my personal definition of it is this: a non-essential (or classified essential, but over-the-top, exotic, extravagant, and/or inefficient for the purposes of fulfilling human need) commodity that has an unfortunate capital-T Tendency (as in, the TPRF in which it applies without fail) of being invoked in political discussions, almost always making said discussions objectively worse.
A sub-classification of treats, which I wish more people would directly invoke instead of using the broader term since it's funnier to me, is the 'adventures': escapist, less-than-nuanced fantasies that are, without fail, invoked by people to explain complex political issues.
Any additions? Disagreements? we must synthesize this before it becomes the new tankie in watered-down 'thing i dislike' applicability.
:doubt:
I call things I like "treats" too. I even criticize some things about them while still liking them. So there.
A term used to patronize people for liking the stuff you don't. None of you are free of treat fetishism. It's infantilizing and reductive. Our pointless first world 'treats' aren't the fuck king problem, it's the fact that SO much of the world works their bodies to the bone for nothing to provide us these treats and they get none themselves. We should be making more treats and eating less ourselves, but treats themselves, are a good thing. Treats just means surplus prosperity
Actually got to use this one IRL "We're all eating from the trash can, bit as a crust punk I know, not all dumpster dives are equally bountiful "
Treats is anything you couldn't picture a poor person :yes-honey-left: caring about. Actually your definition is better. Or, it's anything you couldn't picture a poor person :yes-honey-left: in another (non-white) country caring about.
if it's in the very top set of maslow's hierarchy of needs, it must not be invoked in the politic in issues that don't specifically regard it and its domain, lest thyne cringepost
T minus 5 minutes until a liberal uses it to refer to poor people being worried by high gas prices. "Oh the Trumpkins miss their treats now that their buddy Putin has started a war 💅🏻🙄⛽"
the weird urbanist socdems will introduce it to the libs with an "heh, chuds, if you don't like your treats going up maybe take a train? conveniently ignores the crumbling public transport infrastructure in america" and then the libs will say "sweaty if you don't like the treats going up get an electric luxury treat, it's eco-friendly too 😉" and then
the nuclear sirens will start blaring and we will embrace the warming hellfire over the frozen hell we live in nowjoe biden will say it and pelosi will clap :amerikkka-clap:Heading to my treat-shelter to preserve my treat-body from treat-annihilation.
if my treat-shelter does not have the adventures i like i will take my business elsewhere immediately
those sirens are pretty funny, just like the aveenger when the sovolkonomoronova or nu-York is blown up by the bad man :so-true:
Reminds me that everyone's gonna survive the nuclear war by going into their basement or something, and then they'll get tired of not being able to play video games and eat candy, and leave the shelter to go on a wasteland adventure, and then die in a couple days from radiation exposure. But they'll keep going out anyways.
March 24th, 2035: Man found dead outside the Walmart(r)-cum-Proud Boys Headquarters in Los Angeles, death judged to be due to radiation overexposure without proper PPE. Last tweet from the man, two days before death, reads: "i'm going to be like the courier!"
I'd add on that it has to be something I personally don't like, if I like it it's not a treat
I don't think it's part of the definition that it gets trotted out in political discourse. I think that people trot out their treats in political discourse because we have been debased as a society to the point where our treats are the lens through which we judge all things.
Treats are the means by which the working class of the imperial core have been bought off. We don't organize because on some level we all know that in the current world order, we get treats, but most of the rest of the world doesn't, so even if we acknowledge that we're getting screwed by our ruling class we know that a more equitable and fair world would reduce the treats available to us, so we resist change and froth at the mouth for the opportunity to rally around the structures that we believe deliver the treats to us.
Treats are the means by which the working class of the imperial core have been bought off.
This is how I see it, too. Good comment. IMO "treats" aren't funko pops or marvel movies or vidya games. It's the fact that you can buy a bookshelf at Target for $10 because you're not paying for the exploitation of the workers or the environment.
I feel like this detention is too broad and frankly doesn't really have any political and/or social utility. In other words its not materialist. In all seriousness just stick to commodity's discourse . Its only good for hearing Matt yell about on that one podcast. Its also a regressive and western centric symptom of ideology that permeates a lot of the left frankly. People in non white poor country's often care about "treats" just as much as people in the west. People in poor country's deserve and want television/video games/internet/alcohol etc.
Again there's nothing materialist about this definition of a form of commodity's within the superstructure;
"over-the-top, exotic, extravagant, and/or inefficient for the purposes of fulfilling human need"
what's human need ? is it just biological? Who decides what's "over the top" and or "exotic" or "extravagant"? sounds dangerously close to reactionary takes on culture and human diversity especially the "exotic" part. What about culture is this focusing on? what about pre capitalist society's?
When used in this sense especially as an insult I have no disagreements. Don't disagree with anything you wrote there at all , good paragraphs . My comment was directed at people who I have met in real life(and flood the online "left") that will make comments about the supposed betrayal of exploited country's under actual existing socialism when they Import commodities from western countries or produce similar forms of entertainment/lifestyles associated with modernity and therefore western capitalism. As many have pointed out even Social Democracy in the global south is much different from Social Democracy in the western Imperialist block because they do not benefit from the direct surplus of the Imperialist system (rape of the global south).
Used to bludgeon spoiled workers like you and me who benefit from the surplus of the Imperialist system it is materialist and as you would say doesn't matter much . As for your last sentence why don't you chill out just a little bit and stop acting quite so high and mighty especially because you took the exact opposite point that I was making from the part you quoted.
Exactly ! And lol all good sorry if it came off as defensive. Its imperative to be angry as fuck about the rape of the global south and we need more of that on the left. Imperialism and the rift bewteen the rich and poor the world over is what must be fought against. Keep it up comrade!
basically it boils down to "culture shit getting invoked in material issues that impact lives, in situations where culture shit definitely does not need to be invoked and trivializing whatever it was invoked to explain or argue for". I was specifically thinking like, 1000% marked up consumer goods and luxury foods that are lorded over the poors like caviar or whatever the fuck.
I dislike the term too but IMO it's better to have something at the very baseline of what qualifies as coherent to define it, even if it's as packed with ideology as the invocation of of the term itself, so we at least know what the fuck people are talking about when the poster brain regurgitates it into the discourse :shrug-outta-hecks:
Okay but now you've limited the definition way more then what you proposed before, and marked up consumer goods is advertising and commodity fetishism not "culture" . And again with this vagueness; what kind of culture? mass culture? doesn't "culture" permeate everything in a way? Who decides when it should-shouldn't be invoked? I think you're really just talking about class and liberal identity politics that ignore class and we should stay within those discourses . Its a slippery slope from that kind of discourse to the "post left" who just harp on about "cosmopolitan " elites etc.
I dunno man, it's 12 am and my understimulated brain is not gonna have fun writing any of this, but my goal with this post is not to legitimize and endorse the term (I will, however, endorse adventures, as it's funny and more actually focused and describes a legitimate phenomenon of usage of less-than-nuanced and propaganda-filled media to describe complex political issues) but more so capture its current usage in discourse by what I think everyone means by invoking it before everyone starts using it in an even muddier way then it's used now. I didn't introduce treats into the discourse nor can I excise it, so I'll try to understand wtf everyone's talking about :jesse-wtf:, when they say it, i guess :vivian-shrug:
Yeah that's a symptom of cultural degeneration that's increasing as capitalism goes on and its contradictions become more apparent. Corporate mass cultural in the super structure influences how people view the world more and more as reality increasingly becomes warped, as capitalism continues to devour everything in its path and imbed itself in all aspects of life so will its corporate mass culture.
Whats interesting about marvel movies and films like that in particular is they are deeply ingrained in Pentagon and State Department propaganda(see Tom Seckers work) with Ubermensch undertones so its almost like its made for people to view other countries under that framework. But again in a real way none of this is new, American films have always promoted war and many Americans have always viewed the world through their corporate American culture(as any society with mass culture will view the world through it to differing degrees).
To answer that last part simply: Treats are just commodity's that we don't need to consume to live in biological terms. But its okay to like treats just dont have too many and try to not let them ruin your life lol.
just look at the fat ass american hogs populating the floating treat palaces known as cruise ships all across the seas, invading poor countries to gobble up their treats and most beautiful places.
cruise ships are the factory farm facilities of the american treat-hog world.
I think it's the stuff capitalists throw at everyone else to prevent rebellion against them. Which is just enough.
"Treats are the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. They are the copium of the people."
Karl Vladimir Marx de la Putíne, Russo-French Pro Gamer and Postmodernist
Rice Krispies with Marshmallow on. I wish they did vegan Treats.
I enjoy some treats. Not all treats, of course.
I also criticize treats, especially the bad side of treat fandoms. I have some problematic favorites, and I strongly believe it is possible to enjoy something while also tolerating criticism of it.
I sometimes get accused of pretending to be some treatless saint on Hexbear, which is something I never claimed I was.
I also enjoy the admittedly problematic "soyface guys pointing at thing" meme template. I find it funny almost every time.
Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall, I mixed up the letters lol
Harry Potter, [bad thing] is Voldemort and [good thing] is Dumbletron!
