Wouldn't be more effective for Galloway and his billionaire friends to dump these company's stock, maybe sell $900M each, use whatever money they get from that for good and still be left with $100M+ at the end?
I don't like how he is parading himself everywhere like he's part of the solution, when he is actually part of the problem.
A rhetorical point: I think it's best to avoid "resist" language.
1. It's antiquated and arouses imagery and iconography that IMO many have negative associations with. (I'm leaving this a bit vague intentionally.)
2. Framing oneself or a movement as "resisting" is to frame one self or a movement in a weaker, defensive position. It's better to use to language that indicates actions and offense as opposed to defense.
3. Because of 1 this opens up typical lines of attack and characterization that make one's "resistance" an easy rhetorical target. No unforced errors.
I don't have a sense of what would be a better alternative, but probably throwing things against the wall until something sticks/galvanizes people makes more sense. Something like "assert yourself", "push back"/"fight back", "take it to 'em" etc.
As much as I appreciate his impetus to do something I don’t think unsubscribing will move the needle. You’re still going to want shipping, entertainment and transport. Those dollars are still going to be spent somewhere. So don’t think it’ll move the market in aggregate
I have wanted to do something like this for the UK as well.
But scared of losing my job.. if I could do this anonymously - oh man - that would be great.
11 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 33.6 ms ] threadI’m keeping my chatgpt subscription though.
>the most radical action in capitalist society is not participating
So that’s why they are after NEETs now?
1. It's antiquated and arouses imagery and iconography that IMO many have negative associations with. (I'm leaving this a bit vague intentionally.)
2. Framing oneself or a movement as "resisting" is to frame one self or a movement in a weaker, defensive position. It's better to use to language that indicates actions and offense as opposed to defense.
3. Because of 1 this opens up typical lines of attack and characterization that make one's "resistance" an easy rhetorical target. No unforced errors.
I don't have a sense of what would be a better alternative, but probably throwing things against the wall until something sticks/galvanizes people makes more sense. Something like "assert yourself", "push back"/"fight back", "take it to 'em" etc.