

Even if that's true, that's an explanation for how an injury occured, not a plan for recovering from said injury.

Funny they call me a doomer as they write hysterical explanations for accepting their apparently unavoidable fate.

Or maybe you're just "normal", or to put it differently; exactly the kind of person why problems are allowed to continue to exist.