I'm specifically trying to make the point that identity is not just a personal experience -- the experience of how you see yourself. Identity is also a label that can be placed upon you.
Parent Comment was trying to reject the personal identity of consumer while their words actively affirming their identity as a consumer in the marketplace. You can reject the personal identity of a consumer all you want, but businesses will still judge you by your actions (how much you spend).
Parent Comment was responding to a person talking about self-identity and not the mere fact that everyone buys things. "This guy is exactly talking about you" is completely wrong, OP was not talking about every person ever.
Parking is easy, the store is quiet, there are no vendors set up yet.
I have my list of things I need, I get it, get out, easy.
Idk, I’ve never felt the pull of ‘I MUST buy some new electronics’ when I walk by the tvs.
I don’t really understand the hate against ’consumption’ either. I’ve gotta eat and I’ve gotta shit, so I might as well go and by the cheap toilet paper and food. I don’t pay attention to all the other stuff.
How exactly does that contradict the concept of fitness?
Several examples from the paper are exactly that. E.g dark skin was better for survival in Africa, but as populations moved north light skin was strongly selected for. Given the levels of sunlight in Europe, lighter skin increased fitness.
It is against the idea that the beneficial traits will survive to the present. It could be that there was some trait/gene that was absolutely needed for survival in the past, that flat out became irrelevant and dropped off before the present.
That is, it is not an argument against any of the traits that are present. Is why I said the problem is with how it was stated. But you do not have everything with you to provide evidence for all of the things necessary for you to have gotten here. At best, you have evidence that nothing you have with you prevented you from getting here.
That make sense? I grant that pulling it back up, I see the comment I was responding to was hedged. My concern is largely against the idea that things that "were selected for" in the past can be determined by evidence. I'm not convinced it can't be. But I find this presentation of it to be somewhat weak.
More to the point, TFA is specifically addressing the issue (which is part of what makes it a big deal).
They aren't saying "we see these things now, so they must be good" but rather things like "we see these selected for from 9kya to 3kya, but from then to the present they were selected against"; they are specifically looking at how apparent selective pressures changed over time.
> the idea that things that "were selected for" in the past can be determined by evidence
When the evidence is a copious selection of ancient genomes, distributed over both space and time, they certainly can be.
Apologies, I only meant my gripe with the comment I was responding to. Is why I put "as stated." I meant that to be that I was not arguing what I think they were messaging towards.
The callout on "evidence" I have there is that I meant that to only be present evidence. And again, I am not convinced it can't be done. It takes a lot of work. Which, the article is doing. But just saying that traits that helped you survive are typically retained, so by definition increase fitness, does not.
When I was 13-14 I believed a lot of bullshit. You might not remember so, and probably think you were very different and unique and special, but you too were not immune to propaganda.
Ah, the old, "This thing happened to me, and even if other people say it didn't happen to them IT MUST have happened to them and their denial of it just makes me even more justified" argument.
And also a time when people were laying down ties with their hands and a hammer.
This isn’t a labor issue it’s purely political. Some people get rich from the status quo and bribe politicians to prevent competition. America is increasingly corrupt, particularly since citizens united and accelerating under the current admin
We all have to eat, we all have to wipe our asses, we (mostly) all need to change the oil in our cars.
I don’t really see the purpose in describing the purchase of necessities as an identity.
reply