Except you are blatantly misrepresenting how things went down. Everyone in media makes a mistake at times or misunderstands something. When someone cops to screwing up, usually that means they are willing to take responsibility. Calling it "lying" is its very own version twisting reality.
The issue (at least, as presented in the video) is about the word "consumer" inherently implying mindless consumption, and that being normalized as an expectation by consumer and customer becoming largely synonymous these days. I don't think he's saying that changing the word would magically fix people's habits, just saying "I'm not okay with this normalization and I'm going to call it out."
"He might lie but atleast he's confirming my bias"
Seriously what are the two of you talking about? To my knowledge, what he did wasn't "blatantly lying".
It has nothing to do with "corporate overlords". It's a term used in economics and well as policy-making. Go do a Ctrl+F of the word "consumer" in something like the Fair Credit Reporting Act and tell me how many results you get back.
I know exactly where its used and the context of how its used in economics. That's not the point. It still instills and reinforces the idea of modern life is that our only real purpose to to buy shit. Depressing. Dehumanizing.
The sad reality.
What baggage? I only know it as a rough translation of a word in my native language that is wildly used from politics, to magazines and documentaries
I feel like if the last few years have proved anything, it's that people absolutely can do that. Fairly easily.
Is it willing? You have to consume to survive, customer sounds more willing to me.
So why are you misusing the term to something it's not?
Because it implies your role is just to consume the content that is delivered to you. It's kind of hard to put into words, but it's sort of a mindless participation in an economic food chain. Like the humans in the movie Wall-E. You don't create anything, you just consume.
You understand that words can still have implications beyond their explicit meanings right.
He confirms peoples biases and keeps them happily in their bubble. It's the same reason why racists watch fox news.
He's not riling people up against devs but corporations. I love how people try to make Jim's criticism look like it's made on a personal level to discredit it.
When I get out of my bubble, will I finally see the light of how everything in this industry is fine? I guess as soon I stop watching his stuff I will realize how unionization sucks, how lootboxes are actually great, and that bullshit like actual ingame casinos with real money are totally fine.
As a collective, sure, maybe and only in very specific cases. It doesn't happen because one person with a big mouth doesn't like a word. Especially a word that is rooted in economics and has been for centuries.
Ah yes, so hearing some guy on the internet who is known to be misleading at times to proof his point confirm your biases makes you feel superior?
God damn. Now THIS is a hot take. Shut it down guys. Recognizing the dehumanizing nature of consumerism is equivalent to racism apparently.
And I can't help but notice you keep ignoring people who say he admitted to being wrong and apologized for it, and keep peddling the "Jim lied" narrative.
Nonsense, it's perfectly normal to adopt a term used by marketers to dehumanise and strip the agency from the geese they gavage and identify with it!
Not sure whether this was your intention but this is honestly a pretty good reason to not use the word consumer, since as you said we need to consume to survive, so calling ourselves consumers when it comes to products outside of the basic necessities is pretty strange since we don't actually need these things
Surely you can understand how some may have seen your post that way. Your phrasing wasn't the best if that wasn't your intention.
