5 ms·

I absolutely believe in free speech. I would be the first to yell if he was censored by the government, or was unable to make his logical appeal in the appropri

by ibsulon 17y ago

I absolutely believe in free speech. I would be the first to yell if he was censored by the government, or was unable to make his logical appeal in the appropriate forum (which it was.) However, as a consumer, I also try to patronize companies that share my ideals and do not actively work against what I work for. Many progressives do the same, and were shocked to find out that the CEO/founder was a libertarian. I am not boycotting Whole Foods (though I do not shop there on a regular basis to start), but I do not feel that such an action is censorship.

philwelch 17y ago
Here's the funny thing: Mackey actually was a progressive before he tried to actually run a company. That's why I can't take these political disagreements seriously. What makes you so sure you're right about politics and Mackey is wrong? I used to be wrong about quite a few political issues--maybe I used to be right, and I'm wrong now. How do you get so confident in your political opinions that you want to get in the way of people expressing a contrary viewpoint?
- ibsulon 17y ago
  Let's take an example of which I do boycott. I boycott Rockstar energy drinks. I do so because the owners of the company actively contribute to causes that are anti-gay, and the founder is a man who has said all sorts of vile things about LGBT people and their community, and the company is held by his family (though they have publicly disavowed current official affiliation -- it's his son and wife, for crying out loud!) Why in the world would I give money to them? Or Hyatt, who would use my hotel money to fund a ballot measure to demote me to second class citizenry? And if they feel as strongly about health care as I do about LGBT issues, that's what informed capitalism is about.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    The difference is that these companies actually contribute money towards something. I don't buy Rockstar either. I don't buy Sony because they put rootkits on CD's. Writing a well-reasoned editorial that I disagree with doesn't rise to that level. If Whole Foods contributed their profits to fund anti-health-reform PACs I guess that would be comparable, but they don't. They pay $1 in salary to a CEO who wrote one editorial in one newspaper expressing his personal opinions and experiences. That's akin to getting ticked off at something Paul Graham wrote and refusing to do business with any YCombinator-funded startups. Actually it's even worse, since I'm pretty sure Paul Graham makes more money from YCombinator's investments than Mackey makes from Whole Foods at this point. And, unlike Mackey, Paul Graham's made some recent political contributions, so the money he makes from YCombinator actually goes to "the bad guys" (depending on your perspective) while Mackey's money either stays with him or goes to charity. (OpenSecrets.org lets you search for political contributions. John Mackey's made some political contributions, but not since 2000 and even then, only to fringe nutjobs, which is the most harmless type of political contribution possible.) The problem with politics is that people feel too strongly without thinking strongly enough. It should not be blood-boilingly offensive for someone to express the contrary viewpoint about most political issues.
apotheon 17y ago
Censorship doesn't have to be government-run to be censorship, and in some cases (such as when a privately run Website's policy says "no swearing or your posts will be deleted") it can even be a perfectly acceptable practice. I don't think this boycott is really very well thought out, though. It really is (as another HN community member pointed out) punitive rather than corrective; his opinion isn't funded by customers' spending at Whole Foods the way, say, customers' money funds Sony/BMG's use of DRM. Boycotting Sony/BMG for DRM use is corrective, providing a perfect counterexample to the poorly conceived boycott of Whole Foods and its punitive effect. It's not even a boycott of principle related to how one's money is spent, as far as I can tell.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  You don't have a right to not be censored or for suffering the consequences of unpopular speech. You only have the right to not be punished by the government for it; it's perfectly acceptable to be punished by the public for it.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    It's perfectly legal, but it's also legal to post racist attacks against Obama's family on the internet as a protest against health care reform. It doesn't make it "acceptable" or "a good thing" just because it's perfectly within our legal and constitutional rights to do so. Our legal and constitutional rights are wide-ranging enough to allow people to be immoral jackasses without the law ever laying a hand on them. This doesn't mean "it's fine to be a jackass", it just means "it causes more harm than good for the government to outlaw all forms of jackassery".
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      Well I find it perfectly acceptable to boycott companies with whom I disagree. I think it is a good thing. That you find voting with your walled somehow a bad thing quite frankly confuses me, I do not understand you position. No buying products is not in any way comparable to posting pictures of Obama's daughters being raped by bears. One is a personal attack, one is just a refusal to financially support.

by ibsulon 17y ago

philwelch 17y ago

Here's the funny thing: Mackey actually was a progressive before he tried to actually run a company. That's why I can't take these political disagreements seriously. What makes you so sure you're right about politics and Mackey is wrong? I used to be wrong about quite a few political issues--maybe I used to be right, and I'm wrong now. How do you get so confident in your political opinions that you want to get in the way of people expressing a contrary viewpoint?

ibsulon 17y ago
Let's take an example of which I do boycott. I boycott Rockstar energy drinks. I do so because the owners of the company actively contribute to causes that are anti-gay, and the founder is a man who has said all sorts of vile things about LGBT people and their community, and the company is held by his family (though they have publicly disavowed current official affiliation -- it's his son and wife, for crying out loud!) Why in the world would I give money to them? Or Hyatt, who would use my hotel money to fund a ballot measure to demote me to second class citizenry? And if they feel as strongly about health care as I do about LGBT issues, that's what informed capitalism is about.
- philwelch 17y ago
  The difference is that these companies actually contribute money towards something. I don't buy Rockstar either. I don't buy Sony because they put rootkits on CD's. Writing a well-reasoned editorial that I disagree with doesn't rise to that level. If Whole Foods contributed their profits to fund anti-health-reform PACs I guess that would be comparable, but they don't. They pay $1 in salary to a CEO who wrote one editorial in one newspaper expressing his personal opinions and experiences. That's akin to getting ticked off at something Paul Graham wrote and refusing to do business with any YCombinator-funded startups. Actually it's even worse, since I'm pretty sure Paul Graham makes more money from YCombinator's investments than Mackey makes from Whole Foods at this point. And, unlike Mackey, Paul Graham's made some recent political contributions, so the money he makes from YCombinator actually goes to "the bad guys" (depending on your perspective) while Mackey's money either stays with him or goes to charity. (OpenSecrets.org lets you search for political contributions. John Mackey's made some political contributions, but not since 2000 and even then, only to fringe nutjobs, which is the most harmless type of political contribution possible.) The problem with politics is that people feel too strongly without thinking strongly enough. It should not be blood-boilingly offensive for someone to express the contrary viewpoint about most political issues.

apotheon 17y ago

Censorship doesn't have to be government-run to be censorship, and in some cases (such as when a privately run Website's policy says "no swearing or your posts will be deleted") it can even be a perfectly acceptable practice. I don't think this boycott is really very well thought out, though. It really is (as another HN community member pointed out) punitive rather than corrective; his opinion isn't funded by customers' spending at Whole Foods the way, say, customers' money funds Sony/BMG's use of DRM. Boycotting Sony/BMG for DRM use is corrective, providing a perfect counterexample to the poorly conceived boycott of Whole Foods and its punitive effect. It's not even a boycott of principle related to how one's money is spent, as far as I can tell.

gnaritas 17y ago
You don't have a right to not be censored or for suffering the consequences of unpopular speech. You only have the right to not be punished by the government for it; it's perfectly acceptable to be punished by the public for it.
- philwelch 17y ago
  It's perfectly legal, but it's also legal to post racist attacks against Obama's family on the internet as a protest against health care reform. It doesn't make it "acceptable" or "a good thing" just because it's perfectly within our legal and constitutional rights to do so. Our legal and constitutional rights are wide-ranging enough to allow people to be immoral jackasses without the law ever laying a hand on them. This doesn't mean "it's fine to be a jackass", it just means "it causes more harm than good for the government to outlaw all forms of jackassery".
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    Well I find it perfectly acceptable to boycott companies with whom I disagree. I think it is a good thing. That you find voting with your walled somehow a bad thing quite frankly confuses me, I do not understand you position. No buying products is not in any way comparable to posting pictures of Obama's daughters being raped by bears. One is a personal attack, one is just a refusal to financially support.