3 ms·
I would fundamentally disagree with the idea that you don't "actually care" about an issue if you're not boycotting people over it. Why can't I genuinely care a
by SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I would fundamentally disagree with the idea that you don't "actually care" about an issue if you're not boycotting people over it. Why can't I genuinely care about Intel doing the right thing here without building a blacklist of Intel-backed AWS instance types I won't use?
- bravo22 5y agoI meant it in the sense it is used in economics not in the colloquial sense. If A cares enough about an issue and is willing to deal with the consequences and B does not then A wins and B loses. Everyons is willing to commit something for a cause they care about. It could be as little as taking time to convince others by writing an article or a tweet, or as much as being able to commit violence for it and deal with the consequences. One aspect of life, from negotiations to geopolitics to convince your opponent that A) you would be willing to pay a higher price than they are for your position B) you CAN pay that price. In case of Intel v China, CCP has something to lose by banning Intel but they've demonstrated or at least convinced them and most other companies that they're willing to pay that price and CAN pay it (by the virtue of being the CCP and having absolute authority). A nation with less resources may not be able to convince a mega corp in order to get concessions. So in this case if Americans care more about this issue they have to convince the Chinese that they're willing AND able to pay a higher price than they are.