When Shopping This Year...- Page 4

[aspen]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 6:56am

Umm... yay! Shop indie!

http://www.pixelgirlshop.com

Umm... adios, amigos.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:37pm

Diva, you were away for a long while. You missed all of sweets comments about her hispanic neighbors. They were rude, racist, and mean. Sweet is not fooling anyone who has been here a long time.

People can change, but racists rarely do.

Again, you may have been away when all this happened. Sweet=Raggy

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 2:51am

and I shop where I get the best bang for my buck, and due to a work discount with B&N an a member discount on top of it, it's usually there.....

but I see your point tmm

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 3:17am

OK, good ... until that last line, I was about to unleash some hell once again lol

Personally, even if I worked at BN or Borders and had a discount, I'd still only shop at independents, cause I see the member discounts at huge comglomorate-like chains as yet another public gullibility tactic to lure them to spend more money there (which it is).

But, at least u see my point :)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 2:43pm

I know little independent bookstores are cute and quaint and New Englandy and all that, but do they do generally sell their books at higher prices, have a smaller selection, pay their employees less, and often offer no benefits whatsoever.

Personally, I wait until a book is on the Bargain shelf or buy it used anyway. I can't afford to buy a hardback book at full price just because I want a cute little store to stay open or because the bigger stores may sell the discount cards (though my Borders card didn't cost a cent).

"We need independent bookstores. We need Kepler's. We need not forget who we really are and where we came from. We need not forget what truly matters in life and to not just go the easy route. We need not forget ... ourselves."

"What truly matters in life"??? Are you kidding me with this? I'm sure it matters to Kepler's, but businesses do not last an eternity. It is a fact of life. Times change, the economy changes, the business world evolves. It's just a basic fact. But using a moralistic approach to ask the public to spend more money on a product to evoke a sense of nostalgia is employing similar gullible tactics as the large chains. "If you buy your books here, you support America, and will get to Heaven, and save lives!"

Right...

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 4:12pm

From an earlier reply:

"I am not going to write an entire essay or anything on why indies and small/endangered chains are important; frankly, it would be a waste of time here. All that I ask is for you all to look in your hearts and do the right thing. Just because the same exact product is cheaper in this other store doesn't always make it right; if the cheaper store is part of a huge conglomorate and the competitor is a small chain or an independent, all the conglomorate is doing is betting on the public's gullibility.

And unfortunately, the conglomorate almost always wins."

Chains such as Borders, etc r immoral; indies r moral. Preserving/saving the environment is moral; large corporations who fool the public into ignoring critical environmmental issues r not. The first and last is not progress, I'm sorry; all it is is proving how naive and gullible toays society is. Want to know "how" naive and gullible they r? 95% of Americans don't care about critical environmental issues; "that's" how naive and gullible. The large conglomorates have brainwashed them.

Compared with the 1950's to '80's, tolday's society is a whole lot worse; that's how bad it has become.

Updated On: 12/4/06 at 04:12 PM

[bschneid76]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 5:06pm

Well the best part about shopping online is I can get what I want or am looking for. Since i live way up in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan and all we have are Walmart, Shopko and Target (and they hardly ever have what I am looking for) and Green Bay is 3 hours away, the best way to shop is online. But I do go to the local stores when I know I can get what I need. Plus I get a discount since I work at Shopko. But I do enjoy shopping in the flesh better as it is more fun and I don't spend as much money (wait that's a lie!!).

[aspen]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 5:30pm

I see your argument, Matt, but there are some instances where I disagree.

If a relative or family friend owns an auto shop in town, do I go to AutoZone or support the businesses of the people I care about?

If an elderly couple is trying to make ends meet with the grocery store their family has run for fifty years before Wal-Mart moved in, is it more important to me to save 50 cents on a gallon of milk or see the friendly face of a man who is grateful for the money I've just given him?

And online stores like the one I mentioned http://www.pixelgirlshop.com offer rare/vintage/personal gifts from independent artisans whose cool creations would otherwise never be marketed.

Finally, how about shops like http://www.thekarmamarket.com who give vendors in impoverished countries a chance to sell their goods for fair prices, rather than be ripped off by American marketers eager to make a quick buck.

Supporting independent chains/stores is a moral responsibility. If you can afford to spend a few bucks more, why not help these people who are trying to help themselves?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 8:44pm

I'm all about supporting people you care about. And that is not what I'm talking about. I always support the people I care about, but I also support the companies that allow hundreds of families in one city to afford to be able to buy the things they need. If it were just an extra 50 cents on a gllon of milk, then I would see your point. But more often than not, it is $1 or more on just that one item. Keep adding for each item and it adds up to quite a bit for every visit.

The pixiegirlshop has some really cool stuff. But I don't believe a "hip" bracelet that looks like a ruler for $54 is any more a moralistic gift than a Playstation 3. It's still overpriced and unnecessary. I love the idea of the karmamarket, and I will certainly consider buying some gifts from them (after I do a bit of research on their company). For specialty items, I am buying some gifts made from Galician artists in Spain. But my original point was that just because a company is big, it does not make them evil. Nor is a small company automatically the best choice for everyone.

"Supporting independent chains/stores is a moral responsibility. If you can afford to spend a few bucks more, why not help these people who are trying to help themselves?"

Who is to say that everyone can afford it? But guilting people into spending their money your way is no better than what you claim the "American marketers" do. Why don't you just toss out a suggestion and let people decide what the best moral decision is instead of inflicting your personal morals on others? It's a thought...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 8:50pm

tmm_fan - "Chains such as Borders, etc r immoral; indies r moral. Preserving/saving the environment is moral; large corporations who fool the public into ignoring critical environmmental issues r not. The first and last is not progress, I'm sorry; all it is is proving how naive and gullible toays society is. Want to know 'how' naive and gullible they r? 95% of Americans don't care about critical environmental issues; 'that's' how naive and gullible."

First of all, prove your statistic. Second, do you also decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? Who deserves equality and who doesn't? I'm sorry, but your self-righteous black-and-white attitude are working against you right now. Perhaps the true test of the gullibility of today's society is that they take everything you say at face value. Maybe you could learn to enlighten people without talking down to them.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 9:19pm

It is a fact that 95% of the American public don't care about critical environmental issues; they r brainwashed by companies

please provide your verifiable source for this, as if this was a school report you would be expected to. Making sweeping generalizations without verifiable sources only makes you look bad, any teacher or librarian will tell you that.

[etoile]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 9:27pm

Society from the 50's through the 80's knew how to spell the word "are" at least.

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 9:32pm

Ask any environmentalist; any environmental teacher; any expert. This wasn't a school report.

And these posxts r proof of how low this world has become.

[MatthewAddison]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 9:47pm

TMM, you're swimming upstream.

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 9:49pm

Thank u :)

[aspen]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 7:00am

Okay, Matt, you pretty much splayed my argument. Darn it, why must you use logic to cut through nice-sounding emotional appeals? =)

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 2:03pm

again, now read very slowly....you said

It is a fact that 95% of the American public don't care about critical environmental issues; they r brainwashed by companies



again I ask you to site your source, a credible and verifiable source based on research or statistics.
If you cannot provide that, then you are only blowing wind out of your ass.

And most of the adults here are educated, and usually don't buy into "sweeping generalizations"......

so it's simple, provide your data

[Marlene]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 2:41pm

It's the tragedy of the commons, deal with it.

I'm not sure about the actual statistics, but I would agree that the majority of the public does not really pay attention to environmental issues. I wouldn't argue that they are totally brainwashed by the company, but it's just an issue that in the end economics has a heavier weight over environmental issues. If you're going to be worrying about putting food on the table, one wouldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not the manufacture of cheapest brand is partnered with an organization destroying the ozone as we speak. Beyond that people have little reason to care, in most cases the majority of the public is not seeing these environmental issues first hand. There is also little incentive, because there's is an existing mindset that one person will not make a difference. That is just plain fact, and unless there is some sort of mainstreet moblization of saving the environment there is no real incentive to bear the burden yourself. Everything can be justified.

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 6:33pm

I am sorry, but this post is proof of how naive the word has gotten. Do we just sit back and watch the world go down the tube? No; we fight. And it is working. Look around; because of me and countless others who are fighting for what is right, more of the public is getting involved. Because of An Inconvenient Truth, more people are taking notice of critical environmental issues that affect our future. I am majoring in Environmental Studies, and our building at school (a green building) is not so much a school structure as it is a community one; many community events are held there, and the center is serving as a major outlet for future environmental change; starting next quarter, they are even implementing a program to send students to far-off places all over this state, to work on preserving the environment and as a result -- a sort of ripple effect -- create more public awareness.

I can tell you right now that at no point in history have we seen a greater/faster destruction of the ozone, fish, our oceans, endangered species and glaciers; and "never" has there been such a gigantic surge in development. There is a huge difference in buying coffee from independent growers versus, say, Starbucks; read up on it. You will be shocked to learn where your daily Starbucks vanilla latte is coming from; how it is being cultivated. Animals, glaciers, the ozone, oceans, soil, plants, trees; it is all relative; all inter-connected. Environmental non-profits are working harder today than ever before, and within the past year, more and more people have started to care. We still have a long way to go, but it is working.

And at the rate we are going, in five to ten years, you might very well be in the minority. Of course, by then, you will probably turn the other cheek. God knows you wuld not want to be an outcast.

For it is all about what this world has become: we all want to follow the trend.

I am sorry, but I personally woud rather live a life and in a world of morals and ethics than one that is based around the naive mindset of a disgustingly gullible public.

Watch video clips of a polar bear dying (becuase their homes are melting due to global warming), and tell me that it does not break your heart.

Updated On: 12/10/06 at 06:33 PM

[Marlene]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 7:35pm

I'm not saying that you shouldn't care. I'm just generalizing the vast majority of American consumer culture in actual fact, as you did before, but highlighting a wider spectrum of belief than you were. I'm trying to tie it back to the tragedy of the commons phenomena. (I'm attempting to be ambitious, you know psychology, politics, economics, and environmental science all in one. Guest staring urban studies!)

Of course there are smaller groups that are lobbying for these changes, but corporate America is just going, hello environmentalist, tell exactly how it will change our natural habitats. These scientists cannot give exact predictions as, environmental science cannot predict exactly how our natural surroundings will react to pollution, greenhouse gases, etc. Thus there is little incentive for these corporations, and a lesser extent, the government to act since there is not an actual prediction fact book. That is corporate America’s general argument—ridiculous yes, still in use, you bet ya!

There is no real burden to the average consumer—sure they are screwing over their grandchildren and future generations, but hey they're saving an extra buck or two.

It goes back to the dollar sign and which groups have the most power on K Street.

It would be all fine and dandy, if the world were all green, but it is not economically possible for all parts of the world, such as third world countries, and countries that are quickly developing and industrializing. Pretty soon in a decade or so, China will likely emit more greenhouse gases than the USA. Does that country really care? Not until international law starts kicking its ass. And who is going to regulate the world on an international level effectively. Good luck.

I don't see how shopping at a "small chain store" will save the world. Better yet get the vast majority America to switch to hybrid cars, biodiesel, or ethanol. (And tell the American government to stop going head over heels for with the corn lobby, and have more amicable relationships with countries that export sugar so we can produce sugar based ethanol that has less waste products when produced, while you're at it.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not mobilizing America to not care; I'm just acknowledging the status quo. And until there is a higher level of education and awareness, and there is economic incentive and/or a sense of convenience to change the average American lifestyle; the vast majority of America will resort to shopping at Walmart and other corporations of like in our gas guzzling SUVs, drinking Starbucks instead of free trade coffee.

Yes, and textbook on the environment or documentary will tell you that no other point in history have we seen such a destruction of our ozone layer and environment, but this still isn’t something for which people actively fight. Mr. Gore’s film raised awareness, but unless other people who can put up the money can help generate greater publicity for this cause, it will remain to be a predominantly grassroots driven effort.

I'm not bashing your efforts in anyway, I'm just trying to get you out of this idealistic nutshell. Unless we reduce our emissions by like 80%...we're effing up our ozone layer regardless. It's not something we can do overnight, but a progressive process, that just isn't on the agenda of corporations or for many on a consumer level.

Usually, it is not until you attain a level of wealth and age, that one actually is able to back up these organizations with what they need most capital. Sure, there are plenty of small groups lobbying for this, getting their 10 seconds on the 6 o'clock news. I mean there was no movement to protect the environment until like the 50s or 60s. (Right now my historical time frame is failing me.) So unless a real mass of people are propelled to do something, keep being that little engine that could.

{edit}
I just thought you should know that I don't believe in the "God will smite you" agenda, so I would appreciate if you would not use that in reference to my post. It makes me want to throw up a little, very much like college applications and subway masturbators.

P.S.: I breathe grande white chocolate mochas, 2% milk, extra whipped cream. :) Lo siento.

Updated On: 12/10/06 at 07:35 PM

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 8:12pm

lol OK; I don't recall saying that God will smite you, but ok.

It is all about basic issues; one could argue techincalities forever, but what it all comes down to is: more companies and schools are constructing eco-friendly buildings. More people are caring (in the past year, environmental studies enrollment at our college has jumped like 300%; literally). Non-profit environmental groups are finally being noticed in a major way. I myself have steadily noticed a shift in public understanding and commitment to both independents "and" sustainability; not huge by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot better than it once was.

Bush is terrible; he has by far the worst environmental record of any president. Clinton did the best he could, filling his administration with pro-environmentalists, but not since Roosevelt have we really had a major environmental movement in the US.

And now we're paying the price.

My last post might sound fanatical, but it is true. Every last word. And, as the studies say, if we do not do something drastic, by 2020, we will be 100 times worse off than we are now, and by 2050, even worse than that.

Updated On: 12/10/06 at 08:12 PM

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 6:17pm

oh my god tmm, y0ou are giving mwe the best laugh ive had in days!! Seriously, if it makes you feel better to think that back in the "old days" people were moral and money din't matter, well, have fun with those delusions. The fact is, the word has been the same since, well, forever. Money has always been the bottom line, that has never been different. You are increadibly naive and idealistic. It's kinda cute, but mostly annoying. You are trying to syentifically say that by a certain year we are all going to hell pretty much, but it's all coming out of your ass.

Fact: this generation is better off in every way than any generation previously.
Fact: there are more trees now than there were 100 ears ago.
Fact: The ozone layer is not going to dissapear tomorrow

In the immortal words of Billy Joel, "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 10:17pm

Once again, I didn't say we're going to hell or God will smite us. Two, as I said b4, one can argue small technicalities bout anything forever; in that case, u have to look at the entire picture. Conglomerates betting on the publics gullibility by offering cheaper prices over the independent stores/chains that often contribute bout 95x more to the community is not progress; I'm sorry, but it isn't. Supporting independent stores is good for the community, and serve as reminders of what once was and all that can be again; and if this according to some people is wrong, Wal-Mart, Borders and all those places have succeeded in brainwashing them into believing that their way is the only way; that cheaper prices r the "only" way to go.

This world was never perfect, but is definitely a lot wrse than it used to be.

Updated On: 12/16/06 at 10:17 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 12:41am

I was asked nicely to bump this.

So here.

Here is a nice, big, organic indie bump.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 12:42am

Lizzie, how I love you!