|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Don't cross the picket line. Boycotts are organized things designed to leverage consumer power into behavior change from institutions. They're very difficult to pull off and telling people to not eat CFA is not the same thing as a boycott. Their sales are through the roof and any changes they've undertaken are due to PR not the sting of lost revenue.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Because people crossed the picket line. Like that's the entire point. Currently, workers at frito lay are striking and asking for a boycott of their products and products of their company's parent company Pepsi. You can be for them, or against them, but you dont get to give their opponents material aid when they asked for you not to do that and pretend you support their labor movement because other thing bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Here's how I'm seeing it: So you won't change your actions because there's a chance you might go to a restaurant that you made up that does bad things that you don't know about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Because people crossed the picket line. Like that's the entire point. Is there an organized Frito Lay boycott? There's a difference between people saying 'don't buy from them' as a PR move and a labor group strategically organizing the stopping/starting of patronage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Here is a past effortpost I did on megachurch investment practices. To be clear, there are plenty of businesses that pursue the church crowd by renting from adjacent megachurch properties (Roark capital, who are a Rand cult at the top layer, try to take advantage of church adjacency where possible, and plenty of apolitical entities do as well). I am aware of no other large-scale food chain that does it as universally, and directly to tap into the culture war, as Chik-fil-a. Other food companies do bad things for profit, but few directly tap into conservative christian identity politics as their core model compared to Chik-fil-a. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Yes. There also was a organized boycott of Cfa, and while it wasn't successful, and the right wing outrage machine made it one of their culture wars, it forced people to visibly take a side. Now people are reneging and saying they crossed the picket line, but they really didnt mean it and identifying themselves as utterly useless when it comes to action.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Golbez posted:
Thanks, I will. It's not about shutting them down or hurting their bottom line. It's about queer people saying "hey, if you support us maybe don't eat at a restaurant that's made hating us part of their brand". You don't have to listen of course, but don't be surprised when queer people treat you the same as any other bog standard homophobe. Not saying you are, but I mean, if not eating a specific chicken sandwich is too much sacrifice for you, then I know that you'll never have our backs when the stakes are more important and there are actual consequences, which basically puts you on the same level. The thing you don't seem to understand is that yes, it's largely an empty gesture, it won't hurt their bottom line or lead to them shutting down, but there still value in the action specifically because it shows you support a community that traditionally has had very little support. It also shows that you have enough empathy that you can put the needs of others ahead or your own wants. If you eat at CFA, all you're really doing is sending the message that queer people need to be careful around you because you'll sell them down the river for nothing more than a chicken sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Yes. There also was a organized boycott of Cfa, and while it wasn't successful, and the right wing outrage machine made it one of their culture wars, it forced people to visibly take a side. Now people are welshing and saying they crossed the picket line, but they really didnt mean it and identifying themselves as utterly useless when it comes to action. https://www.live5news.com/2021/07/14/sen-lindsey-graham-says-he-will-go-war-chick-fil-a-some-notre-dame-students-disapprove-restaurant/ Lindsey Graham is huge bloviating dipshit, but he knows his reliable constituency. upstate megachurch hicks
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Now people are welshing can we not be bigoted against the Welsh people please
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
das hipster posted:Thanks, I will. I agree that there's value in showing symbolic solidarity. However the lack of material harm from an individual purchasing a chicken sandwich means rhetoric about how it proves people don't value the lives and rights of LGBT people is a lot of extrapolation and is worth looking at critically. The thread title 'no ethical consumption' points to the fact that we do pick our battles under an unethical system and we can turn pretty much any consumer decision into criticism if we're motivated to do so. MixMasterMalaria fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
thalweg posted:So you won't change your actions because there's a chance you might go to a restaurant that you made up that does bad things that you don't know about? Not a chance, it's absolutely guaranteed that they do bad things. All companies are bad, if not directly, then upwards in their supply chain (hence the Tyson exampple). That's one reason why people say there's no ethical consumption in capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Not a chance, it's absolutely guaranteed that they do bad things. All companies are bad, if not directly, then upwards in their supply chain (hence the Tyson exampple). That's one reason why people say there's no ethical consumption in capitalism. Okay let's step back - do you think there are any expression of values that are appropriately or practically manifested through consumer decisions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:can we not be bigoted against the Welsh people please
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
i'm going to end bigotry forever by eating the correct hamburger
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:I agree that there's value in showing symbolic solidarity. However I the lack of material harm from a chicken sandwich purchase means rhetoric about how it proves people don't value the lives and rights of LGBT people is a lot of extrapolation and worth looking at critically. It means that as a queer person, I can't tell who has my back or who would rather see me stripped of my rights or worse. The only way I can determine that is through a person's actions. If a person can't even abide by a simple request to not eat at a place that openly supports homophobia and fights against queer rights, then those actions tell me that when the mob comes for me, they won't lift a finger to help. If you don't want fleas, don't lay down with dogs. Edit: Yes, everything we consume is ethically questionable and yes you do have to pick and choose your battles. No one is saying you can't eat at CFA, I'm just saying that you don't get to eat there and then claim that you support the queer community. You can have one or the other, but not both, and queer people have every right to call you on it. das hipster fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Not a chance, it's absolutely guaranteed that they do bad things. All companies are bad, if not directly, then upwards in their supply chain (hence the Tyson exampple). That's one reason why people say there's no ethical consumption in capitalism. As I've said multiple times, the point of the phrase is not a carte blanche to absolve one of all guilt, but to outline points where we don't have choice. I feel like "maybe you shouldn't eat at the place that openly perpetuates bigotry in a way few other companies do" is a relatively small ask in this context. Golbez posted:So, go ahead, keep shaming people for eating at CFA. It's the most fundamental example of virtue signaling I think I've seen. You get to feel good about it; nothing changes; and CFA gets more money to spend on anti-gay poo poo. It's almost like they get more money because of people throwing up their hands and deciding they can't choose better, and/or spite buying. Nothing is changing because people refuse to change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Divesting yourself of all responsibility for your purchases because you (incorrectly) think it's impossible to be even slightly better is a tremendous feat of both nihilism and cognitive dissonance. If you have someone sitting down and explaining why this one particular purchase is bad you are being given the chance to be incrementally better and declining to do so. You decide what is important to you, where you draw the line, and what you're willing to ignore and passing the ownership of that decision off to the weirdly fallacious argument that "other businesses are also bad" is ludicrous. It takes functionally nothing on your part to just get some other chicken sandwich. Okay, sure, they all source their poo poo from god-awful Tyson but at least when I get one from Burger King I'm not directly supporting a company that directly invested large amounts of money in not just denying gays rights but into literal anti-LGBT hate groups in the early 00's. little munchkin posted:i'm going to end bigotry forever by eating the correct hamburger which strawman sounds more sane, yours or "im going to ignore everything bad and pretend i have no free will of any degree when it comes to purchases"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Actually, proudly not considering the civil rights of others in your purchasing decisions is vice signaling. Participating in a civil rights action is actually participating in a civil rights action. I'm going to end racism by not riding the bus lol MLK dumb. I'm going to end migrant worker exploitation by not eating grapes, lol Caesar Chavez dumb. Like I get it, but don't act like consciously choosing to go against a civil rights action isn't picking a side and is instead this high minded commitment to everything is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
its really more about refusing to engage with the brand of the bigot sandwich, not whether or not the sandwich is actually made by a bigot company. trying to figure out the guilt quantum of chic fil a is pointless, regardless of the track record of the company or other similar companies, the chicken sandwich has become swept up in the culture war as being anti-gay and thats just how it is now. eating the sandwich means some people are going to think you're a bigot. my mothers in law prefer chic fil a and their opinion means more to me than random internet people i'll never meet, but you've just got to be aware as a person in america in 2021 that eating the sandwich around some people will communicate to them that you secretly hate them
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Golbez posted:No ethical consumption in capitalism. I know that some folks want to just wave everything away, but this kind of stuff is just nonsense. Cedar Rapids has two Paneras, five Burger Kings, 10 Starbucks, and 15 Subways. This is a moral quandary that people are capable of navigating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
yeah saying “no ethical consumption under capitalism” isn’t like buying an indulgence from a priest. It just means “the corporate systems are incestuous as poo poo, make the best choices available”, and going to go to cfa is absolutely not making the best choice available like a phone is a better example of that mindset. You need a phone of some sort in modern society. There is no piece of electronic that’s not made in sweatshop conditions, so make the least bad choice. If you want to continue to shove fast food in your face, there are better choices. PenguinKnight fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Okay let's step back - do you think there are any expression of values that are appropriately or practically manifested through consumer decisions? An individual consumer? Eh. All an individual consumer can do is signal to their friends that they care in some way. They can't change anything of substance. Now, me, being a ciswhitehetmale who hasn't had to deal with the torrent of bullshit that LGBTQ people have, I cannot possibly understand what this means to them. And I'm starting to see that that kind of signaling is useful, to find out who your true allies are. But from a birds-eye view, it just looks like switching from one bad actor to another, with no benefit except good feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
Golbez posted:
Well, you can, but that would require listening and reflection instead of shouting about how we're a bunch of virtue signaling idiots who don't understand that all corporations are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I know that some folks want to just wave everything away, but this kind of stuff is just nonsense. Cedar Rapids has two Paneras, five Burger Kings, 10 Starbucks, and 15 Subways. This is a moral quandary that people are capable of navigating. And I can guarantee that every one of those corporations has either done horrible poo poo, or purchased from a company who does. Burger King buys from Tyson. I just don't understand why it matters so much to avoid the one that's public about it, when you know everyone else is just as bad, at some level. And I also don't understand why it matters so much more to avoid this one just because they're public about it. When was the last time you asked the person you do business with how much they donate to anti-gay causes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
das hipster posted:It means that as a queer person, I can't tell who has my back or who would rather see me stripped of my rights or worse. The only way I can determine that is through a person's actions. Okay well it's certainly your right to weigh the symbolic action so heavily, though I think people also have a say in defining what sort of message they're sending with their behavior by expressing their intentions. Obviously it's a negotiation between performer and viewer, but if someone is telling you that they 100% do not have the intention to signal lack of solidarity when they buy that chicken sandwich AND there's very little (if any) demonstrable material harm from them doing so then it's worth considering if 'they don't care if I live or die' is the most supported conclusion to draw or if discarding them as allies is a strategically beneficial response for protecting civil rights. edit: also I'm sorry if my having eaten CFA has ever made you or anyone feel unsafe or disrespected. I would have your back in a mob scenario. Golbez posted:An individual consumer? Eh. All an individual consumer can do is signal to their friends that they care in some way. They can't change anything of substance. I think food choices have a lot of implications for society and our own lives. We are literally what we eat, as trite as that is to say, and I'm of the opinion that we build ourselves into compassionate people by prioritizing small choices that underpin the sort of patterns or character we want to present in our lives. MixMasterMalaria fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Golbez posted:An individual consumer? Eh. All an individual consumer can do is signal to their friends that they care in some way. They can't change anything of substance. But it's not just "from one bad actor to another" but "one bad actor to one slightly less bad actor" or maybe even removing one bad actor from list. Like, if part of the problem is "the people fastfood source their stuff from is a bad actor" then surely removing a bad actor down the chain is still a net "positive"? I also think pushback is important, yeah, one less person going to a chicken chain isn't going to effect their bottom line, but that mindset ensures that there will never be an impact to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
Golbez posted:And I can guarantee that every one of those corporations has either done horrible poo poo, or purchased from a company who does. Burger King buys from Tyson. Not "just as bad". Multiple people have described why this entity, this specific one you are dealing with, is worse. You not knowing how all other entities behave does not make everything equally futile, nor does it shield you from the effects of your actions. You are reasoning toward ignorance and futility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Golbez posted:And I can guarantee that every one of those corporations has either done horrible poo poo, or purchased from a company who does. Burger King buys from Tyson. Did Burger King donate to anti-LGBT hate groups like CFA? I get that "the supply chain taints us all" or whatever, but I'm not talking about the supply chain I am talking about the substantive, proven, widely-known fact that CFA donated to some pretty horrendous causes as an end-point of this ghastly supply chain. Why would you not move to a different end point that hasn't done this, when presented with this information?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Golbez posted:And I can guarantee that every one of those corporations has either done horrible poo poo, or purchased from a company who does. Burger King buys from Tyson. Again, you cannot equate a company that donates overwhelmingly to Republicans and conservative culture warriors, with companies that have much better records and readily align themselves with Democrats and liberal causes. They are not alike, and no amount of "nothing matters" will change that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
PenguinKnight posted:yeah saying “no ethical consumption under capitalism” isn’t like buying an indulgence from a priest. It just means “the corporate systems are incestuous as poo poo, make the best choices available”, and going to go to cfa is absolutely not making the best choice available We find on examination that there really aren't, though. Pretty much every corporation in America donates huge amounts of money to Republicans on a scale that helps them compete in every state, for example, which every day is a more grotesque prospect. You'll be lucky to find one that also isn't dependent on overseas or even domestic slavery, or industrial-scale destruction of the environment. I don't really blame anyone for avoiding Chic-fil-a, but at this point there are no good choices, the only real difference appears in public relations efforts by the different companies. What's worse, personal boycotts really achieve nothing, this is stuff that has to be changed at the macro scale or effectively not at all. The CFAs in lefty stronghold Seattle have drive-thru lines going out onto the streets, if anything they are the most successful fast food out here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Golbez posted:And I can guarantee that every one of those corporations has either done horrible poo poo, or purchased from a company who does. Burger King buys from Tyson. Personally, I don't understand why having a subpar sandwich is so vitally important that it's fine to overlook and even defend open bigotry. Of course every corporation does bad things and should absolutely be poo poo on for it, you can't run a large business anywhere in capitalistic society without being an irredeemable monster on some level, but CFA has more-or-less made it's entire brand all about hating LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Golbez posted:And I can guarantee that every one of those corporations has either done horrible poo poo, or purchased from a company who does. Burger King buys from Tyson. because you just kind of vaguely know all of them are bad but the only one you're going to the mat for itt is the one you explicitly know is bad for specific reasons that have been repeatedly explained to you the corollary to "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" isn't "so just buy what you want from whoever, they're all evil in some way so who gives a poo poo!" it's "so make the best choices you can with the information you have" i get that you want to say it's unfair to slag off people who just want to eat a chicky sammy under capitalism but in doing so you are just reiterating that you have and will continue to make a worse choice, despite what you know, essentially because it's your goddamned right and that's. not a sympathetic position to take. so you will probably keep getting slagged off for it lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Golbez posted:When was the last time you asked the person you do business with how much they donate to anti-gay causes? Don't ask don't tell, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
I don't know how many times I should repost the various articles that have actually looked at the numbers and pointed out that 1. While many fast food chains donate to Republicans, Chick-fil-A is uniquely bad, and 2. There are several major fast food chains that mostly donate to Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I know that some folks want to just wave everything away, but this kind of stuff is just nonsense. Cedar Rapids has two Paneras, five Burger Kings, 10 Starbucks, and 15 Subways. This is a moral quandary that people are capable of navigating. Does Cedar Rapids not have an actual good sandwich shop? Is it all this garbage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:Well, you can, but that would require listening and reflection instead of shouting about how we're a bunch of virtue signaling idiots who don't understand that all corporations are bad. No, I can't, because, again, I can't possibly live their lives. I can't know what it's like to be constantly oppressed and beaten down. But thanks for thinking I could. I'm even softening a bit! I kind of understand why it matters when they're so public about it, but I still just cannot get why it's acceptable when it's even just one level abstracted. Most people telling me to stop eating at CFA would be fine with me getting a chicken sandwich from BK, despite them using Tyson. But, knowing that now, I'm probably less likely to get that from BK. Which means I should be less likely to patronize CFA. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:What's worse, personal boycotts really achieve nothing, this is stuff that has to be changed at the macro scale or effectively not at all. The CFAs in lefty stronghold Seattle have drive-thru lines going out onto the streets, if anything they are the most successful fast food out here. its worth pointing out that CFA has repeatedly bowed to public pressure and changed their charitable giving to be less lovely over time, but that hasn't really impacted the perception that the company is anti-gay - if anything, the claims are stronger now. the bigot brand is established and keeps getting re-established as the chicken sandwich becomes ever more of a cudgel in the culture wars
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Fast-food as an industry is monstrous on pretty much every possible level from animal cruelty to wages to your poo, I don't think anyone is denying this. Just don't go to bat for the one that also explicitly loathes gay people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:its worth pointing out that CFA has repeatedly bowed to public pressure and changed their charitable giving to be less lovely over time, but that hasn't really impacted the perception that the company is anti-gay - if anything, the claims are stronger now. the bigot brand is established and keeps getting re-established as the chicken sandwich becomes ever more of a cudgel in the culture wars it really hasn’t, though. it’s only hidden it better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
little munchkin posted:i'm going to end bigotry forever by eating the correct hamburger Apparently it matters more than voting. das hipster posted:It means that as a queer person, I can't tell who has my back or who would rather see me stripped of my rights or worse. The only way I can determine that is through a person's actions. I don't eat at this restaurant and never will but it's worth pointing out that whether someone eats there tells you gently caress all about their values or the strength of their character. Depending on where and who we're talking about it's just as likely they avoid the place cause it has a bad rep and they don't want to look uncool - in which case they're just riding with the crowd and would flip sides in a second if the social situation flipped. It's more than a bit embarrassing to pretend that a boycott that give the joint free advertising, branding and a new die-hard loyal customer base reflects a sacrifice that shows moral character. I'm not trying to ride a high-horse here, just putting things in perspective. I'm disabled and poor as poo poo, despite that me and my and the husband still opened our guestroom so some fellow guys who were escaping DV situations would have a place to hide out during the pandemic. But y'know, That's not really a great measurement of our moral character either. It's just something we were able to do that most people would not be able to do, so we did it. It wasn't like being in a protest with a real possibility that you could get hurt or blacklisted, and socially speaking providing shelter to victims of domestic abuse makes people think you are cooler than you really are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 20:58
|
|
