4 ms·

"Stop buying from them" is boycotting. This is what I've chosen to do. It's wholly the fact that they did what they did in a very "in your face" way, as though

"Stop buying from them" is boycotting. This is what I've chosen to do. It's wholly the fact that they did what they did in a very "in your face" way, as though they knew they'd be alienating people. Then, blocking people who weren't even saying anything bad was not a good way to handle it. But pretending the problem is something else entirely? That's some gaslighting BS right there, and that shows they have zero concern about the people they've ticked off, or perhaps even knew they were going to upset people, but did it anyway. It's one thing to have differences. It's another to wholly not acknowledge them. Imagine this: if instead of being a cop who used Pis for covert surveillance, what if their new hire had been a part of Iran's "morality police"? Is it OK because it was technically legal, even if it's abhorrent, inhumane behavior? There's absolutely nothing wrong with boycotting a company that, by their direct actions, tells us they're completely OK with police surveillance. On the other hand, there's something wrong with suggesting that people, including victims of police surveillance and police brutality, should not stop buying from a company that glorifies police surveillance.

blagie 4y ago
Yes. I said I won't boycott / stop buying over something like this. We're agreed as to why it's offensive. There's no reason to beat a dead horse. A question is what's an effective change tactic. Simply lashing out is not an effective tactic; that's what toddlers to, and it rarely achieves the desired result. If I don't like morality police in Iran, I can: 1. Completely isolate Iran. That's the most aggressive tactic, and very much a "tough on Iran" stance. It also almost guarantees no change will happen (see Afghanistan today). 2. Engage with Iran. This gives room for dialogue. That's a lot more likely to be effective, especially if I've taken time to engage and build trust first. 3. *Strategically* apply pressure. I've had a lot of luck with this as well. There are many others. The boycott tactic is a tough tactic, but I don't see it working towards the results I want. If RPi believes surveillance is right, but leads to a sales backlash, the most that can achieve is being more quiet about it. To me, that's the worst possible outcome. At the same time, other companies will learn that speaking their views openly is dangerous. That has a lot more cascading effects I don't like.

blagie 4y ago

Yes. I said I won't boycott / stop buying over something like this. We're agreed as to why it's offensive. There's no reason to beat a dead horse. A question is what's an effective change tactic. Simply lashing out is not an effective tactic; that's what toddlers to, and it rarely achieves the desired result. If I don't like morality police in Iran, I can: 1. Completely isolate Iran. That's the most aggressive tactic, and very much a "tough on Iran" stance. It also almost guarantees no change will happen (see Afghanistan today). 2. Engage with Iran. This gives room for dialogue. That's a lot more likely to be effective, especially if I've taken time to engage and build trust first. 3. *Strategically* apply pressure. I've had a lot of luck with this as well. There are many others. The boycott tactic is a tough tactic, but I don't see it working towards the results I want. If RPi believes surveillance is right, but leads to a sales backlash, the most that can achieve is being more quiet about it. To me, that's the worst possible outcome. At the same time, other companies will learn that speaking their views openly is dangerous. That has a lot more cascading effects I don't like.