Black friday (2 Viewers)

Consumerism is drive behind madness; the bums on the street are more alive then those poor people so attached/dependent on their plastic existence.

Too bad the bums on the street don't have computers or internet access like you do. Maybe then they could get online and preach to us about the evils of owning stuff...
...like computers, for example.
 
Do you honestly believe that access to a computer and internet access is a signifier of affluence, MDR? Seriously? For all of 2007, I lived in a residential hotel in North Beach, SF. I could not run my computer on the hotel's faulty early 20th century electrical wiring because it would (as it did before) fry my motherboard. So, when I could scrape a few dollars together I went to the local internet cafe to get online and check my e-mail and bank accounts. I was living a hand-to-mouth existence, one step away from being one of those "bums on the street." And yet I was the one who instigated this debate about consumerism and it seemed to penetrate a nerve with a few here.
 
Too bad the bums on the street don't have computers or internet access like you do. Maybe then they could get online and preach to us about the evils of owning stuff...
...like computers, for example.

It's not really a matter of owning stuff really. The difference lies in what is said item's purpose? Too many people buy things to make them feel happy, and those are the one's I'm speaking of (blind consumerism). Yes I own a computer, but I went from having one, to not having one for many years and it never bothered me once. Do I need the computer to be happy? Not at all. I'm not preaching either, just stating my opinion. And to clarify my opinion further, I think people should learn to be happy with nothing, once they can be happy with nothing, they are less likely to be adversely affected by having nothing (a situation life deals us every now and again).

But the paycheck is good, right?

The paycheck sucks, but it pays for my school books.
 
Do you honestly believe that access to a computer and internet access is a signifier of affluence, MDR? Seriously?

I never said that it was a sign of affluence. I was merely pointing out the irony that I saw in the way that the message was delivered.

I just think that it is fallicous to argue that everyone who walks into a retail store to buy something is some blind brainwashed soulless zombie trying to placate their desire to own everything for the sake of owning it. Maybe we don't need everything we buy. But I don't think that wanting, buying, or owning things makes a person inherently bad.

I also don't buy into the notion that not having all of these things somehow builds soul or character. I completely understand what its like to be on hard times. I grew up very poor in a small town in the middle of nowhere. I've also lived in a tent and ate sand for a year in Iraq without any conveniences like showers or flushing toilets. What was the lesson that I learned from all of that? It sucks being poor and it sucks not having things. Am I soulless now because I worked hard to change things for myself? Nope.

I hear a lot of people telling me how glorious it is to be a desolate bum on the street unaffected by the evils of capitalism. I just wonder if the bums would say the same thing.
 
Well, just as MJP (perhaps correctly) accused me of taking a cheap and easy shot at Wal-Mart shoppers, I believe that "pointing out the irony ... in the way that the message was delivered" is another sure and easy shot at an obvious target. But I'm not here to argue or excoriate. When I lived in North Beach I interacted with and befriended a number of homeless people and came close to joining their ranks more than once; I came away from the experience tremendously appreciative of all that I have now ... which isn't much really: a nice apartment, a few sticks of furniture, a few hundred books (many of which I receive free, thankfully, through my work as a book reviewer), running heat and AC and water, the love of a good woman, and the computer that I am writing this on, of course. But I had to take a pretty hard fall to appreciate what little I have and I do not covet anything (well, most anything) that is outside my reach.
 
.. I came away from the experience tremendously appreciative of all that I have now ... which isn't much really: a nice apartment, a few sticks of furniture, a few hundred books (many of which I receive free, thankfully, through my work as a book reviewer), running heat and AC and water, the love of a good woman, and the computer that I am writing this on, of course..

Well, at least we can both agree that's all anyone really needs in order to be happy.

All the other stuff is just sometimes nice to have. :)
 
MDR, my late mother, ever the consumer and Home Shopping Network addict, had a saying that drove me up the wall: "It's not that I need it, it's that I want it."
 
As a car salesman for three decades I learned to listen and hear those very sacred words. "I WANT IT" and the correct response is,"Yes you can have what ever you want just pick it out, it's yours." (then of course we would get it financed)
All consumer actions or bartering can be traced down to the very first sale. Which is what we now refer to as prostitution. Even monkeys barter for that.
 
I never said that it was a sign of affluence. I was merely pointing out the irony that I saw in the way that the message was delivered.

I just think that it is fallicous to argue that . . .

The word is actually paradox. If it were ironical, the
writer would have intended the paradox, or lie, and
therefore the argument would not be fallacious, which
you spelled wrong, btw.

Hope that helps.

--
Okay,
Father Luke
 
I read somewhere once that irony is one the most absued and misused words in the English language. "Isn't it ironic?" as Alanis Morrissette would incorrectly ask.
 
The word is actually paradox.
Agreed. 15 yard penalty for incorrect use of the word "irony".

... and therefore the argument would not be fallacious...
I'm referring to the general argument on this thread that somehow buying and having things = evil consumerism. It is my opinion that this argument does contain some flawed logic and is therefore fallacious (spelled correctly this time :o;))

If someone honestly believes that life is better lived simply without plasma TVs and iPods, that's cool. Nobody is going to make anyone buy that stuff.

But if another person gets some satisfaction out of buying some of the things that aren't completely necessary, I don't see the problem with that. I just don't get the leap in logic that the person who buys "unnecessary" things must be a mindless drone brainwashed by consumerism. I don't understand any contempt toward those people. That's the fallacy in my opinion. I don't have a problem with people buying things if it makes them happy. Everyone can let their pursuit of happiness take them wherever it may. Live and let live, that's all.
 
The paycheck sucks, but it pays for my school books.
Every day I wake up and thank the baby JESUS that there was no internet when I was 20!



I do wonder though, about this "consumerism" we're so happily discussing. I was thinking about it this weekend, because me and the missus drove to Palm Springs and dropped a boatload (for us) of dough on a couple of small paintings. We did that because we like to look at art, it makes us feel better. We think it makes our lives better.

But if someone's 90" plasma TV does the same for them, what's the difference?

Rubyred saw the paintings we were buying and thought they were ugly, which only demonstrates that art (or music or films or books) only has real value if you enjoy it. There may be some inherent value in a rare Bukowski book, even if you hate his writing, or in a Basquiat painting even if you think a 3 year old could have painted it, but there's inherent value in that plasma TV too, even if you don't watch it. Someone will trade you money or granola for it.

Is buying books, art, musical equipment or paint and canvas blind consumerism if those things make you feel better? Or is it only things that run on electricity? I don't get the difference. And I don't think the 90" plasma TV - or the person who buys it - is inherently bad.
 
I read somewhere once that irony is one the most absued and misused words in the English language. "Isn't it ironic?" as Alanis Morrissette would incorrectly ask.

Yes, there wasn't any irony in that song of hers. Big mistake on her part. I wonder how many thousands of times she has been told that since...:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They're at Wal-Mart tomorrow morning only, Chronic. A 2 for 1 sale. The doors open at 5:00 AM. Make sure you wear your shoulder pads, cleats, and helmet.
 
this a material life, what are humans supposed to do?

I do agree with most of your comments when referring that people do not buy why are they buying; but what if we were on the other side?

I think it's worst when people can't differentiate from I need it / I want it; but who's fault is it ?
 
I do wonder though, about this "consumerism" we're so happily discussing. I was thinking about it this weekend, because me and the missus drove to Palm Springs and dropped a boatload (for us) of dough on a couple of small paintings. We did that because we like to look at art, it makes us feel better. We think it makes our lives better.

Yeah, I've heard upper middle class types shit on people for wasting their money on X, when X is something they think is tacky, or comes from a big box store they hold in disdain, but if it's something sleek and classy, well, that's different, right?

My take is that most people feel a need to acquire (or "consume") things in order to feel happy. Maybe consumerism is this impulse taken to unhealthy extremes, where people buy goods and services not because they genuinely want them, but because they feel pressured to do so. Keeping up with the Joneses.

If I remember right it was Erich Fromm who suggested there are two ways of living in the world - there's "being" and "having". Maybe consumerism is the latter taken too far, so that your sense of identity and self worth comes from what you own, rather than the kind of person you are.
 
I do wonder though, about this "consumerism" we're so happily discussing. I was thinking about it this weekend, because me and the missus drove to Palm Springs and dropped a boatload (for us) of dough on a couple of small paintings. We did that because we like to look at art, it makes us feel better. We think it makes our lives better.

But if someone's 90" plasma TV does the same for them, what's the difference?

I agree with this, therefore it is good. Well put, mjp.
 
I know I'm going to be called an elitist for even saying this but it's been proven time and time again that indulging in the arts (music, literature, art and architecture, dance, etc.) expands the human intellect and creates a craving for more, creates a hunger for intellectual nourishment that might otherwise be absent without such stimulation.

If even half of those people trampling another human being (back to the cogent point here) were taking their plasma TVs home to indulge in Charlie Rose or C-Span or The History Channel even four hours out of their average 28-hour viewing time per week, I would have no elitist beef. But that's simply not the case and the numbers bear it out. From the NYT, December 1, 2008 edition:

TOP-RATED BROADCAST TELEVISION SHOWS - November 17-23
(1 ratings point, per Nielsen Ratings, equals 1.14 million homes)
Dancing With the Stars 10.9
CSI 10.6
NCIS 10.2
CSI: Miami 9.8
Criminal Minds 9.7
The Mentalist 9.3
NFL: Colts/Chargers 9.0
Grey's Anatomy 9.0

That's just broadcast TV stats (the major nets: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.), don't make me drag out the cable stats, they're equally dumbed-down, and remember those rating points are per 1.14 million homes. If people were utilizing their electronics to expand their intellect ... well, hell yeah. But they aren't. What was it Howard Beale said in "Network"? "Television isn't the real thing, you people are the real thing." The internet and 500-channel TV lineups have afforded people the opportunity to use mass media to expand their minds in ways we had never even thought of before and look at what they are using it for instead ... jerking off to one mindless forensic crime show after another.

MJP, you and your wife probably got home after purchasing that art, poured a glass of wine after hanging the pieces on the wall, and sat and admired your acquisitions and it more likely than not led to at least one stimulating conversation. What sort of intellectual discourse follows an episode of "Dancing With the Stars"?

Ummm ... I'm not saying, incidentally, that I would support manslaughter for the privelege of watching Congressional sessions on a big-ass 90" plasma TV. Just wanted to clear that up.
 
The internet and 500-channel TV lineups have afforded people the opportunity to use mass media to expand their minds in ways we had never even thought of before and look at what they are using it for instead ... jerking off to one mindless forensic crime show after another.

It's funny... I get those 500 channels from my cable company and there's still hardly ever anything on that's worth watching. Seriously.

PS: You are an elitist

https://bukowskiforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
 
MJP, you and your wife probably got home after purchasing that art, poured a glass of wine after hanging the pieces on the wall, and sat and admired your acquisitions and it more likely than not led to at least one stimulating conversation.
That's a bit PBS/NPR, but I hear ya. It was something like that. All I'm trying to say is we have a house literally stuffed with art and books and music and we have a really big expensive TV too. We don't watch Dancing With the Stars, but we watch some stupid shit sometimes. One doesn't necessarily preclude (or exclude, or however that goes) the other.

It's funny... I get those 500 channels from my cable company and there's still hardly ever anything on that's worth watching. Seriously.
Ain't that the truth.
 
I try not to watch TV that often, I firmly believe that the programs have reached a higher level of morbidity than porn, every god damn show is on it, the news, the sitcoms, the movies, they are all pushing it!

"the revolution will not be televised"
 
fyi- there's a whole body of critical theory about how something can be ironic even if the original author didn't intend for it to be so.
 
i guess i was just defending the use of the word "irony" in that context. it wasn't outright wrong, that's all. i've written many times about my ambivalent relationship to a lot of the critical theory research i did in graduate school, so it's not like i'm trying to spout off some dogma about theories of irony.

and i'm NOT saying this to be antagonistic, but i don't really see the utility of correcting someone like that, especially when they're not necessarily wrong.
 
Yes, there was irony in the fact that the original poster would have had no idea that by typing their words on a computer (which takes money to buy, incidentally, inferring that the OP is a high-end consumer and not a skid row bum) ... well, see, Jordan would perceive that as ironic but not in the literal sense of the word, mind you, but from the critical theory standpoint that something uttered can indeed be ironic even if the original author did not intend for it to reach a stage of irony and on that theory alone, Father Luke, you had no business correcting him.

WTF? Are we on the seventh level of semantics hell here? What defines "consumerism"? How many defintions of "irony" can you find? Where's Waldo?
 
Well, if you really care to get into double reference and complexity of meaning, I suppose that Jordan has a point.

"Allow me to introduce me date for the evening," he sighed. "This is Polly. Polly Semy."

"A pleasure to meet you. Any relation to Polly Semousness?"

"Oh, now you're punning me!" she said with a laugh.

I leaned forward, angry and drunk, martini glass swaying in my hand. "Are you being ambiguous?"
 
Yes, there was irony in the fact that the original poster would have had no idea that by typing their words on a computer (which takes money to buy, incidentally, inferring that the OP is a high-end consumer and not a skid row bum) ... well, see, Jordan would perceive that as ironic but not in the literal sense of the word, mind you, but from the critical theory standpoint that something uttered can indeed be ironic even if the original author did not intend for it to reach a stage of irony and on that theory alone, Father Luke, you had no business correcting him.

WTF? Are we on the seventh level of semantics hell here? What defines "consumerism"? How many defintions of "irony" can you find? Where's Waldo?

well, it looks like i had no business defending what was clearly a misuse of the word "irony," especially with my ivory tower abstractions. i guess i'll never use the term "critical theory" again. sorry.

sometimes this forum makes me want to gouge my eyes out with rusty spoons.
 
if you guys are having a lot of consumer guilt you can pay my rent for me.

i'm sure it will make you feel much, much better.
 
I think we could collaborate on a killer article for Harper's, FL.

Jen, since I'm in Las Vegas I'm sure I could stage a telethon for you at one of the many failing casinos here (city budget is currently $1.9 billion in the red, they're lookin' for promotional gimmicks high and low).
 
I think we could collaborate on a killer article for Harper's, FL.

Ever seen this:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24800


Jen, since I'm in Las Vegas I'm sure I could stage a telethon for you at one of the many failing casinos here (city budget is currently $1.9 billion in the red, they're lookin' for promotional gimmicks high and low).


How about feeding the poor. Las Vegas could make
a lot of money doing that.

But I digress.

--
Okay,
Father Luke
 
so apparently you feel that feeding the poor does not include me.

it's alright, my four kids and i don't need a home.

give that money to the poor.

but i digress.
 
Good God, Fl, no, I have never seen that letter and much of it is very powerful and forceful.

Also, I drove past many of the poor and homeless in North Las Vegas today on the quixotic quest to pick up my mom's ashes, as detailed at Carver's Dog, though the section about driving past the homeless shelter was shelved for word count but the rest of the grit is there.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top