As for the now-very-boring critique of consumer activism, Nike and McDonalds want you to think that buying durable shoes from a local leatherworker or a meal from a local cafe is exactly the same as buying disposable, sweatshop-made plastic, and obesogenic not-food, from global corporations. It suits their interests well to have you believe that the rule of $1 = $1 erases all distance, and all difference. Ironically, it fits well with the caricature of the ironic hipster to believe these things, and to defend their choice to make purchases on aesthetic grounds, not political or ethical.

For those who lack the privilege of being born into a village which owns its own land and provides its own food etc, choosing where and how to spend the little money we have to provide those things is way to exercise power. I cannot be sure that my choices in attempting to support more ethical businesses are the right ones. I know that no combination of ethical consumption choices by themselves will bring about the change we need. But I also feel confident that although my purchase of fair trade chocolate might not make much difference to the world, it does make a difference to the worker-owned collective who makes that chocolate.

As for Natalie Reed, anyone so self-important that they spend their social time
“trying to call people out on their cissexism and transphobia” is a snob and an intellectual bully, abusing the privilege of a university-education to make people feel guilty for the sake of it. Her shrill little sermon made me want to cut myself. People like that can stick it up whichever orifice they consider to be the most politically correct.