4 ms·

>> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? > I want them to present thei

>> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? > I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views. > I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. Here's the deal though, the free market is also about the spender getting to choose what they spend money and time on. If you don't like it, too bad - no one owes you agreement nor money just because.

teakettle42 4y ago
>> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement. > Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.
- sophacles 4y ago
  How did I arrive at it? Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say. The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution: boycotts = violence = not spending money People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them. (becomes) People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them. (can simplify as) People are generally entitled a revenue stream.

teakettle42 4y ago

>> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement. > Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.

sophacles 4y ago
How did I arrive at it? Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say. The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution: boycotts = violence = not spending money People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them. (becomes) People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them. (can simplify as) People are generally entitled a revenue stream.