|
Zanziabar posted:So by thread-logic, you can't enjoy the works of Michael Jackson or Marlon Brando without being complicit in sexual abuse and rape. Like if you brought a MJ album or track from 1993 - 2005, there's a good chance that money went to his defence. I mean, you've got other musicians to listen to and actors to watch.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
BonoMan posted:I don't think this is true at all. They have a very streamlined ordering experience PLUS a massive customer base that eats their daily. It's not artificially long. Nothing they are doing is stalling or lengthening the line. They are just able to split it into two lines and they have people out in the lines taking orders and making sure it all goes smoothly. This has the effect where people are "ok" with the lines being long because it still runs fast. Therefore they don't just decide to go somewhere else etc. Yeah, that is what I'm saying, they do the line weird so it's long, but not actually slow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, that is what I'm saying, they do the line weird so it's long, but not actually slow. But your post makes it sounds like something that is designed. Nothing about their design makes the line long. There really *is* just a huge loving demand and they had to redesign their line process to handle it. It's not some artificial guerilla marketing thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I don't think this is true at all. They have a very streamlined ordering experience PLUS a massive customer base that eats their daily. It's not artificially long. Nothing they are doing is stalling or lengthening the line. They are just able to split it into two lines and they have people out in the lines taking orders and making sure it all goes smoothly. This has the effect where people are "ok" with the lines being long because it still runs fast. Therefore they don't just decide to go somewhere else etc. yeah that comment about artificially inflating the size of the line is utterly wrong. part of why CFA does such good business is because they've standardized the ordering process fast food is all about standardization, typically ensuring the food itself is the same every time. CFA is one of a handful of companies (in-n-out is another) which pays attention to really ensuring prompt service on the drive through line. a fast food eater isn't going to want to wait 20 minutes for a burger they can get somewhere else, and at most places a big line means "drat, this place is backed up or short staffed, i'll go somewhere else". a big line at CFA (or in-n-out) moves quickly because the restaurant places staff to take orders from people waiting in line, using a process which minimizes order confusion, so that by the time you pull up to the window they only need to hand you the food to minimize the amount of time you spend waiting (thus, holding up the line). some fast food joints don't invest this much in order-taking, usually leaving just one worker to take orders and run the cash, and the rest of the kitchen to assemble the ticket. the better practice is to put multiple people on taking orders, because usually the order taking and confirming is a bigger bottleneck than the actual food prep from a business perspective, CFA has the best line management in the business, which means not only do they capture more sales during peak business hours but they're more attractive to customers because you know you're not going to be waiting forever for a cheap sandwich during your lunch hour. here's a pic of an in-n-out worker taking orders down the line, in the parking lot :format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19961068/2020_05_08_LongDriveThrough_003.jpg)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Zanziabar posted:So by thread-logic, you can't enjoy the works of Michael Jackson or Marlon Brando without being complicit in sexual abuse and rape. Like if you brought a MJ album or track from 1993 - 2005, there's a good chance that money went to his defence. I mean, you've got other musicians to listen to and actors to watch. like people have said, it's the implied political endorsement on top of everything else for better and for worse, over the last decade chik fil a has become a politicized entity in the US, regardless of what any of the company's employees, franchisees, or management personally believe or would like. It's kind of like how driving a Hummer (or now a brodozer truck/jeep) became a signifier for a certain kind of belligerent conservatism and driving a hybrid or electric vehicle has at times been publicly perceived as a political or "virtue signalling" act as well. Chicken is politics when the prevailing narrative in the social sphere is that you either support LGBTQ rights/conservative Christian values or oppose them. And you can stand athwart the crowd and yell "it's just chicken, I just wanna eat the most delicious and convenient one" but you can't simply will something to stop having meaning because you personally don't subscribe to that interpretation. People have a right to see that as uncaring (or endorsing), and they will. I think with artistic works, it's a personal decision. Keep in mind that albums and films, etc. are works of many collective people, so avoiding a film because of a problematic director or writer or actor means avoiding the work done by the rest of the cast and crew. For me, it's a backward/forward thing. It's awful to do good work on a project and then have people bury it in the future because everybody finds out that the lead actor was a rapist, or to bond with a work as a consumer and then have that experience ruined for you later (when I was a kid, The Cosby Show on Nick at Nite was my excuse to stay up past 9 on a weeknight, and my parents allowed it because the show was so wholesome). But if like you're an artist or producer and you know that somebody's tainted, and you work with them anyway then that's something else entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Can you explain how you got that from anything anyone has said in this thread? I mean there *are* people who think that, but I haven't seen that being presented as logic here. The situation there is not similar to Chickfil's shittiness, because they explicitly, actively and openly endorsed lovely behavior as part of their brand while they were still operating. It's not just about the money. If Michael Jackson was saying "sexual abuse is cool and good" while selling albums and giving some of the profits to causes trying to legalize sexual abuse, and you bought an album, that would be equivalent to the Chicken Situation. Like, a defense fund for himself having done lovely stuff is totally different from endorsing the position "this lovely thing should be how things are for everyone". Not that MJ's stuff is fine, but it's also not actively trying to make all of society go to poo poo. Sure man, I might be taking this out of context but this from the first page "A Terrible Person' posted posted:If you eat at Chick-fil-A, you're just a piece of poo poo, period. There's this one too. 'das hipster' posted posted: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. I mean I've literally seen the argument that consuming any of MJ's media is ethically dubious to what he did. I throw my hands up and acknowledge he's not even the best example of an individual that's literally done what you've said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Isn't what MJ did heavy contended, and at worst, complicated? What CFA is doing is not complicated. You know what your money is going to. There isn't really nuance, and "just get a different chicken sandwich" is a lot more achievable then "just listen to a different MJ"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
I'm just continuously amazed by the lengths libs will go to defend their favorite tenders when they should just admit they don't care tendies are too good!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
The two examples you picked being both dead really weakens the argument regarding giving them money or supporting actions they take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:Isn't what MJ did heavy contended, and at worst, complicated? this is true, but it doesn't really matter. if public opinion decided he's a pederast then that is that, its pedo music now
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Can you explain how you got that from anything anyone has said in this thread? I mean there *are* people who think that, but I haven't seen that being presented as logic here. The situation there is not similar to Chickfil's shittiness, because they explicitly, actively and openly endorsed lovely behavior as part of their brand while they were still operating. It's not just about the money. If Michael Jackson was saying "sexual abuse is cool and good" while selling albums and giving some of the profits to causes trying to legalize sexual abuse, and you bought an album, that would be equivalent to the Chicken Situation. Like, a defense fund for himself having done lovely stuff is totally different from endorsing the position "this lovely thing should be how things are for everyone". Not that MJ's stuff is fine, but it's also not actively trying to make all of society go to poo poo. A far better question would be, instead of Michael Jackson and Marlon Brando, the names were Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. They both make amazing movies, but they're both rather dismal creatures. The worst for me is Polanski, because I think The Pianist is one of the most important movies ever made, and it's really REALLY lovely that he made it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
Source4Leko posted:I'm just continuously amazed by the lengths libs will go to defend their favorite tenders when they should just admit they don't care tendies are too good! No one's really doing that anymore ITT? The one person who was saying that seems to have changed their mind, or at least rethinking it, after discussions with a long-time friend (please correct me if I misinterpreted your post, Golbez). Sorry to disappoint you about us "libs"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Death of the Chicken Fryer Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:this is true, but it doesn't really matter. if public opinion decided he's a pederast then that is that, its pedo music now But the issue at hand is money going towards people causing harm. I suppose the point was a "at the time thing" but it's hard not to point out that again, with CFA we know definitively at this time that their money is going to groups that cause harm. I doubt there will be some revelation down the road that the situation was more complicated then we knew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:Isn't what MJ did heavy contended, and at worst, complicated? It definitely could be! I'm from New Zealand so I don't have the same contextual understanding of CFA as you do. I never saw the anti-LGBTQ+ (which isn't to say it didn't happen) advertisement they funded here in NZ and I'm very fortunate to have grown up in a fairly liberal society with same-sex marriages being legalized back in 2013. There's individuals and the actions that they do that are also equally not complicated. I mentioned Chris Brown earlier, he was convicted and what he did is largely undisputed. As you say, there's not really nuance to what he did and yet he still has millions of followers who buy his albums, his merchandise and listen to his music. Admittedly, he's not bankrolling advertisements for domestic violence Ok Comboomer posted:like people have said, it's the implied political endorsement on top of everything else I like this post. What about athletes? We have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court as an excellent example of a currently alive, famous person who channels her income into ethically dubious campaigns. She won 24 Grand Slam singles titles in total and was the first woman to do so. She's also a well-known TERF and runs a christian ministry and frequently speaks out against LGBTQ issues. You could argue about that any money she received through her athletics accolades get subsequently funded into pushing her political/religious agenda. Can you separate Margaret Court the pioneering female athlete from the religious bigot or is it all just tainted and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:But the issue at hand is money going towards people causing harm. I suppose the point was a "at the time thing" but it's hard not to point out that again, with CFA we know definitively at this time that their money is going to groups that cause harm. I doubt there will be some revelation down the road that the situation was more complicated then we knew. i don't think really the issue is the money, as was pointed out upthread, money goes to all kinds of bad places due to your consumer purchasing and it is an enormous burden to avoid this the other side of the issue is the symbolism. to paraphrase forums poster Shere, "if you can't even abstain from a specific chicken sandwich, how do i know you respect my right to exist?" the ask is so small here that it seems absurd people wouldn't comply with the request. likewise, whether or not MJ was a pedophile, simply not choosing to listen to this music is a very small ask. its not so much about the harm continuing to exist, as CFA keeps retreating in its donations to public pressure - its that CFA has materially contributed to this harm in the past, the harm was already done, the company is now associated with bigotry, and conscious consumption of the product is then tacit support of bigotry. at least thats how the argument goes i think MJ is a bit of a bad example here because the allegations against him are so contentious. a better example would be david bowie, who definitely had a theatrically fascist period in the peak of his substance abuse, and who (like many other musicians of the era) absolutely slept with children
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The two examples you picked being both dead really weakens the argument regarding giving them money or supporting actions they take. The estates of the deceased can still sadly contribute to causes way way way past the persons original death. Edit to remove something not correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
I trust that everyone here is only driving union-made cars, correct? https://uaw.org/solidarity_magazine/buy-union-2021-uaw-built-vehicles-list/
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Whether you continue to listen to a dead abuser's music is up to you. I feel that their works should be eschewed in modern media in favor of the countless other content creators producing good music without abusing anyone. If you desperately need to listen to "Dance, Magic, Dance" and your enjoyment of it hasn't been ruined forever by the abuse allegations, go nuts, the only person that's reflecting upon is you. I'd say in general, I cannot justify for myself continuing to listen to abuser works, but if you want to take this discussion back over to the #metoo thread where it came up before I'm more than happy to. It seems outside the scope of this thread. CFA is still actively contributing to these campaigns, though, which is something we can confidently say because we're not toddlers who get confused by peekaboo, so the comparison is moot. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jul 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i don't think really the issue is the money, as was pointed out upthread, money goes to all kinds of bad places due to your consumer purchasing and it is an enormous burden to avoid this I still think there's an important distinction between verifiable harm and unverifiable harm. CFA's contributions to harm aren't just in the past, they are ongoing as we keep catching them flipping between saying they'll stop and getting caught doing it again. They've also become a bit of a point to rally around for anti-LBGT folk in a way that kind of empowers those groups. I feel like I don't really see people rally around a music creator's problematic behavior in a way that they outright support it, though, in many cases, turning a blind eye or giving cover can still be harmful/problematic. The small ask to not to buy CFA is different then a small ask to not to listen to a particular musician is not a direct comparison - you can very much not contribute financially to a creator. Can't really eat a CFA burger without paying them, unless you use a taste-alike recipe, which I think people highly encourage? I can also see where people see the difference between supporting a single harmful person vs. a corporation that is giving money to groups that are directly working against rights of minorities. This is still very much a "not all harm is equal" situation where the reasonability of patronizing has to be weighed with multiple factors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:I still think there's an important distinction between verifiable harm and unverifiable harm. CFA's contributions to harm aren't just in the past, they are ongoing as we keep catching them flipping between saying they'll stop and getting caught doing it again. They've also become a bit of a point to rally around for anti-LBGT folk in a way that kind of empowers those groups. right, this is the symbolism. your consumer purchasing supports a lot of very bad causes. nobody can escape that, we live in a society, lets move on once some brand becomes associated with bigotry, abuse, or other negative social behaviors, then what is the duty of the consumer of that brand? is it possible for CFA to meaningfully sever ties with bigoted donations? since it is still owned by a conservative christian family who donates their chicken profits to regressive causes, what is necessary for CFA to shake off this bigot brand, if that is even possible? once social regressives tout the brand as representing them somehow, is the bigotry permanently locked in? Oxyclean posted:The small ask to not to buy CFA is different then a small ask to not to listen to a particular musician is not a direct comparison - you can very much not contribute financially to a creator. the material support angle is distinct from the symbolism angle. i can make my own bootleg MJ merch but wearing it around is going to give people ideas about my stance re: child abuse
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:right, this is the symbolism. your consumer purchasing supports a lot of very bad causes. nobody can escape that, we live in a society, lets move on Yeah this is what I'm trying to drive at. The way I read the thread is that is never ethically correct to eat from CFA while they continue to fund anti-LGBTQ efforts but if/when that ever stops, is the brand permanently ruined. Can they be redeemed? I dunno, it's all hypothetical and certainly the behavior you all mention doesn't seem to indicate a serious willingness to change. Also apologies for the derail. I saw the scope of the thread being about ethical consumerism and thought that applied to well, the works of artists and musicians as much as it did to corporations. Happy to take it to another thread though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Zanziabar posted:Also apologies for the derail. I saw the scope of the thread being about ethical consumerism and thought that applied to well, the works of artists and musicians as much as it did to corporations. Happy to take it to another thread though. I think it does, but they can't keep abusing people while dead or resume doing so. CFA can say it's going to stop, but it's said that before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Zanziabar posted:Yeah this is what I'm trying to drive at. The way I read the thread is that is never ethically correct to eat from CFA while they continue to fund anti-LGBTQ efforts but if/when that ever stops, is the brand permanently ruined. Can they be redeemed? I dunno, it's all hypothetical and certainly the behavior you all mention doesn't seem to indicate a serious willingness to change. I mean I'm not a mod, and I do think it's in the same vein of thought for sure, but the discussion w/r/t Bowie and Jackson are fraught with the feelings around abuse and cannot be discussed without getting into that abuse and how it's handled. Contrast to the above though, I do not actually personally care if a fried chicken fast food restaurant can ever be redeemed for its actions. It's capitalism, if they went bankrupt tomorrow then someone else would fill the greasy void.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:right, this is the symbolism. your consumer purchasing supports a lot of very bad causes. nobody can escape that, we live in a society, lets move on It's not like social regressives hijacked the brand or CFA resents that they have socially regressive clientele. I feel like a lot of the heat of this issue is because LGBT (and namely trans rights) are very hot button right now - a lot of the comparisons to problematic creators ring a bit hollow because we are not seeing their problems being used as a flashpoint to erode rights. A perhaps better creator to bring up might be JK Rowling, which many LGBT folk would encourage you to not financially or symbolically support either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Shere posted:It's capitalism, if they went bankrupt tomorrow then someone else would fill the greasy void. CFA is definitely not going bankrupt anytime soon so whether or not they can be redeemed is a question they themselves will be exploring over the next decade Oxyclean posted:It's not like social regressives hijacked the brand or CFA resents that they have socially regressive clientele. i dont think CFA is in a position where they can actively reject social regressives (very, very few companies are) but i also think social regressives have definitely hijacked the brand. politicians often use CFA as shorthand for "anti gay company" or "liberals who hate a proud christian company", and i've seen screenshots of chud podcasts where the hosts are sitting around with their drink cups with the CFA logo pointed directly at the camera. it is a thing people visibly consume because in their mind it triggers snowflakes Oxyclean posted:A perhaps better creator to bring up might be JK Rowling, which many LGBT folk would encourage you to not financially or symbolically support either. yeah this is probably the best example, i wonder how many people with potter tattoos feel about the brand now
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:CFA is definitely not going bankrupt anytime soon so whether or not they can be redeemed is a question they themselves will be exploring over the next decade CFA could certainly do the same, but I think you might be right that they can't because they don't want to piss of a lucrative base. On the other hand, ActiBlizz even put up unskippable splash screens in Call of Duty showing support for BLM, and that of all games in particular strikes me as the one that would have wanted to play it safe with the chuds. So, I think CFA -could- do it, but they don't really want to because they value the chud money more then the "socially conscious" money that nearly every other corp is pandering for now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Rowling's a good co-example because yea she's alive and still making royalty bucks, and because so many HP fans have been desperate to find ways to support the brand they love without supporting her since she started being (openly) transphobic (and racist, and sexist, HP books are trash and JK is trash) much like w/ Chik-fil-a the correct answer is "please don't support them with even a fraction of your money, c'mon, but if you do anyway, please just shut the gently caress up and accept that people are going to judge you for it, oh well, that's what you get for centering a trashy brand instead of the feelings of real people"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Source4Leko posted:I'm just continuously amazed by the lengths libs will go to defend their favorite tenders when they should just admit they don't care tendies are too good! i'm not a lib, and i don't even live in america, but i wouldn't change my choice of tendies over the exact way in which the tendie vendor is poo poo even while i'm on break from erecting a community-owned guillotine
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I think the most interesting part of this thread is how identity via brand consumption choices is so deeply ingrained in the neoliberal worldview that this thread was made, and has reached six pages, largely because Golbez was offended that someone said "If you eat at Chick-fil-A, you're just a piece of poo poo, period." I'm sure everyone, or nearly everyone, in this thread has eaten CFA before, either before you knew about what the company donates to, or because you were in a bind, or even because that's what someone else wanted or got for you and you just didn't want to be weird about it, but to identify yourself -- to yourself -- as a Chick-fil-A eater and take offense at the denigration of Chick-fil-A eaters is really darkly fascinating. At any rate, I think misadventurous has it right: misadventurous posted:much like w/ Chik-fil-a the correct answer is "please don't support them with even a fraction of your money, c'mon, but if you do anyway, please just shut the gently caress up and accept that people are going to judge you for it, oh well, that's what you get for centering a trashy brand instead of the feelings of real people" You've probably eaten CFA in the past. You probably will in the future, frankly, even if you are specifically trying to avoid it. If you do, for God's sake, do the decent thing and shut the gently caress up about it and don't make eating CFA part of who you are as a person
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Source4Leko posted:I'm just continuously amazed by the lengths libs will go to defend their favorite tenders when they should just admit they don't care tendies are too good! i don't think anyone is this thread is specifically saying they like the taste of chick fil a too much. there's lots of reasons people might think you're a dipshit beyond their personal fast food preferences. i'll leave it to you to figure out what those reasons might be
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Aw gently caress you're right I am dumb as poo poo for bothering to post in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:
Probably not, it being a fairly rare restaurant outside of the south is kinda why it’s so easy for it to be a cultural signifier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
It is really about how easy the choice is made to me. For example I am privileged compared to most Americans (and most of the world) in having an functioning carbon-neutral public transport system and home electricity, more animal rights/employee protections in agriculture, pretty well developed system in food for recognizing sources/methods when buying things, organic/fair trade stuff abound, and the education/resources for making informed decisions. So I'd blame myself more for supporting bad things then someone in poverty for example. I wouldn't eat at Chick-fil-a. But none of that is as morally horrid as say, being a Trump supporter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Probably not, it being a fairly rare restaurant outside of the south is kinda why it’s so easy for it to be a cultural signifier. do you understand my point? because I cannot fathom why wanting to point out that there are no CFAs in Alaska or whatever the gently caress is relevant to anything at all here. Pretend Starbucks was caught doing some serious anti-LGBTQ poo poo if you need to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
I feel like "you will probably eat at the one in the future even if you are trying to avoid it" is a bit odd of a statement to make given I've avoided eating at Burger King in over a decade. (Not for political reasons) Feel like it's not that hard to avoid a particular restaurant chain with a small amount of effort? (But otherwise I agree with the point of "you don't need to make it part of your identity.")
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Source4Leko posted:Aw gently caress you're right I am dumb as poo poo for bothering to post in D&D. Don't do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:do you understand my point? because I cannot fathom why wanting to point out that there are no CFAs in Alaska or whatever the gently caress is relevant to anything at all here. Pretend Starbucks was caught doing some serious anti-LGBTQ poo poo if you need to. If McDonald’s ever did anything bad it’d never pick up the level of culture war signifier. Chick fil a easily carries it because it’s so easy to never go to or see one. You are never on a long road trip or in an airport or watching your sisters kid and having cfa as the only convenient choice. Ronald could eat a baby on tv and people would still go to McDonald’s, there is millions of them and they are everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:Isn't what MJ did heavy contended, and at worst, complicated? Beyond dispute is the fact that he slept alone in a bed with a kid for 30 nights in a row. Although one parent was sleeping in another room, I don't see how this behavior is appropriate at all in any context. He had done this with multiple kids. Doctor Butts fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jul 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't do this. Insulting a poster = ok Me agreeing with them = not ok got it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Oxyclean posted:I feel like "you will probably eat at the one in the future even if you are trying to avoid it" is a bit odd of a statement to make given I've avoided eating at Burger King in over a decade. (Not for political reasons) Feel like it's not that hard to avoid a particular restaurant chain with a small amount of effort? It's not and I agree, I'm just saying that if you're out at a friend's place and they offer you a waffle fry and you eat it without realizing it's from Chik-fil-a it's not actually a big deal and I don't expect everyone in every situation to question every waffle fry they're ever offered. You eating or having eaten the potato isn't a political act of Christian reaction against the LGBTQ community, nor will avoiding spending even a cent on CFA cause the company to collapse. Avoiding patronizing CFA because is a small act of solidarity with your LGBTQ friends, or acquaintances, or even the community in the abstract is the right thing to do. It's the thing you should do. Actually eating the fry, or the sandwich, or whatever doesn't matter nearly as much as, when you hear someone complaining about "people who eat at Chik-fil-a", going "hey... they're talking about ME!", habitually patronizing CFA, recognizing yourself as a CFA enjoyer or whatever -- that does in fact align you against LGBTQ interests. Owlofcreamcheese posted:If McDonald’s ever did anything bad it’d never pick up the level of culture war signifier. Chick fil a easily carries it because it’s so easy to never go to or see one. You are never on a long road trip or in an airport or watching your sisters kid and having cfa as the only convenient choice. Ronald could eat a baby on tv and people would still go to McDonald’s, there is millions of them and they are everywhere. ok? who gives a poo poo? it doesn't matter that it's easy for it to pick up the cultural signifier, it's that it has picked up the cultural signifier. If it didn't have that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You shouldn't make any brand preferences part of your identity, regardless if there are a lot of Brand Xs in your specific region.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:37
|
|