Your whole post points it out. You're calling people who are proud not to have any counterfeit bags as being on high horse.
I side eye everyone who carries fakes knowingly they're fake.
I'm calling out people who judge those who own fakes with blanket statements of "they are unethical and disgusting humans who prioritize fakes over others' suffering and terrorism"
That's a rather radical pov, as someone on p59 said, "Perspective, get some".
I do side-eye who own fakes knowingly, because it's dishonest to own one and I personally just feel like crap to even try to pass off something fake as real.
But as many others have chipped in on owners of fakes, there are a variety of reasons ranging from "dgaf about anything as long as getting it cheapest" -which we all roundly and rightly condemn- to plain ignorance of buying a fake, or not wanting to waste a resource once it's a sunk cost - an animal did die to make the skin for that bag, regardless of its label.
It is a disrespect and waste of many animals lives' to trash their skins - which they sacrificed- just because of human folly. But no, radicals are against even repurposing the bag because its origins are fake, and recommend burning all counterfeits (read from around p54)
I'm calling out those who have made those kinds of blanket statements as being on a high horse, and demonstrated much more suffering and terrorist funds come from our consumption of seemingly more innocuous products (fast fashion, diamonds from retail, and gas from Syria/other despot regimes).
I was just saying, they lack perspective. In a globalised world, you should care about the provenance of every single product you consume if you are concerned about human suffering and illegal activities.
In addition to fakes, you really shouldn't buy diamonds from retail if you don't want to fund terrorists. And yet this is a board on materialism, and I can't see the majority being able to give up their bling.
Because this is a board that's ultimately about luxury and displays of wealth, I can see how my perspective is an unpopular one.
And although I've repeatedly stated I'm against fakes, many insist in the belief I'm speaking in support of them. No, I was just pointing out the inadequacies of your moral arguments regarding suffering and terrorism, and offering the economic perspective on how fakes harm nations.
Is it not reason enough to act against fakes when they threaten a few governments' abilities to support and build upon their nation's infrastructure, and threaten the employment of many hundreds of thousands? Of course it is.
And really, that's all I have to say on this matter. I'm unsubscribing from this thread, because everyone who isn't a radical here gets roundly condemned by those who are.