The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Boycotts! Also, Chik-Fil-A makes a tasty sandwich.
Medopine
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
imbalanced wrote: »Are you really so obtuse? Small actions by many causes change all the time. There's what, a half dozen people right here that aren't giving people Chick Fil A their money? That's $120 dollars by your reasoning. How many other hundreds, probably thousands others are there that are doing the same thing? Is it still a pointless action then? When large numbers of people take small steps towards a goal then there is a noticeable impact which is pretty meaningful.
And you know what's more effective than picketing a place? Not giving them your money.
It would be $120 if those people ate there for every day for an entire year. I said that because it's a ridiculous claim that even people who love Chick-Fil-A wouldn't do. If you changed all of Penny Arcade's mind about the chain, it still wouldn't do jack or shit. You're attacking an indirect ally rather than the main point of contention.
In Evander's example, he says he doesn't give to the Salvation Army, which is good because that's the company he directly has problems with and WOULD be helping in a more significant manner.
Hahahaha.
Oh man.
Medopine on
0
Posts
How it's supposed to work in your head and how it works in reality are two different things. Good for all of you who will boycott a company who clashes with your personal beliefs, but it's still meaningless unless you do something more substantial.
Per example, I can guarantee almost all of you hate Walmart. Do you think Walmart is suffering right now?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
You are confusing active boycotts with passive boycotts.
We are not looking to affect immediate change (not through the boycott, at least); we are looking no to contribute any more to something we see as wrong.
Passive boycotts are masturbation. They mean nothing, and they do nothing other than make you feel good about yourself.
EDIT: I think I've helped derail this thread, and I don't have anything to say pertaining to the subject at hand, so consider this my adieu.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
But they're closed on Sunday! Let's also say you skip one day. So five days a week all year long = $689.00
And that's if you only bought a chicken sandwich with no extras.
If you eat a cheap chicken sandwich there twice a month all year: $63.60
Man I'm bored.
It's not about feeling good; it's about not feeling bad.
If I decide I want a Chicken sandwich for lunch, I'll walk an extra block to buy it somewhere else. That is ALL that I'm saying.
Kind of like religion.
Guess that means you won't be voting this year, then?
You don't really contribute anything meaningful, do you?
No, I'm definitely voting. I'm also actively participating in the campaign process, so that's the exact opposite of passive.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Would you like me to repost your strawmanning and stupidity? You haven't contributed anything at all. This is barely threadworthy. I can't imagine more than one person is going to come out and say that boycotts are pointless.
Imbalanced, you glossed over this point.
You're not boycotting Chick-Fil-A to hurt Chick-Fil-A directly though, you're boycotting them to hurt Focus on the Family. Just because business A supports business B (a company you highly disregard) doesn't mean by boycotting business A you're making a difference on your actual goals against business B.
Also, comparing Focus on the Family to the KKK is either hyperbole or nonsense.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Did you miss my fucking laundry list of reasons I refuse to give Chic-Fil-A money? You must have, because Focus on the Family is just one part of the vast problem that is Truett Cathy.
How is them getting 10% of your two dollars and them not getting 10% of your two dollars NOT a difference again?
Indeed.
A passive boycott is simply the freemarket at work. If a company pisses enough ENOUGH people, they start to notice it in their profits. They don't lose those sales all at once, though, it happens over time, and some one has tobe first.
I've shopped at Wal-Mart before because it's ideal for people at my level of means. Are we behaving morally reprehensible (do you take this in a vacuum), or does the insignificant nature of personal contribution set a low bar for context-related release from culpability (do you take this relativistically)?
I once broke up with a chick because it turned out that her father was the president of the Canadian arm of FotF. Why? Because I don't want to associate myself with ideological right-wing bigots. Likewise, it is perfectly fucking reasonable to not want to buy goods from a company that materially supports ideological right-wing bigots.
Yes, but I also think that the US taxpaying public is responsible at an individual level for things like the Iraq war, as we were the ones who gave the money to execute the plans. So maybe I have an extreme view on what constitutes "culpability."
Because we're talking about scale and reasoning behind a boycott. You, being the PA readers, decide to stop contributing money will in no way affect any part of the process you disagree with. Your money has no intrinsic value because it is too small.
Also, iff you're going to run up to the masses and presume they won't support Chick-Fil-A because of the specific values the company projects or because they give money to Focus on the Family, then you're going to be sorely mistaken because most people won't care.
You exchange Focus on the Family with the KKK, and it now makes a big deal. But FotF isn't the KKK, not even by a longshot. It's all about context.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
They are fine. Once we split it into this thread, that quote got very out of context.
I think there's a level of "you do what you can" to that.
I shop at a more slightly expensive grocery store because they are one of the few to treat their workers with respect. However, if I don't begrudge people who are really tight on cash shopping at the less expensive store if it's the only way they can afford to eat and still get the other bills paid.
Something like Chik-Fil-A, though, is rarely a necessity, so I think there's a higher level of culpability associated with that.
It's massively more politically influential, yes.
I would also argue that it's a greater threat to liberalism than the KKK.
Honestly, I try to discourage people from giving their money to Wal-Mart, Chic-Fil-A, Hershey's, and a handful of other stuff as much as possible. Wal-Mart I'm less assertive about, because I understand how necessary it is to some people, but still. I don't necessarily make a judgment call, but I try to leave some tiny bit of guilt because I'm a bad person like that.
I only place in it what makes it logical. If you're moved enough to boycott something, it should actually make a difference. If it's not making a difference to boycott and get others to boycott, then there's no point in even worrying about it at all.
That is, unless you want to actually do something more than boycott.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I posted that because I was made uncomfortable by the idea that by living within my means, or by not fighting tooth and claw to go to the extra mile, my culpability was implicating me to a point where I was tangibly and considerably implicated. To put it succinctly, I instinctively want to reject the idea that I am performing not just an act of culpability but an act of injustice.
I think that's sort of a tangent and thread on its own, though -- how readily culpability translates into 'blame,' and even then I think it's a not-thread since it's not even really a topic ... just a natural human aversion to not invoke ire when we don't have to.
I don't like the idea of being necessarily culpable for actions I disagree with, and it seems that if someone were put into a position where their choices were implicit with survival that the culpability should be waived as the only way to remove it would be to cease surviving.
DOES NOT COMPUTE. Either it matters to the organization or it doesn't. It's safe to say we all disagree with the policies of the KKK, right? If 20 cents actually has "has no intrinsic value because it is too small," why would you not give it to them?
I challenge you to do this: every time you go to <enter your favorite restaurant here>, donate fifty cents to Planned Parenthood. Would you be willing to do that?
Of course this whole thread is kind of confusing anyway.
No, you're begging the question with it.
A boycott is a simple, passive action. It is not even an action, it is NOT doing something.
You are ascribing ita high level of effort and purpose, but that's not the case. There are plenty of thingsthat I personally boycott, just because I do not support their missions. I don't care enough to try and prevent their missions in many cases, but I do not wish to be a part of them.
It's a bad analogy, but what I'm hearkening to is the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" adage ... I think it's appropriate here. It makes me uncomfortable when the side opposing something starts to embody the impassioned and subjective passion that they're supposed to rail against.
Inform me, but don't picket against me because I was uninformed, and picket understandingly if the circumstances dictate my behavior is a necessity.