Loved the discussion around how it’s consuming in general that should be challenged above and beyond the where. It’s really interesting when you put consumerism under the lens of how being able to buy our cheap shit is part of what keeps us (the “middle class”) complacent. I’ve been thinking a lot about this in terms of Brave New World and how so much of what is popular and normalized in society (alcohol, drugs, shopping, social media, reality TV, etc.) are really just ways to numb and distract. We don’t have to feel or deal with the world because we can stay in our curated bubbles. It’s also interesting when you get to the “selling out” piece because of how we want to point the finger at others, even though every one of us who works a corporate job is just as guilty.
the role of consumption as cheap escapism is *such* a good point that did not even occur to me as I was fleshing out this outline and now i'm mad at myself lol
I work in mental health, believe me, all of it is a drug--shopping, social media, food, reality TV, Dancing With The Stars, Taylor Swift, blah blah blah. It's all a drug. We can't stand living in our own individual right-now,'s because we find it tedious, boring, unfulfilling. So we pick up the phone, scroll, and just wind up feeling worse about ourselves.
Your comment made me think of how “collectors” and collecting culture is very much wrapped up in our relationship to “things”. An interesting case study is the popularity of and then the maligning of kitsch, esp in the former Soviet Union, and how the perspective on consumption and owning things changed. There’s also a Marie Kondo exploration in there about the classism tied into aesthetic minimalism. So much great fodder for further thought.
One argument I’d make for shopping locally is that it creates local jobs (unless you live in a city that has an Amazon warehouse). Hopefully the local retailer has acceptable working conditions.
yep, there was a whole section that we didn't even get to about local protectionism as a way forward (basically, relocalizing commerce, finance, etc. to businesses owned and run locally and doing the same with credit unions). good point
I've always really loved this pod, but this is the first episode that really missed the mark for me. I think there were assumptions that were not examined and the episode became a big self-justification for making choices that are not in alignment with values. I was realizing towards the end how big of a generational chasm there is in the thinking about money and success that I had been somewhat blind to--I think if you asked Gen X or Millennial artists and writers if their primary goal was to "get rich," a lot of them would say no. There used to be an idea that you could get comfortable as a artist (i.e. pay your bills, put food on the table) without selling out or getting rich. But I can see how as that illusion has shattered over the last ~20-30 years, the assumption is now that you HAVE to get rich to be an artist. I think the concept that artists should "win the game" and get rich is actually a radically new and different idea, but I don't know. Winning the game I guess being making commercially successful products, not necessarily making meaningful art and literature that lasts for generations. This is the most visible to me in the film industry, honestly, where there used to be movies that were so weird and cool and challenging (yes, alongside more commercial films) and now more movies just feel like a pointless cash grab.
I'm realizing this is a classic "the kids these days" rant so I probably need to think more about this.
I will also say the assumption that if you don't buy something on amazon, you would just buy it somewhere else is also a poor one. As someone who pre-dates amazon, we just used to buy a lot less stuff. As someone who still doesn't have amazon prime, I just buy much less stuff than other people who have had the friction removed and can just get everything on amazon. But the bigger picture is that there were assumptions about how everyone just does it this way and therefore we shouldn't examine the ethics. Is there ethical consumption under capitalism? It's probably all relative, but does it start with buying less and buying from artisans and local businesses, maybe? That was pretty quickly dismissed in the episode as privileged.
Anyways, despite my gripes I still love the pod, lol.
that's totally fair! this was a topic that I felt conflicted about myself, which is why I was excited to explore it for an episode, and I wanted to push my thinking to consider perspectives that felt a little more uncomfortable for me, or outside the realm of how I typically hear these issues discussed. I liked this subject because it didn't feel like it had any "right" answers (or rather, the answers we've considered "right" feel as though they aren't getting us anywhere). in relistening to it, my ambivalence about individual agency to choose differently vs. choices determined by forces outside your control felt clear to me. to your point about amazon, yes, people used to buy less—that's true—and we spent some time talking about how consuming less is really preferable to consuming "better" for that reason.
I totally agree that there don't seem to be "right" answers--one thing I know is true about myself is that when my hackles go up in response to something and it's not clear why, it usually means I need to spend more time thinking about the subject. I have spent the last week thinking a lot about what selling out even is, because I think that making a living with your skillset is a necessary condition of living under capitalism and does not count as selling out. I also don't think that selling out is just happening to get rich off of a skillset. The closest I can come is that selling out is a betrayal of one's moral or ethical values with the explicit purpose of getting rich.
I think ethical consumption is bound to get everyone's hackles up because of the no right answers idea--we probably all buy some things that we kinda believe are bad or morally compromised to buy and hope to find a justification for it (myself included). This is like half of what "The Good Place" is about, lol.
Every episode of the pod gives me a lot to think about, so thank you!
This is really thoughtful. Thank you for spending so much time thinking about it and sharing this with us — I like the distinction you’ve made here and I agree
I agree that this is the first episode that didn't resonate and I think you articulated why - things were dismissed pretty easily under the umbrella of "counterpoint!". One that stood out: saying that performing in Britain is the same as performing in Saudi Arabia? That just doesn't feel well thought out at all.
my original reflexive position on the comedians was that the entire thing was shameful, and i wanted to spend some time with that (as you heard, my conclusion was 'two things can be bad'). but that particular example was raised by the. marxist history professor i interviewed when i asked if he thought it was fair to be angry at the comedians (lol) and i don't think the point was that they're "the same," but that our tolerance for whitewashing is very high, so the moral gradation is blurrier than it might originally seem
That’s worth clarifying - I recognize, but didn’t necessarily convey above, that the Marxist history professor was trying to raise up the evils of Britain and not dismiss the evils of Saudi Arabia. But sometimes when people make those comparisons it can be trivializing. I mean that festival alone is a heady topic - tons to compare/contrast there about history, audience demand, not to mention the state enacted nature of that festival. It’s ultimately a matter of opinion but there are plenty of moral gradations I find incredibly difficult to grapple with but performing in Britain at some comedy club vs for the SA royal family does seem like a no brainer, in the entire scheme of things.
I appreciate that this is an enormously complicated topic and you outlined it knowing you didn’t have a solution or real conclusion, and that the complexity is the point. There were tons of interesting examples you brought up that could have constituted entire episodes or discussion threads and I think this was too big for me to feel satisfied even with a 2 hour long episode. Although to be clear I loved hearing about Jia - despite Caro’s throwaway comment, us people with lives and kids do actually know who she is. 😂
…Also SORRYYY I pressed send too early ignore my early iteration of this comment
i agree with you -- i think sometimes i do actually pull in too many threads in a single episode if i spend too much time researching and stylistically i'm working on that lol
Hey! I feel the need to state on the record here that I wasn’t “soft launching an Amazon partnership” in this episode. To be abundantly clear, I “hard launched” my relationship to Amazon when I sold a book with a big five publisher and then sold the rights to MGM eighteen months ago. I don’t personally call that a partnership, but I suppose you could. Any author you support has that partnership with Amazon, which is now the biggest books distributor by a long shot. I actually don’t have a 401k right now, but if you do, then you also have a partnership with Amazon through your allotted investments, most likely. What’s more, this was not my episode to map out, it was Katie’s- so the idea that this episode was all a grand plan to reveal some partnership with Amazon is factually and logistically impossible. Lastly, I think the profit model of this entire company should make it abundantly clear that we care quite deeply about community oriented efforts. That’s just my opinion, but you’re welcome to yours as well
Listening to new episode now. Did you guys know David Sacks, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel helped fund the movie Thank You for Smoking? They are listed as producers, and Elon makes a cameo as a flight attendant or pilot. This was back in 2005. Quite telling to see where they are now.🥴😵💫
Ok, so I have lived on an island for a year, and by default my consumption has gone way way down (I would estimate by more than 50%). It’s not that I can’t consume in the same way, it’s just that I have one extra layer of friction to do so — if I want to online shop, it has to go through a courier service and takes an extra 5-7 days to get to me (plus a little extra money). But the interesting thing is that hasn’t translated into me buying subs for those items on the island (they absolutely do exist). Instead, this minimal level of friction has given me a second to pause and consider whether I actually need the thing before I “add to cart.” 9/10 the answer is no. It’s that internal realization — the lived (EMBODIED) experience — that changed my behavior. When I moved to the island, my consumerism was barely on my mind. Within months, my behaviors changed completely. And the thing that often gets left out of this convo is that IT’S BEEN GOOD FOR ME PERSONALLY. My life has become about tangible experiences, about relationships, about cooking healthy meals, about swimming in the ocean, and about financial self-preservation in these uncertain times. I’m not doing it to change the world, but it’s changed my world for the better and I’m so grateful. Most importantly, I learned this lesson when my son was 1.5, so I will model a different way of being for him moving forward. And it feels so good.
Loved this ep. I think a lot about my own 'selling out' as a no name civilian trying to figure out a non-evil job that still pays me enough to live and have fun in the city--impossible as a person who wasn't born into money. Anyway, I don't have specific brands that I'd sell out to (yet) but I do have things I want, and I have a grand Instagram campaign to get them all at once. It's a series of photos where you keep seeing me in the same pieces of clothing over the course of a few weeks and I get to collab with a clothing brand, furniture brand, and appliance brand. People comment on my being an outfit repeater until I do a big reveal: X clothing brand has such nice clothing that I love so much so I have 'the chair' from Y furniture company where I hang all the items to rewear while they're not quite dirty and the fancy washer dryer from Z appliance brand that keeps all my nice clothes in good shape so I can keep wearing them forever. (I live in New York and don't currently have laundry in unit, so the washer dryer is the most important part). Super win because then my consumerism lets me and the brands gesture at sustainability. Brands, please call me to begin the bidding war over my 3 figure follower count.
Lol I’m currently much deeper into a Victorian dollhouse home feel but i’ve decided the clothing brand is Rachel Antonoff and a part of my contract is being a part of the Fashion Week dog show https://www.instagram.com/p/DOgmYi4kbEd/
I have way too many thoughts, in no particular order:
1. For AWS vs Amazon online store, I work for a different mega corp (as a lowly peon, so no direct insight) and I'm not sure it's as simple as % of profit share - the company will still have a structure where whole careers hang on the fluctuations of consumer behavior, and sometimes even a smaller branch of the company can be important to hedge against hits to the big $$ maker.
2. When thinking about public good vs. shareholder profit, and them either being aligned or opposed, the calculus definitely changes for a company if the profit will be negatively impacted by hits to reputation or consumers going to a competitor.
(As an aside, competition is less useful if you essentially have a oligopoly w.r.t. company ethics, but I think that's a sign of regulation being so lax that no company bothers to paint themselves as ethical, because the only way to be competitive is participate in the regulatory loopholes)
But of course the solution to the consumer demands has to cost less than the hit to the profit from boycott/going to competitors, which is where I agree with the WSJ article for sure. But I think as consumers we can still continue to notice smaller harms and demand better - but not if it takes all your energy!
3. Finally, I do think consumer/public opinion is the only way to stop a gap while regulation catches up - of course I want effective government regulation, but I don't want a world where the public is so hands off that a company feels safe covering up e.g. a new kind of pollution or risk to human health until the government works it out and regulates it (since companies historically have _known_ they're doing harm well before anyone else catches on)
I’ve sold out more times than I can count, and I hope to keep doing it again and again. Writing music for commercials (Google, Instacart, Bud Light etc) is what finally let me start an IRA at 30, sleep without night sweats, and fund the album of my dreams. Selling out is what bought me the freedom to make art I actually care about. The real dream is to sell out with the art I love. Still working on that part.
I sent a song to the diabolical lies email that this pod inspired. No pressure to listen, just love what you’re putting out. Thanks for the creative fuel 🤘
I watched that episode of Mad Men with my mom and she gasped and had me re-wind and watch it again, it brought back so many memories of eating in the park when she was a kid and doing the exact same thing, just tossing the napkins on the ground and walking away (she was born in 1958, Philadelphia).
I just watched The White House Effect which gives a bit of history about policy and messaging and how it’s changed around global warming. There’s an interview with a guy waiting in line for gas during the 70’s energy crisis who suggests that everyone stop everything, put their cars in the garage and stay home. The interviewer asks “why aren’t you doing that?” And the guy says “cuz no one else is.” Social contracts and messaging play such a big part in our habits of consumption, especially now that we have access to so much information. There’s a cognitive dissonance to justify our habits of consumption; I often hear friends guiltily explain they bought something from SHEIN. But we’re also conditioned to keep consuming to keep the capitalist wheels of justice turning or the whole system will fall apart and we’ll lose everything. Some of you bbs might not remember, but after 9-11 the message was to keep shopping (to fight terrorism? lol) Even during these recent BDS movements, people were boycotting Target for removing DEI initiatives but were shifting their shopping to other retailers like Amazon or Costco (folks were literally urging people to “support” Costco and their pro DEI stance by spending money there all while their employees were getting ready to strike) rather than refusing to consume altogether. There’s been a growing movement for economic black outs, but can we (or at least 30% of us) really all go ONE DAY without consumption?
I remember the streets in New York when I was little (1960ish). We couldn't walk barefoot on the streets because of all the broken glass. Hobos would walk the streets and pick up cigarette butts and shake the leftover tobacco into paper bags to roll later. Every bit of greenspace was covered in litter. I remember people just dropping their food wrappers on the ground at they walked even though trash bins sat on almost every corner.
Loved the discussion around how it’s consuming in general that should be challenged above and beyond the where. It’s really interesting when you put consumerism under the lens of how being able to buy our cheap shit is part of what keeps us (the “middle class”) complacent. I’ve been thinking a lot about this in terms of Brave New World and how so much of what is popular and normalized in society (alcohol, drugs, shopping, social media, reality TV, etc.) are really just ways to numb and distract. We don’t have to feel or deal with the world because we can stay in our curated bubbles. It’s also interesting when you get to the “selling out” piece because of how we want to point the finger at others, even though every one of us who works a corporate job is just as guilty.
the role of consumption as cheap escapism is *such* a good point that did not even occur to me as I was fleshing out this outline and now i'm mad at myself lol
Yes! I think a whole episode on that side of it would be great.
I work in mental health, believe me, all of it is a drug--shopping, social media, food, reality TV, Dancing With The Stars, Taylor Swift, blah blah blah. It's all a drug. We can't stand living in our own individual right-now,'s because we find it tedious, boring, unfulfilling. So we pick up the phone, scroll, and just wind up feeling worse about ourselves.
Your comment made me think of how “collectors” and collecting culture is very much wrapped up in our relationship to “things”. An interesting case study is the popularity of and then the maligning of kitsch, esp in the former Soviet Union, and how the perspective on consumption and owning things changed. There’s also a Marie Kondo exploration in there about the classism tied into aesthetic minimalism. So much great fodder for further thought.
One argument I’d make for shopping locally is that it creates local jobs (unless you live in a city that has an Amazon warehouse). Hopefully the local retailer has acceptable working conditions.
yep, there was a whole section that we didn't even get to about local protectionism as a way forward (basically, relocalizing commerce, finance, etc. to businesses owned and run locally and doing the same with credit unions). good point
I've always really loved this pod, but this is the first episode that really missed the mark for me. I think there were assumptions that were not examined and the episode became a big self-justification for making choices that are not in alignment with values. I was realizing towards the end how big of a generational chasm there is in the thinking about money and success that I had been somewhat blind to--I think if you asked Gen X or Millennial artists and writers if their primary goal was to "get rich," a lot of them would say no. There used to be an idea that you could get comfortable as a artist (i.e. pay your bills, put food on the table) without selling out or getting rich. But I can see how as that illusion has shattered over the last ~20-30 years, the assumption is now that you HAVE to get rich to be an artist. I think the concept that artists should "win the game" and get rich is actually a radically new and different idea, but I don't know. Winning the game I guess being making commercially successful products, not necessarily making meaningful art and literature that lasts for generations. This is the most visible to me in the film industry, honestly, where there used to be movies that were so weird and cool and challenging (yes, alongside more commercial films) and now more movies just feel like a pointless cash grab.
I'm realizing this is a classic "the kids these days" rant so I probably need to think more about this.
I will also say the assumption that if you don't buy something on amazon, you would just buy it somewhere else is also a poor one. As someone who pre-dates amazon, we just used to buy a lot less stuff. As someone who still doesn't have amazon prime, I just buy much less stuff than other people who have had the friction removed and can just get everything on amazon. But the bigger picture is that there were assumptions about how everyone just does it this way and therefore we shouldn't examine the ethics. Is there ethical consumption under capitalism? It's probably all relative, but does it start with buying less and buying from artisans and local businesses, maybe? That was pretty quickly dismissed in the episode as privileged.
Anyways, despite my gripes I still love the pod, lol.
that's totally fair! this was a topic that I felt conflicted about myself, which is why I was excited to explore it for an episode, and I wanted to push my thinking to consider perspectives that felt a little more uncomfortable for me, or outside the realm of how I typically hear these issues discussed. I liked this subject because it didn't feel like it had any "right" answers (or rather, the answers we've considered "right" feel as though they aren't getting us anywhere). in relistening to it, my ambivalence about individual agency to choose differently vs. choices determined by forces outside your control felt clear to me. to your point about amazon, yes, people used to buy less—that's true—and we spent some time talking about how consuming less is really preferable to consuming "better" for that reason.
anyways, thanks for listening!
I totally agree that there don't seem to be "right" answers--one thing I know is true about myself is that when my hackles go up in response to something and it's not clear why, it usually means I need to spend more time thinking about the subject. I have spent the last week thinking a lot about what selling out even is, because I think that making a living with your skillset is a necessary condition of living under capitalism and does not count as selling out. I also don't think that selling out is just happening to get rich off of a skillset. The closest I can come is that selling out is a betrayal of one's moral or ethical values with the explicit purpose of getting rich.
I think ethical consumption is bound to get everyone's hackles up because of the no right answers idea--we probably all buy some things that we kinda believe are bad or morally compromised to buy and hope to find a justification for it (myself included). This is like half of what "The Good Place" is about, lol.
Every episode of the pod gives me a lot to think about, so thank you!
This is really thoughtful. Thank you for spending so much time thinking about it and sharing this with us — I like the distinction you’ve made here and I agree
I agree that this is the first episode that didn't resonate and I think you articulated why - things were dismissed pretty easily under the umbrella of "counterpoint!". One that stood out: saying that performing in Britain is the same as performing in Saudi Arabia? That just doesn't feel well thought out at all.
my original reflexive position on the comedians was that the entire thing was shameful, and i wanted to spend some time with that (as you heard, my conclusion was 'two things can be bad'). but that particular example was raised by the. marxist history professor i interviewed when i asked if he thought it was fair to be angry at the comedians (lol) and i don't think the point was that they're "the same," but that our tolerance for whitewashing is very high, so the moral gradation is blurrier than it might originally seem
That’s worth clarifying - I recognize, but didn’t necessarily convey above, that the Marxist history professor was trying to raise up the evils of Britain and not dismiss the evils of Saudi Arabia. But sometimes when people make those comparisons it can be trivializing. I mean that festival alone is a heady topic - tons to compare/contrast there about history, audience demand, not to mention the state enacted nature of that festival. It’s ultimately a matter of opinion but there are plenty of moral gradations I find incredibly difficult to grapple with but performing in Britain at some comedy club vs for the SA royal family does seem like a no brainer, in the entire scheme of things.
I appreciate that this is an enormously complicated topic and you outlined it knowing you didn’t have a solution or real conclusion, and that the complexity is the point. There were tons of interesting examples you brought up that could have constituted entire episodes or discussion threads and I think this was too big for me to feel satisfied even with a 2 hour long episode. Although to be clear I loved hearing about Jia - despite Caro’s throwaway comment, us people with lives and kids do actually know who she is. 😂
…Also SORRYYY I pressed send too early ignore my early iteration of this comment
i agree with you -- i think sometimes i do actually pull in too many threads in a single episode if i spend too much time researching and stylistically i'm working on that lol
+1
Hey! I feel the need to state on the record here that I wasn’t “soft launching an Amazon partnership” in this episode. To be abundantly clear, I “hard launched” my relationship to Amazon when I sold a book with a big five publisher and then sold the rights to MGM eighteen months ago. I don’t personally call that a partnership, but I suppose you could. Any author you support has that partnership with Amazon, which is now the biggest books distributor by a long shot. I actually don’t have a 401k right now, but if you do, then you also have a partnership with Amazon through your allotted investments, most likely. What’s more, this was not my episode to map out, it was Katie’s- so the idea that this episode was all a grand plan to reveal some partnership with Amazon is factually and logistically impossible. Lastly, I think the profit model of this entire company should make it abundantly clear that we care quite deeply about community oriented efforts. That’s just my opinion, but you’re welcome to yours as well
I don’t fully agree but I do totally get your point, and I’m sure it’s a topic we will return to again and again ❤️
Listening to new episode now. Did you guys know David Sacks, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel helped fund the movie Thank You for Smoking? They are listed as producers, and Elon makes a cameo as a flight attendant or pilot. This was back in 2005. Quite telling to see where they are now.🥴😵💫
cc @caro !!!!!
I need “famously mentally ill and self obsessed” on this merch!
Would buy on presale
Ok, so I have lived on an island for a year, and by default my consumption has gone way way down (I would estimate by more than 50%). It’s not that I can’t consume in the same way, it’s just that I have one extra layer of friction to do so — if I want to online shop, it has to go through a courier service and takes an extra 5-7 days to get to me (plus a little extra money). But the interesting thing is that hasn’t translated into me buying subs for those items on the island (they absolutely do exist). Instead, this minimal level of friction has given me a second to pause and consider whether I actually need the thing before I “add to cart.” 9/10 the answer is no. It’s that internal realization — the lived (EMBODIED) experience — that changed my behavior. When I moved to the island, my consumerism was barely on my mind. Within months, my behaviors changed completely. And the thing that often gets left out of this convo is that IT’S BEEN GOOD FOR ME PERSONALLY. My life has become about tangible experiences, about relationships, about cooking healthy meals, about swimming in the ocean, and about financial self-preservation in these uncertain times. I’m not doing it to change the world, but it’s changed my world for the better and I’m so grateful. Most importantly, I learned this lesson when my son was 1.5, so I will model a different way of being for him moving forward. And it feels so good.
that's incredible, and what a testament to the power of your environment to shape behavior
Just getting to the part about littering. That’s where the phrase “don’t mess with Texas” comes from.
Yes! I believe I first learned about this from the podcast "You're Wrong About".
oh we’ve been needing this. thank u for my sunday present of two smart women talking in my ear for hours 😘
Loved this ep. I think a lot about my own 'selling out' as a no name civilian trying to figure out a non-evil job that still pays me enough to live and have fun in the city--impossible as a person who wasn't born into money. Anyway, I don't have specific brands that I'd sell out to (yet) but I do have things I want, and I have a grand Instagram campaign to get them all at once. It's a series of photos where you keep seeing me in the same pieces of clothing over the course of a few weeks and I get to collab with a clothing brand, furniture brand, and appliance brand. People comment on my being an outfit repeater until I do a big reveal: X clothing brand has such nice clothing that I love so much so I have 'the chair' from Y furniture company where I hang all the items to rewear while they're not quite dirty and the fancy washer dryer from Z appliance brand that keeps all my nice clothes in good shape so I can keep wearing them forever. (I live in New York and don't currently have laundry in unit, so the washer dryer is the most important part). Super win because then my consumerism lets me and the brands gesture at sustainability. Brands, please call me to begin the bidding war over my 3 figure follower count.
this is the level of detail i wanted in a response, and now we need to know what your ideal chair is and why it's the herman miller eames chair
Lol I’m currently much deeper into a Victorian dollhouse home feel but i’ve decided the clothing brand is Rachel Antonoff and a part of my contract is being a part of the Fashion Week dog show https://www.instagram.com/p/DOgmYi4kbEd/
I do fear I would do anything for Dr. Pepper
I would die for the good doctor
Amazing ep!
I have way too many thoughts, in no particular order:
1. For AWS vs Amazon online store, I work for a different mega corp (as a lowly peon, so no direct insight) and I'm not sure it's as simple as % of profit share - the company will still have a structure where whole careers hang on the fluctuations of consumer behavior, and sometimes even a smaller branch of the company can be important to hedge against hits to the big $$ maker.
2. When thinking about public good vs. shareholder profit, and them either being aligned or opposed, the calculus definitely changes for a company if the profit will be negatively impacted by hits to reputation or consumers going to a competitor.
(As an aside, competition is less useful if you essentially have a oligopoly w.r.t. company ethics, but I think that's a sign of regulation being so lax that no company bothers to paint themselves as ethical, because the only way to be competitive is participate in the regulatory loopholes)
But of course the solution to the consumer demands has to cost less than the hit to the profit from boycott/going to competitors, which is where I agree with the WSJ article for sure. But I think as consumers we can still continue to notice smaller harms and demand better - but not if it takes all your energy!
3. Finally, I do think consumer/public opinion is the only way to stop a gap while regulation catches up - of course I want effective government regulation, but I don't want a world where the public is so hands off that a company feels safe covering up e.g. a new kind of pollution or risk to human health until the government works it out and regulates it (since companies historically have _known_ they're doing harm well before anyone else catches on)
Thank you both for all you do!
I’ve sold out more times than I can count, and I hope to keep doing it again and again. Writing music for commercials (Google, Instacart, Bud Light etc) is what finally let me start an IRA at 30, sleep without night sweats, and fund the album of my dreams. Selling out is what bought me the freedom to make art I actually care about. The real dream is to sell out with the art I love. Still working on that part.
I sent a song to the diabolical lies email that this pod inspired. No pressure to listen, just love what you’re putting out. Thanks for the creative fuel 🤘
I watched that episode of Mad Men with my mom and she gasped and had me re-wind and watch it again, it brought back so many memories of eating in the park when she was a kid and doing the exact same thing, just tossing the napkins on the ground and walking away (she was born in 1958, Philadelphia).
If you haven’t seen the memes about Diet Coke = fridge cigarettes, I’d like to make sure Caro is aware!
SCREAMING
Oh! And my sell out brand is Mother’s jeans. They’re so sweet to lie to me about sizing and so soft!
I just watched The White House Effect which gives a bit of history about policy and messaging and how it’s changed around global warming. There’s an interview with a guy waiting in line for gas during the 70’s energy crisis who suggests that everyone stop everything, put their cars in the garage and stay home. The interviewer asks “why aren’t you doing that?” And the guy says “cuz no one else is.” Social contracts and messaging play such a big part in our habits of consumption, especially now that we have access to so much information. There’s a cognitive dissonance to justify our habits of consumption; I often hear friends guiltily explain they bought something from SHEIN. But we’re also conditioned to keep consuming to keep the capitalist wheels of justice turning or the whole system will fall apart and we’ll lose everything. Some of you bbs might not remember, but after 9-11 the message was to keep shopping (to fight terrorism? lol) Even during these recent BDS movements, people were boycotting Target for removing DEI initiatives but were shifting their shopping to other retailers like Amazon or Costco (folks were literally urging people to “support” Costco and their pro DEI stance by spending money there all while their employees were getting ready to strike) rather than refusing to consume altogether. There’s been a growing movement for economic black outs, but can we (or at least 30% of us) really all go ONE DAY without consumption?
I remember the streets in New York when I was little (1960ish). We couldn't walk barefoot on the streets because of all the broken glass. Hobos would walk the streets and pick up cigarette butts and shake the leftover tobacco into paper bags to roll later. Every bit of greenspace was covered in litter. I remember people just dropping their food wrappers on the ground at they walked even though trash bins sat on almost every corner.
omg so the country WAS covered in trash lol this is enlightening
Reminds me of that episode in Mad Men where Don and Betty take the kids for a picnic and just … leave the trash. Annoys me to this day.