6 ms·

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

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.

philwelch 17y ago
"It's your legal right, therefore it's acceptable" is a fallacious argument, yet it's the argument you gave. That was the main problem. That having been said, I would rather not punish people's livelihood for expressing contrary opinions to mine in newspapers. If the company is actually doing things (putting DRM in music, hiring Latin American death squads to eliminate union bosses, beating employees, racially segregating their customers, donating tons of money to political parties, pulling Google Voice apps from the App Store), then boycotts are fine. If all you're doing is writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where's the rationale? What's so offensive about writing an editorial that it deserves a boycott? What's so offensive about simple disagreement? If I happen to agree with John Mackey will you stop being friends with me? Refuse to let me borrow a couple bucks for lunch even if I have an excellent record for paying you back? Not come to my yard sale? That's a pretty dick move. I always thought it was reasonable, even healthy to have friends, do business, and even make love with people who have different politics than you do. I don't really care for the alternative.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  If those contrary opinions potentially affect me because they persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see, then hell yes I want to punish their livelihood before they punish mine. There's a difference between having a different opinion, and actively pushing that agenda. I don't care what he believes personally, but putting an editorial in a major paper is not having an opinion, it's actively advocating one; you are no longer a civilian in a sense, you've become a solder for that agenda and you should expect retribution from those who disagree and will be negatively affected should your agenda succeed.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Do you think it would be okay for an employer to fire his employees for engaging in political activism for causes the employer does not support? For instance, if one of my employees holds a position of authority in a labor union, and in that position, publicly endorses a congressional candidate whom I oppose, should I be able to fire that employee? Your analogy actually exposes the major problem here: rather than being a fellow member of society acting in good faith who simply endorses a different solution than you do, you cast Mr. Mackey as a "soldier" for an "agenda" who deserves "retribution" because he (implication: intentionally) is trying to "negatively affect" people. You allow absolutely no room for someone to disagree in good faith: the minute someone expresses a criticism of a political position you believe in, that person is "the enemy" and deserves "retribution". I adopt what I consider a more enlightened view: that people who disagree with me may just be right, that they are acting in good faith, that their criticisms deserve an answer, and that they are fellow members of the community. Your mindset is that of a civil war between pigheaded zealots, mine is that of a peaceful and free society of civil, fair-minded people. You try to destroy people you disagree with without listening to them. I listen to them and carefully consider their views. Most of all, you presume that all of your opinions are right above all criticism, question, or suggestion of alternatives. I carefully consider every criticism of, and alternative to, my views because I have changed my mind in the past and anticipate having cause to change my mind in the future. People who are incapable of considering the possibility they might be wrong aren't suited for a democracy. They're suited for a religious war. That's what this "boycott" against Mackey is, that's what the "boycott" against the Dixie Chicks was, and that's what politics in this country has degraded to. Please keep that in mind.
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      You presume far too much from such a short conversation. You don't know me, and you don't know that I haven't considered the other opinion in depth; however, there comes a point when you've heard all the arguments and you've made up your mind about something and it's pointless to listen to the same old tired arguments again and again. Should new information present itself, it'll be noticed, but that doesn't happen so often. As for your employer argument, it's a straw-man and not at all comparable to the consumer relationship in boycotts. I reject the question because it's absurd. People can disagree in good faith, and sometimes neither side is clearly right. Other times, this isn't the case and one side or the other is simply wrong. My mindset is of the real world where zealots exist and they have to be dealt with. You apparently live in a fantasy land where everyone is civil and fair minded; you're wrong, so wrong. Logic doesn't work on everyone, sometimes you have to force people to change, civil rights, womens rights, and soon, gay rights. There are not two valid sides to these issues, one side is clearly wrong and will only change by force of law or force of money. You suggest I'm a pig-headed zealot, I suggest you're a naive dreamer who hasn't experienced enough of reality to realize how idealistic and impractical your approach is. You are wrong about boycotts, it is a perfectly fair and moral practice and is quite civil; it is the only power consumers have against companies and voting with the wallet is a core feature of a free market.

philwelch 17y ago

"It's your legal right, therefore it's acceptable" is a fallacious argument, yet it's the argument you gave. That was the main problem. That having been said, I would rather not punish people's livelihood for expressing contrary opinions to mine in newspapers. If the company is actually doing things (putting DRM in music, hiring Latin American death squads to eliminate union bosses, beating employees, racially segregating their customers, donating tons of money to political parties, pulling Google Voice apps from the App Store), then boycotts are fine. If all you're doing is writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where's the rationale? What's so offensive about writing an editorial that it deserves a boycott? What's so offensive about simple disagreement? If I happen to agree with John Mackey will you stop being friends with me? Refuse to let me borrow a couple bucks for lunch even if I have an excellent record for paying you back? Not come to my yard sale? That's a pretty dick move. I always thought it was reasonable, even healthy to have friends, do business, and even make love with people who have different politics than you do. I don't really care for the alternative.

gnaritas 17y ago
If those contrary opinions potentially affect me because they persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see, then hell yes I want to punish their livelihood before they punish mine. There's a difference between having a different opinion, and actively pushing that agenda. I don't care what he believes personally, but putting an editorial in a major paper is not having an opinion, it's actively advocating one; you are no longer a civilian in a sense, you've become a solder for that agenda and you should expect retribution from those who disagree and will be negatively affected should your agenda succeed.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Do you think it would be okay for an employer to fire his employees for engaging in political activism for causes the employer does not support? For instance, if one of my employees holds a position of authority in a labor union, and in that position, publicly endorses a congressional candidate whom I oppose, should I be able to fire that employee? Your analogy actually exposes the major problem here: rather than being a fellow member of society acting in good faith who simply endorses a different solution than you do, you cast Mr. Mackey as a "soldier" for an "agenda" who deserves "retribution" because he (implication: intentionally) is trying to "negatively affect" people. You allow absolutely no room for someone to disagree in good faith: the minute someone expresses a criticism of a political position you believe in, that person is "the enemy" and deserves "retribution". I adopt what I consider a more enlightened view: that people who disagree with me may just be right, that they are acting in good faith, that their criticisms deserve an answer, and that they are fellow members of the community. Your mindset is that of a civil war between pigheaded zealots, mine is that of a peaceful and free society of civil, fair-minded people. You try to destroy people you disagree with without listening to them. I listen to them and carefully consider their views. Most of all, you presume that all of your opinions are right above all criticism, question, or suggestion of alternatives. I carefully consider every criticism of, and alternative to, my views because I have changed my mind in the past and anticipate having cause to change my mind in the future. People who are incapable of considering the possibility they might be wrong aren't suited for a democracy. They're suited for a religious war. That's what this "boycott" against Mackey is, that's what the "boycott" against the Dixie Chicks was, and that's what politics in this country has degraded to. Please keep that in mind.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    You presume far too much from such a short conversation. You don't know me, and you don't know that I haven't considered the other opinion in depth; however, there comes a point when you've heard all the arguments and you've made up your mind about something and it's pointless to listen to the same old tired arguments again and again. Should new information present itself, it'll be noticed, but that doesn't happen so often. As for your employer argument, it's a straw-man and not at all comparable to the consumer relationship in boycotts. I reject the question because it's absurd. People can disagree in good faith, and sometimes neither side is clearly right. Other times, this isn't the case and one side or the other is simply wrong. My mindset is of the real world where zealots exist and they have to be dealt with. You apparently live in a fantasy land where everyone is civil and fair minded; you're wrong, so wrong. Logic doesn't work on everyone, sometimes you have to force people to change, civil rights, womens rights, and soon, gay rights. There are not two valid sides to these issues, one side is clearly wrong and will only change by force of law or force of money. You suggest I'm a pig-headed zealot, I suggest you're a naive dreamer who hasn't experienced enough of reality to realize how idealistic and impractical your approach is. You are wrong about boycotts, it is a perfectly fair and moral practice and is quite civil; it is the only power consumers have against companies and voting with the wallet is a core feature of a free market.