Express Your Individuality, Be You, and Buy Buy Buy

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: JAGStorm

OMG, 40 bucks for laundry soap? Hell, you can get good laundry soap at a dollar store, even brand names. Sales in stores are great too. I never pay much for my laundry soap and it cleans well and smells nice.

We used to get our laundry soap from sears, it was the powdered kind, a five gallon plastic bucket of it for around twenty seven bucks on sale. That bucket would last us around six or seven months. Then Sears quit selling it.....bummer. I like it when you only have to go shopping for laundry soap every six months, we hate having to decide what to buy, that sears soap was great soap.

It's funny, because the leftist "individuality" push effectively created a capitalism surge that changed the world forever (and made America what it is now).

Also interesting because before the 60s, there was much more strict societal standards and norms that were adhered to. What you wore to work, what you wore out on the town, when traveling, how we treated and spoke to each other, our homes/decor/haircuts… it was oddly more uniform (and this uniformity during more conservative eras… which also is very 'we are all equal', i.e. a leftist mantra).

The 60s saw a social movement where all of a sudden, a growing amount of people felt the urge to be 'individuals'. To be different. But this whole push was brand new. Media had coincidentally developed to the point that the world could see this movement, in color, and it was alluring and interesting. Everyone wanted, needed to be an individual and self important.

After the 60s, the 70s became the "Ok, so we are all individuals, but who are we?". Therapists rose to power and the US populous was on the quest to figure themselves, their individual selves, out.

By the mid/late 70s capitalism saw an opportunity. And as a pretty harsh leftist, even I can admit that capitalism isn't 'evil' or 'not evil', capitalism just searches to find a way to expand, grow, and fill a niche, large and small… without any morals whatsoever (that i take issue with). Capitalism said "Oh we can tell you who you are, we can tell you what you can become, and even if you can't become that, here's some stuff to make you feel like you did".

Capitalism then went on a warpath of creating all the 'things' and 'identities'. Even if something was an original thought by someone, capitalism will steal it, make millions of it, and sell it back to you (and maybe a billion other people). Funny that the entire leftist plot morphed into a massive capitalist cloning (even when on small scales) of the masses. But American capitalists were the first ones to really go hog wild with it, and that really solidified our place in the world as 'tastemakers'. Does it feel a little icky, yup, but it's also fascinating to me.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: zosimov


This started years ago...metrosexual....

Appearance is unfortunately to high of a priority in society today. Even to the point of insisting fat chicks are sexy.

You do realize that by inferring that fat chicks aren't sexy, you are placing a priority on appearance right? i.e. 'only skinny chicks are sexy'. Sounds like you may have a personal issue with your own "unfortunately too high" priorities.

a reply to: okrian

Have you watched the documentary "The Century of the Self"? Fascinating stuff, and sounds a bit like what you posted here.

It's a very long (4 part) documentary but VERY good. Here's the link to the complete doc (I don't think I can embed the link here-- something about those extra = signs)

www.youtube.com...

The film explores the use of psychology in marketing (particularly of Freud's nephew Bernays) and its history.

a reply to: Night Star
Hi Night!!
My favorite purse came from a Goodwill store. It's small (but I don't usually carry much stuff anyway) and has images of da Vinci's angels all over it. Sadly, it's kind of falling apart now but I think I might be able to fix it.

I DO have a certain amount of attachment for "stuff" I've picked up over the years, it's true. But it's been interesting just looking more closely into the impulses that make me want to buy and also thinking about the ways I truly want to spend the money I put time and effort into acquiring (travel with family!!!).

Hope you're having a good one!

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think my favorite targeted add was for this medieval type tunic. It showed up for quite some time and made me wonder what specifically I'd looked at to indicate I'd want to rock that.

a reply to: zosimov

Boy George LIVES!

This is what happens when you tell boys men are toxic. They try to look like girls ... or something.

Seriously, I'm a woman, and I experimented with makeup about the time all little girls do, and after realizing that it became a vicious cycle of wearing more to cover up more zits, I stopped. I only use it today for special occasions and then I only use the bare minimum, and it breaks me out every single time even then.

So I look less feminine than those "men" (?) most of the time, but I feel better about it.

a reply to: okrian

How about fat chicks aren't healthy?

a reply to: ketsuko

I feel similar about makeup. Sometimes I wear it, but I almost always feel better when I don't.
A woman can be feminine in many ways other than her look (if that's what she wants to be)

a reply to: zosimov

I haven't! Cool. Will explore. Thanks for the link.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: schuyler

Edit: Ok I did add a few snarky lines in and I'm sorry. This is the second time in about a month you've added some semi-insulting 2 line response which doesn't address the OP in any way-- maybe it's your mannerism, don't know.

Either way, if you'd like to make an argument in favor of consumerism, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Well, it's just that you are a basic hypocrite. You accuse me of making ad hominem attacks and then do exactly the same thing. And this is the SECOND TIME IN A MONTH you've caught me! Wow! That's just astounding! TWO times in a MONTH! Keeping tabs on me, eh? Next I know you'll be stalking me on Facebook.

This whole idea of "consumerism" strikes me as laughable. Companies advertise their products to show them in the best light possible. If you like it you buy it. What's wrong with that? Now you'll say these dastardly companies are using nefarious techniques to trick you into wanting something you don't really need, therefore said company is "bad." The problems with this approach are several. First of all, it's none of your damn business what other people buy. Why do you insist on inserting yourself into the argument? Indeed, what is the argument? You seem to be claiming that you average consumer is not in control of his buying habits, therefore you need to tell him about the error of his ways. And that brings me to ask, why are you so special? What is it about your special talents that makes you so much more insightful about what the consumer wants than he is? Do you think you have the right to intercede? Do companies and consumers alike need to pass YOUR litmus test on what is reasonable advertising and what is reasonable to buy?

You have heard of "free speech," right? Well? Why do you want to regulate it? My answer to you is: Butt out! If YOU don't want to buy something, by all means avail yourself of your decision to not be tempted. That advertising is pervasive is not the question. If you really loathe advertising (and who doesn't at one level or another?) by all means avoid it by not doing the things that expose you to it, like watching TV. And yet you are here on a site that has extremely intrusive advertising and also decrees that you shall not use an ad blocker. Doesn't that strike you also as hypocritical? Here you are encouraging traffic to a site well known for doing its best to place advertising before you. In fact, that's the reason for this site's existence, to create a space for "user provided content" (that's you and me. ATS provides no content of its own) and a space to maximize advertising exposure. They are not doing this for fun or to provide a public service for the good of humanity. They are making money by selling advertisements to the very people who are providing the content for the site.

In that context your ranting about the evils of advertising and consumerism is hilarious! You're part of the problem. So if you don't like what I write, skip over it. Look at the ads instead.

a reply to: schuyler

I did skip, to the end. After skimming your post (the other instance I was referring to of you making rude/dismissive comments was on another thread I wrote-- I did not stalk you) I've decided that we're both major hypocrites.


For one, my comment was not an ad hominem. Pointing out the lack of substance in a one to two line response hardly constitutes insulting the speaker. In fact, your comment I'm responding to now has plenty of substance. The other two I referred to had little to offer. How much merit could vagely insulting off-topic two sentence comments have?

Also if anyone is inserting themselves into any argument it would be you. I'm simply making conversation by sharing ideas (free speech). If you don't like my threads, feel free not to read them. If you do, keep reading and thanks!

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: JAGStorm

OMG, 40 bucks for laundry soap? Hell, you can get good laundry soap at a dollar store, even brand names. Sales in stores are great too. I never pay much for my laundry soap and it cleans well and smells nice.

We used to get our laundry soap from sears, it was the powdered kind, a five gallon plastic bucket of it for around twenty seven bucks on sale. That bucket would last us around six or seven months. Then Sears quit selling it.....bummer. I like it when you only have to go shopping for laundry soap every six months, we hate having to decide what to buy, that sears soap was great soap.

There is a detergent called Charlies soap. It is no frills, but lasts forever and works very very well at cleaning. You only use a teaspoonful. I get mine online.

a reply to: zosimov

Surely we are exploited by brazen exploiters only because we are exploitable. Indeed, we want to be exploited the problem being we feel guilty and rightly so, so we point fingers at them, blaming them not ourselves. These things come to pass because we allow them to. Then we whinge and whine. Humans huh?

originally posted by: shanjuran
a reply to: zosimov

Surely we are exploited by brazen exploiters only because we are exploitable. Indeed, we want to be exploited the problem being we feel guilty and rightly so, so we point fingers at them, blaming them not ourselves. These things come to pass because we allow them to. Then we whinge and whine. Humans huh?

Well that is one way of looking at things.

It's easy to exploit people (we are exploitable), therefore it's the people's fault when they are exploited. By your logic, if we can be easily murdered, then is murder permissible?

a reply to: zosimov

Ah-ha...logic. Your logic makes no sense to me, sorry.

a reply to: shanjuran

Then we share the same sentiment.

At least there is that!

originally posted by: zosimov

Well that is one way of looking at things.

It's easy to exploit people (we are exploitable), therefore it's the people's fault when they are exploited. By your logic, if we can be easily murdered, then is murder permissible?

We do get taught at the knee how not to be exploited ..... *The Emperor's New

Clothes* etc.? comes to mind

It would seem that not all of us take it on board into adulthood though.

Another........

Once bitten twice shy?

Do we ever learn?

a reply to: shanjuran

a reply to: eletheia

It seems both of these responses presuppose that consumers are making conscious choices in the matter. I'm not sure that is the case. In the midst of reading a very interesting article on the subject in case you're interested.
Some excerpts:

Theories of consumer behavior often posit that consumers are rational agents making conscious decisions about the branded products and services they purchase and use. It is assumed that consumer decisions are preceded by an explicit formation of attitudes and needs that determine the brand of choice. However, research from the domain of automaticity proposes that the majority, if not all, of human behavior either begins as an unconscious process or occurs completely outside of conscious awareness. These automatic processes, including behavioral mimicry, trait and stereotype activation, and nonconscious goal pursuit, also impact attitudes, beliefs and goals without engaging consumers ’conscious minds. Habits, a special type of automaticity, are behaviors completely controlled by contextual stimuli; habits occur outside of goals and intentions. In light of the evidence for the primacy of unconscious behavior, this article proposes a new model of consumer behavior that dynamically incorporates both conscious and unconscious mental processes to represent how consumers make brand decisions in the context of their daily lives.

A point I found to be very interesting (and not only in the context of this conversation)

consciousness is, in evolutionary terms, notably late to the information-processing party. For millions of years, unconscious systems controlled intelligent life ( Steen, 2007 ). Subjective experience from within a conscious system prevents us from truly imaging an ‘ unconscious life ’ , yet each day trillions of creatures, including humans, perform a wide range of behaviors unconsciously ( Bargh and Morsella, 2009 ). Defi ning consciousness itself proves to be a diffi cult task, with philosophers and neuroscientists alike struggling to understand its limits, qualities and the extent of its control over our actions ( Dennett, 1991 ; Crick and Koch, 1998 ). Although arguments on the nature of consciousness are valuable, for the purposes of this article we agree with Steen’s (2007)general defi nition of consciousness as a combination of attention, perception, memory and, most importantly, awareness.

Consciousness, its nature and origin, is a fascinating and elusive subject. I think there's a valid point brought up here-- how much of our actions/inaction is based on conscious thought, and how much on responses to the environment or sensations, sentiments, etc?

Maybe it took my complete abstinence in order to be able to take note of what led me to want to buy... either way, it's been a beneficial thought exercise for me.

Doesn't seem that everyone would agree, and that is okay.

It's been a very interesting discussion (imo)
Thanks to all who joined in.

originally posted by: schuyler
And that brings me to ask, why are you so special? What is it about your special talents that makes you so much more insightful about what the consumer wants than he is? Do you think you have the right to intercede? Do companies and consumers alike need to pass YOUR litmus test on what is reasonable advertising and what is reasonable to buy?

You have heard of "free speech," right? Well? Why do you want to regulate it?

I gotta ask (though not expecting an answer, considering you failed to admit your original error) can you bear the weight of your own scrutiny?

Why are YOU so special?
What is it about your special talents that makes you the gatekeeper of free speech? Does your insight or position give you the power to determine that an advertiser's right to free speech trumps mine? Do you think you have the right to intercede?

Do you get to decide which ATS posters can or cannot write threads, and what material they should or shouldn't compose?

Integrity, introspection, common respect... these are all qualities I strive for. How about you?