First I saw #BoycottCokaCola, #BoycottPepsi and #BoycottYumBrands will it now be #BoycottMcDonalds and others?
How about we make Spectrum provide cable service to all of Russia?
I don’t think the Russian people should have to go without coke & pepsi & Mickey D’s.
I mean, if we went to war with some smaller country, would we want to go without?
That said, I buy products from companies whose politics I disagree with. If I like the product I buy it. Unless they are engaged in child labor or something like that. But actually I have no idea where my clothes are made so I probably do that too.
I don’t eat Chik Fil A for political reasons
Boycotting companies for politics is stupid because you could always find a reason to boycott anyone. The Chic-Fil-A example above is a good one. Maybe you don’t like their CEO’s views on homosexuality, but they pay their employees better than every other fast food chain and provide good benefits along with making an excellent product and providing exceptional customer service.
That’s your prerogative. I just find it difficult to research every single company I do business with and this it feels a little disingenuous to me to boycott a company I heard about on the news vs one I don’t know anything about, but that might have the same practices.
It’s just infeasible to boycott every multinational conglomerate that does evil things. I try to be conscientious - for example I think Cheez-Its are the only Nestle product I buy, but I do get a box every couple months. But there’s probably 8 other things in my pantry I’m not aware of despite trying to research it.
Boycotts usually don’t work because they’re full of holes. Putting (material) economic pressure on Russia is a very fresh thing that is having real impact. I’m happy to sign up for that kind of boycott.
Some companies perform more evil acts, or choose a more political stance, making them a better target for boycotts. I try to boycott the more evil ones, but to each his own.
I agree that the Free Market is really badly suited to having morals.
Is it not particularly to boycott and, should the need arise, even toss said goods into the Boston harbor!?
Also, IMO, boycotts to convince a company to change <> boycotts because you don’t like how the goods are made.
The former requires a massive scale and organization. The latter just works instantly: If you don’t want a slave to make a shirt, then don’t buy a shirt made by a slave.
If it was just views, I would not be as adamant. They contribute significant monies to anti-LGBT causes, and I will not contribute to that
I’m not suggesting everyone should drink the tea. I’m just saying that if I like the tea and I can afford the taxes, I’ll buy the tea. If I find out the tea leaves are harvested by slaves I might not drink it. But then I have a dilemma bc I don’t know if ALL the tea leaves are harvested by slaves.
It is easier to make decisions about tea buying when there is a monopoly, but that opens up another can of worms.
Maybe I’ll buy a patch of woods next to Thoreau’s place.
Umm, no. Bad logic.
Replace “you” with “someone”, and you have a leg to stand on. But just because I boycott one company does not imply I might boycott all other companies. That’s just silliness.
When a firm uses its political views as a marketing tool, then don’t be surprised if everyone doesn’t feels warmly towards the company. It’s a two edged sword.
There are bars that attract a clientele I Just don’t feel comfortable around. I don’t go there. Even if the drinks are cheap. It’s not the product I am finding unacceptable. It’s the confederate flags and the posters demeaning certain minorities. I’ll take a hard pass.
That ok by you?
It’s fine by me, but boycotting multinational corporations is totally different. I guarantee at every company in America with over 10,000 employees there are homophobic, racist, pedophile, etc, etc, etc. Sure it’s easy when it’s the redneck bar down the street, but when we start talking about McDonald’s or Cooca Cola it’s impossible to determine what or who they stand for or against. I think at that point it’s an exercise in futility. Also that bar with Confederate flags. Those are there for the explicit purpose of making sure certain people don’t go there. They are purposefully unwelcoming so that’s a totally different dynamic.
Again, a bad take. The “explicit” purpose is to attract a set of customers. The purpose you cite might be implicit,
And there is a world of difference between “some rank and file employees” and the CEO. For my part, I’ll avoid My Pillow, thank you. It has nothing to do with how some of the shipping clerks there vote. I don’t give a rats ass about their views. They aren’t contributing 6 and 7 digit amounts to any cause. Again, I’ll take a hard pass. (Btw, I’ll steer clear of Trump properties, based solely on the CEOs behavior).
That’s how the free market works. Vote with your wallet, mate. I’m fine if you think I’m depriving myself to no purpose. But I feel better all the same. And that is effect enough for me.
There are two levels of “boycotts” being discussed.
Personal boycotts (“I won’t do business with _____”) that may or may not have any impact on the “business” but could be persuasive to another to join.
“Societal” boycotts (“You shouldn’t do business with _______”) are intended to affect some sort of change on the “business.” A subset of this group is the “Cancel-Culture” boycotts that usually intend to “eliminate” the “business”.
Stating opinions about one doesn’t necessarily imply the same opinion applies to the other.
I don’t eat at chik filet because it’s not good.
Exactly what I am getting at.
I’ve never tried it, but the one near me always seems to have a big line