3 ms·
This is a stupid article. He first explains how protests are meaningless, because not enough people do them, and then proposes.... protest, by boycotting almos
by runn1ng 15y ago
This is a stupid article.
He first explains how protests are meaningless, because not enough people do them, and then proposes.... protest, by boycotting almost everything.
- skrebbel 15y agoYeah, because identifying the core of a problem and trying to do something about it makes you a hypocrite.
- philh 15y ago> He first explains how protests are meaningless He's talking about protests like "changing my profile picture". > because not enough people do them I don't remember him saying that. > boycotting almost everything. He proposes boycotting a few companies, and gives a list of possibilities.
- cheald 15y agoHe's raging against slacktivism, and advocating for real activisim. Punch supporting companies in the wallet and get supporting congressmen unelected. He's right.
- oflannabhra 15y agoDid you read anything he said? While there's a lot of bluster to filter through, his points were more something like the following: 1) Americans want to "protest" by doing things that don't cost them their comfort. 2) We are (successfully) protesting SOPA/PIPA, but the real problem is not the legislation. The problem is how the legislation got created (companies lobbying Congress, and Congressmen acting solely in those companies best interest). 3) In light of 1) and 2), we should use what power we do have as consumers and voters to prevent such legislation from being created again. While we can debate the merits and effectiveness of boycotts, or voting, let's try not to strawman the article.
- dwyer 15y agoProtests and boycotts are not necessarily the same thing. History has shown that protests are usually ineffective. I believe however that boycotts can be effective, because essentially you're speaking with your wallet, and money talks, and unfortunately it's the only thing some people will listen to.