4 ms·

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

by 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.

by ibsulon 17y ago

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.