The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Strong topic heading, but this is a subject I feel most strongly about.
Labels. Designer clothes/cars/furniture/accessories.
I myself find the notion that something can cost twice as much because it has a fashionable label on ludicrous.
A while ago I read a book called "No Logo" by Naomi Klein that discusses the whole notion of a logo, or brand name of a product and just what it means.
Many people seek out the lastest logo item, be it a shoe by Nike or clothes by Gucci.
Why?
What does it matter to you what a product says, as long as it does the job? You can pay £120 for jeans by Armani, I'll buy mine for £10 from Northwield market.
"Yeah, but the material is better and will last longer"
So what? I can buy 12 pairs for your money and I promise that they'll last just as long.
It seems to be a striving for acceptance, to be able to display your watch nonchalantly in the pub and say "Hmm? Oh this? Yah, it's a Tag" and everyone can coo and murmer about how stylish you are.
Are people that insecure that they need to have a label on them to "fit in"?
I don't get it one little bit.
And one of the most ironic "fashion" statements ever made was grunge.
Popular when Nirvana exploded, there were all manner of people explaining how to "dress grunge" and informing people how to dress like clothes weren't important to them.
Hello? You need to be told how to dress like you don't care how to dress?
I think I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
But you can see it everywhere you look, labels are on posters, tv, magazines, tube station walls, stickers on people's cars.
And this worries me.
Nike are constantly being shamed for their use of child slavery to make those lovely shoes you pay £90 for.
Factories in Malaysia, China, Thailand and India operate under sweatshop conditions, with children as young as 4 forced to work 18hr days with no breaks for what amounts to $2 a week.
Nike refuse to comment, despite continually being brought to check by groups like Amnesty International, F.A.I.R and UNICEF.
It comes down to cost.
It's cheaper to produce shoes in these countries and pay little kids, so you can pay £90 for the same shoe and feel really cool when you're out with your mates.
Shame on you.
And do me a favour, the next time you go out shopping, just look at how many people are walking around with logos on their clothes.
Why?
I refuse to wear logo items.
Why?
Because I am not a billboard. I am not a walking advertising space for a company that makes clothes.
If you want me to advertise your company's products, you pay me, not the other way round.
But so many people are content to splash out £100s of pounds to walk about advertising someone else's product.
Absurd notion. You are now a space to rent. And you pay for the privilige.
It's not just Nike that use child labour to produce goods.
Toys R Us, Walmart, Nike, Adidas, Disney.
All of these companies are currently undergoing civil prosecution for the violation and abuse of the Human Civil Rights Charter in their use of child labour.
The pursuit of designer products drives the market, which is why multi-national companies seek to drive down overheads and maximise profit margins through child labour in 3rd world countries where labour laws are non-applicable.
Unions are not allowed there, no worker rights are tolerated.
This is shameful behaviour, and as long as you think "Excellent, the new Nike Airwalk is out", then this will continue.
Please, logo festooned clothes are no way to promote your well-standing in society because you can afford them.
Having principles and an awareness of what goes into a lot of designer gear makes you far cooler.
Labels. Designer clothes/cars/furniture/accessories.
I myself find the notion that something can cost twice as much because it has a fashionable label on ludicrous.
A while ago I read a book called "No Logo" by Naomi Klein that discusses the whole notion of a logo, or brand name of a product and just what it means.
Many people seek out the lastest logo item, be it a shoe by Nike or clothes by Gucci.
Why?
What does it matter to you what a product says, as long as it does the job? You can pay £120 for jeans by Armani, I'll buy mine for £10 from Northwield market.
"Yeah, but the material is better and will last longer"
So what? I can buy 12 pairs for your money and I promise that they'll last just as long.
It seems to be a striving for acceptance, to be able to display your watch nonchalantly in the pub and say "Hmm? Oh this? Yah, it's a Tag" and everyone can coo and murmer about how stylish you are.
Are people that insecure that they need to have a label on them to "fit in"?
I don't get it one little bit.
And one of the most ironic "fashion" statements ever made was grunge.
Popular when Nirvana exploded, there were all manner of people explaining how to "dress grunge" and informing people how to dress like clothes weren't important to them.
Hello? You need to be told how to dress like you don't care how to dress?
I think I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
But you can see it everywhere you look, labels are on posters, tv, magazines, tube station walls, stickers on people's cars.
And this worries me.
Nike are constantly being shamed for their use of child slavery to make those lovely shoes you pay £90 for.
Factories in Malaysia, China, Thailand and India operate under sweatshop conditions, with children as young as 4 forced to work 18hr days with no breaks for what amounts to $2 a week.
Nike refuse to comment, despite continually being brought to check by groups like Amnesty International, F.A.I.R and UNICEF.
It comes down to cost.
It's cheaper to produce shoes in these countries and pay little kids, so you can pay £90 for the same shoe and feel really cool when you're out with your mates.
Shame on you.
And do me a favour, the next time you go out shopping, just look at how many people are walking around with logos on their clothes.
Why?
I refuse to wear logo items.
Why?
Because I am not a billboard. I am not a walking advertising space for a company that makes clothes.
If you want me to advertise your company's products, you pay me, not the other way round.
But so many people are content to splash out £100s of pounds to walk about advertising someone else's product.
Absurd notion. You are now a space to rent. And you pay for the privilige.
It's not just Nike that use child labour to produce goods.
Toys R Us, Walmart, Nike, Adidas, Disney.
All of these companies are currently undergoing civil prosecution for the violation and abuse of the Human Civil Rights Charter in their use of child labour.
The pursuit of designer products drives the market, which is why multi-national companies seek to drive down overheads and maximise profit margins through child labour in 3rd world countries where labour laws are non-applicable.
Unions are not allowed there, no worker rights are tolerated.
This is shameful behaviour, and as long as you think "Excellent, the new Nike Airwalk is out", then this will continue.
Please, logo festooned clothes are no way to promote your well-standing in society because you can afford them.
Having principles and an awareness of what goes into a lot of designer gear makes you far cooler.
Page:
I hated Geography at school.
Did Geology instead.
More fool me, it's not much better scrabbling around the Welsh mountains looking for Ammonites that it is studying rainfall in Tropical Basin areas.
Did Geology instead.
More fool me, it's not much better scrabbling around the Welsh mountains looking for Ammonites that it is studying rainfall in Tropical Basin areas.
>Goatboy wrote:
> Geography is a bad thing and can be attributed to most of >the
> world's problems, I feel.
True, but even if countries were like massively spaced apart from each other, all had plenty of resources, all had an optimum population, no climate problems e.t.c then everyone would just fight over Space instead ! Without geography there would be no planet though.
> Geography is a bad thing and can be attributed to most of >the
> world's problems, I feel.
True, but even if countries were like massively spaced apart from each other, all had plenty of resources, all had an optimum population, no climate problems e.t.c then everyone would just fight over Space instead ! Without geography there would be no planet though.
Geography is a bad thing and can be attributed to most of the world's problems, I feel.
But not as much as Latin
But not as much as Latin
Okay, I think your right. We both don't support it but we have different ways of looking at the causes and possible solutions to the problem.
>My emotions run high with this, and I can sometimes jump the gun.
:) no need to apologise for believing strongly in something !
Good luck with your campaign and, desptie what I've said, its worth doing what you're doing if you help just one person. I got a bit out of line too, I blame having a year out from doing geography ( lame excuse I know )
>My emotions run high with this, and I can sometimes jump the gun.
:) no need to apologise for believing strongly in something !
Good luck with your campaign and, desptie what I've said, its worth doing what you're doing if you help just one person. I got a bit out of line too, I blame having a year out from doing geography ( lame excuse I know )
Ok, this is getting strange.
I don't actually disagree with anything you've said, this is just a topic that I feel most strongly on.
I'm not spoiling for a fight at all, I think we both agree in principle on the subject, so let's leave it there.
My emotions run high with this, and I can sometimes jump the gun.
Apologies if any offence caused Stranger.
Peace
I don't actually disagree with anything you've said, this is just a topic that I feel most strongly on.
I'm not spoiling for a fight at all, I think we both agree in principle on the subject, so let's leave it there.
My emotions run high with this, and I can sometimes jump the gun.
Apologies if any offence caused Stranger.
Peace
Goatboy wrote:
>Go read some more and come prepared before you start
> lecturing me on this subject mate.
Thank you, whose being patronising now ? I didnt have a problem with your references because I know they're true.
Am I badly informed because I differ from your views ?
If you didn't want other views then why did you even post this topic ? You say I've offered no suggestions but neither have you, apart from stop wearing labelled clothing which is impractical so far as to suggest this would make a difference.
Do you disagree with me on the fact many countries with this problem seem to have plenty of money for arms yet not for their own people ?
As for trying to change things myself, well at the moment I'll admit I don't do a great deal apart from donate every month to Oxfam (£5) which isn't a great deal I know but its not like I'm rich ! I start University soon doing human geography having done the subject at A level and GCSE....if you think my argument is rubbish then its the same one which helped me get A* at GCSE !
Would I want to work for an aid agency on this subject ? It'd depend on the agencies approach to it. It's interesting you assume I wear branded clothing, admittedly I have few items but personally I think it looks daft having a big "Nike" logo across the front of a jumper. Quite a few of my things come from America where someone is undoubtedly underpaid and working 10 hours a day, but thats okay ??
>Go read some more and come prepared before you start
> lecturing me on this subject mate.
Thank you, whose being patronising now ? I didnt have a problem with your references because I know they're true.
Am I badly informed because I differ from your views ?
If you didn't want other views then why did you even post this topic ? You say I've offered no suggestions but neither have you, apart from stop wearing labelled clothing which is impractical so far as to suggest this would make a difference.
Do you disagree with me on the fact many countries with this problem seem to have plenty of money for arms yet not for their own people ?
As for trying to change things myself, well at the moment I'll admit I don't do a great deal apart from donate every month to Oxfam (£5) which isn't a great deal I know but its not like I'm rich ! I start University soon doing human geography having done the subject at A level and GCSE....if you think my argument is rubbish then its the same one which helped me get A* at GCSE !
Would I want to work for an aid agency on this subject ? It'd depend on the agencies approach to it. It's interesting you assume I wear branded clothing, admittedly I have few items but personally I think it looks daft having a big "Nike" logo across the front of a jumper. Quite a few of my things come from America where someone is undoubtedly underpaid and working 10 hours a day, but thats okay ??
Goatboy wrote:
>Dont patronise me
I wasn't patronising you, it was simply the best way to make my point that these kind of working conditions exist in the west too. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.
>What are you doing if
> you feel so strongly to try to correct me on these
> issues?
I'm not correcting you, I don't support what Nike etc do but it's easy to just blame corporations when the blame is far wider spread. I'd be correcting you if I thought what you said was totally wrong but I don't, I'm just presenting a realistic picture.
>I am not
> even going to attempt to argue with someone that tries to >justify
> these conditions and actions.
Well I'm not arguing, I'm putting a different point of view, a wider one than just focusing on the companies responsible. It would be arguing if I agreed with child slavery which I do not and never would ! Yes Black Hawk down is a good book I've read but it's not the only one. "Deliver Us From Evil" is another book highlighting how the West's honourable intentions tend to make situations worse when the situation is not fully understood.
I don't justify these conditions but my question about how families replace lost income is a valid one, which no one answered.
>Dont patronise me
I wasn't patronising you, it was simply the best way to make my point that these kind of working conditions exist in the west too. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.
>What are you doing if
> you feel so strongly to try to correct me on these
> issues?
I'm not correcting you, I don't support what Nike etc do but it's easy to just blame corporations when the blame is far wider spread. I'd be correcting you if I thought what you said was totally wrong but I don't, I'm just presenting a realistic picture.
>I am not
> even going to attempt to argue with someone that tries to >justify
> these conditions and actions.
Well I'm not arguing, I'm putting a different point of view, a wider one than just focusing on the companies responsible. It would be arguing if I agreed with child slavery which I do not and never would ! Yes Black Hawk down is a good book I've read but it's not the only one. "Deliver Us From Evil" is another book highlighting how the West's honourable intentions tend to make situations worse when the situation is not fully understood.
I don't justify these conditions but my question about how families replace lost income is a valid one, which no one answered.
Stranger to Paradise Wrote>
Far more realistic is to campaign for higher wages, better conditions. In the countries mentioned families depend on all the income they can get, to them its essential for food and other vital things.
Ok, go on then. I am campaigning against what I percieve, and many thousands of others, to be an immoral and insensitive business ethos, and have done for the better part of my adult life.
What are you doing if you feel so strongly to try to correct me on these issues?
>They dont get much but its better than nothing because no one else is doing damn all to help them !
I am not even going to attempt to argue with someone that tries to justify these conditions and actions.
Relax and enjoy your products.
Far more realistic is to campaign for higher wages, better conditions. In the countries mentioned families depend on all the income they can get, to them its essential for food and other vital things.
Ok, go on then. I am campaigning against what I percieve, and many thousands of others, to be an immoral and insensitive business ethos, and have done for the better part of my adult life.
What are you doing if you feel so strongly to try to correct me on these issues?
>They dont get much but its better than nothing because no one else is doing damn all to help them !
I am not even going to attempt to argue with someone that tries to justify these conditions and actions.
Relax and enjoy your products.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
And this problem is exclusive to the third world ?
> Take a look around sometime and open your eyes.
Don't patronise me ok?
I can debate for hours, but you start talking down to me and I tune out.
Take Somalia for example - In the
> early nineties UN and US forces deployed to bring about the end of
> the civil war, restore democracy, arrest war criminals and restore
> the economy. What happened ? Nearly the whole country hated them for
> it. In 1993 during one operation the very civilians they were there
> to save actively helped kill US troops in Mogadishu. Following that
> UN/US forces withdrew in later years, the final pull out resembling
> the fall of Saigon.
Yeah, I've read "Black Hawk Down" as well.
I would suggest that you spend 3 months with the Red Cross out in Malaysia and Vietnam investigating this issue, and be met with intimidation, threats of violence and stonewalling by government officials, and offical faxes from Nike requesting that you cease with your reports as it is "not beneficial to either parties to pursue".
And if you have problems with the references and examples quoted, take them up with CNN, Reuteurs, Amnesty International and UNICEF, as that is where the info came from.
But seeing as you have all the answers, offer a solution we can all listen to and follow.
Beats sitting at your desk and lecturing others for trying to change things that they feel are wrong.
What may I ask, have you attempted to do in regards to this situation that you are obviously so informed on?
Exactly, I thought so.
Go read some more and come prepared before you start lecturing me on this subject mate.
And this problem is exclusive to the third world ?
> Take a look around sometime and open your eyes.
Don't patronise me ok?
I can debate for hours, but you start talking down to me and I tune out.
Take Somalia for example - In the
> early nineties UN and US forces deployed to bring about the end of
> the civil war, restore democracy, arrest war criminals and restore
> the economy. What happened ? Nearly the whole country hated them for
> it. In 1993 during one operation the very civilians they were there
> to save actively helped kill US troops in Mogadishu. Following that
> UN/US forces withdrew in later years, the final pull out resembling
> the fall of Saigon.
Yeah, I've read "Black Hawk Down" as well.
I would suggest that you spend 3 months with the Red Cross out in Malaysia and Vietnam investigating this issue, and be met with intimidation, threats of violence and stonewalling by government officials, and offical faxes from Nike requesting that you cease with your reports as it is "not beneficial to either parties to pursue".
And if you have problems with the references and examples quoted, take them up with CNN, Reuteurs, Amnesty International and UNICEF, as that is where the info came from.
But seeing as you have all the answers, offer a solution we can all listen to and follow.
Beats sitting at your desk and lecturing others for trying to change things that they feel are wrong.
What may I ask, have you attempted to do in regards to this situation that you are obviously so informed on?
Exactly, I thought so.
Go read some more and come prepared before you start lecturing me on this subject mate.
Page: