Would you say the same of me not shopping at the "DEATH TO AMERICA" store? Have I "made a mistake" and was I "wrong to have done so"?
Probably not. Since those words were used specifically for this case.
I would rather say I'm not sure why you think someone holding a certain opinion is so disturbing to you that you would condemn an individual as unworthy of your money. Depending on your reasons, I'd probably say you're making a mistake.
I am attempting to differentiate between personal opinion and actions done in a manner that is legal and presumably accepted by most people living in the U.S. as a viable method of expressing your belief, and personal opinion and acting in a manner that is not presumably accepted by most people living in the U.s. as a viable method of expressing your belief.
Okay, if the CEO has no right to my business, then in what way am I not being supportive of his rights?
The people protested because he donated money in support of Prop. 8. Like it or not, that is a viable method of expressing your opinions regarding political/social issues. I really see no difference between this and him voting for Prop. 8. The man voted with his property, which is more than can be said for people who just vote. So in fact I see it as a stronger representation of his beliefs.
Probably not. Since those words were used specifically for this case.
I would rather say I'm not sure why you think someone holding a certain opinion is so disturbing to you that you would condemn an individual as unworthy of your money. Depending on your reasons, I'd probably say you're making a mistake.
People holding that sort of opinion isn't harmless. Lots of gay people have suffered lots of injustices because of him and people like him.
I am attempting to differentiate between personal opinion and actions done in a manner that is legal and presumably accepted by most people living in the U.S. as a viable method of expressing your belief, and personal opinion and acting in a manner that is not presumably accepted by most people living in the U.s. as a viable method of expressing your belief.
I don't really follow this sentence, I'm afraid.
The people protested because he donated money in support of Prop. 8. Like it or not, that is a viable method of expressing your opinions regarding political/social issues. I really see no difference between this and him voting for Prop. 8. The man voted with his property, which is more than can be said for people who just vote. So in fact I see it as a stronger representation of his beliefs.
This doesn't answer my question. In what way am I not supporting his rights?
Are you suggesting that we cannot have more than one type of business because the second you create another similar business you are hurting the first business. Please explain to me under what moral or legal definition of harm you are using to derive the harm that two competing business inflict on each other when by merely competing in the free market.
What? No. You're the one who brought up "harm" as if it means anything in particular. People talk about events hurting businesses and whatnot all the time. I am merely going off the same train of though.
It is generally accepted that strikes are meant to harm businesses to the point that they submit to the striker's will. That would be a perfectly normal way to define a strike. Yet, because the businesses have no actual right to a worker working at a certain time period and such for them, the strikers demanding shorter hours wouldn't actually be harming business, by the way you claimed that my statements are contradictory.
If you think harm is not the proper word to use here, then fine. Bring another up. I'm pretty sure you still know what I'm talking about and are just arguing semantics.
You keep throwing around the word hurt. This word has a very real definition even if it is used in a colloquial sense. So I need you to define harm because I really am confused. I cannot think of any legal or moral sense of the word harm where it would apply in your examples, arguments, or counter arguments.
Did you place hurt in quotation marks to signify that you are not talking about real hurt?
No *****? Are you really going to argue semantics? Really? Do you really think I'm talking about physical injury here? No, I'm pretty sure you're not. You're just being intentionally obstinate.
From dictionary.com-
to affect adversely; harm: to hurt one's reputation; It wouldn't hurt the lawn if you watered it more often.
From Merriam-Webster-
b : to be detrimental to : hamper <charges of graft hurt my chances of being elected>
From Macmillian Dictonary-
[TRANSITIVE] to cause damage or problems, or to harm someone's chance to succeed at something
From vocabulary.com-
cause damage or affect negatively
It is the method recognized by virtually all democratic governments and most of the greatest philosophers and political thinkers of history have determined that some form of democratic method of government is the most preferable method of governance?
Because, if you follow the method as stated theoretically by the Constitution and the ideals of its writers, those who are grieved always have a chance to address their grievances, or at least voice them so that they can actually be heard? (Imo, this is the most important thing)
And that is why blacks received their freedoms. Why women got their right to vote. And vice versa?
He is donating to a cause that says gays shouldn't have the same rights. That's it. I didn't say you said anything, that's what he actually did. This isn't about you. I'm not attacking you. I'm not saying you're stupid or intolerant or a bigot, I'm saying your perspective on what's fair is skewed.
Why is my perspective on what's fair skewed when I'm saying he should have all the rights everyone else does? That he seemingly doesn't hold the same belief doesn't exactly give me the right to remove rights from him.
If he's exercising his right to donate, we can exercise our right to not use his product. It's only censorship when the government decides he can't donate to a political cause. Public figures that donate to the KKK are ostracized from society, so they don't do it. Same thing. If you want to be able to donate to the KKK without any repercussions, you probably shouldn't live in a society where people hold opinions.
No, censorship can come from other sources than the government.
Hollywood silencing and blacklisting many supposed pro-communist and liberal writers, actors, and film-makers during the height of the Red Scare is an example of censorship.
As I've written multiple times, I fully realize that you have the right to boycott and protest. I just don't think it's a wise decision.
And, no, I don't think any opinion should be considered so dark as to be unmentionable. Otherwise homosexuality would never have become a topic that could be spoken in the open.
What? No. You're the one who brought up "harm" as if it means anything in particular. People talk about events hurting businesses and whatnot all the time. I am merely going off the same train of though.
Today I didn't go to the Deli down the street because I wasn't hungry. Did I harm their business?
People holding that sort of opinion isn't harmless. Lots of gay people have suffered lots of injustices because of him and people like him.
I never said it's not harmless... I am fully aware of the effects of Prop. 8, having a number of gay friends.
But that is how policy making and governance works. If you don't like the effects it has on you, and then you go through the existing methods of government and attempt to make it work for you. This is what millions of LGBT activists are doing right now. They work working through government to make society better for them.
"actions done in a manner that is legal and presumably accepted by most people living in the U.S. as a viable method of expressing your belief"= voting, donating to established political causes and/or initiatives.
"acting in a manner that is not presumably accepted by most people living in the U.s. as a viable method of expressing your belief"= beating someone with a stick because his opinion offends you and/or because his opinion hurts others.
This doesn't answer my question. In what way am I not supporting his rights?
These people protested someone for utilizing his rights in a manner that they do not think is good. Ergo, if he did use his rights in a manner that they do think is good, then they wouldn't have protested.
Thus, one way that someone can avoid being protested against is if he doesn't voice his opinion.
The issue I talk about would be comparable to if you went and convinced everyone else in town to boycott the business because his personal opinions offended you.
Edit- But even then, the above isn't perfectly matching. I am more disturbed because they got angry that he committed an action that is very important to the functioning of our government- political action, than the fact that they got angry over him being anti-gay.
To which I'll add a bit more- Intent matters. Boycotting=/= not eating at a place because you're not hungry.
I never said it's not harmless... I am fully aware of the effects of Prop. 8, having a number of gay friends.
But that is how policy making and governance works. If you don't like the effects it has on you, and then you go through the existing methods of government and attempt to make it work for you. This is what millions of LGBT activists are doing right now. They work working through government to make society better for them.
And one of the ways to do that is to avoid supporting activists for bad policies.
"actions done in a manner that is legal and presumably accepted by most people living in the U.S. as a viable method of expressing your belief"= voting, donating to established political causes and/or initiatives.
"acting in a manner that is not presumably accepted by most people living in the U.s. as a viable method of expressing your belief"= beating someone with a stick because his opinion offends you and/or because his opinion hurts others.
Hmmm...I don't really understand the relevance of the second part.
These people protested someone for utilizing his rights in a manner that they do not think is good. Ergo, if he did use his rights in a manner that they do think is good, then they wouldn't have protested.
Thus, one way that someone can avoid being protested against is if he doesn't voice his opinion.
So what? None of that impedes his right to voice his opinion or to donate to political causes.
The issue I talk about would be comparable to if you went and convinced everyone else in town to boycott the business because his personal opinions offended you.
Edit- But even then, the above isn't perfectly matching. I am more disturbed because they got angry that he committed an action that is very important to the functioning of our government- political action, than the fact that they got angry over him being anti-gay.
To which I'll add a bit more- Intent matters. Boycotting=/= not eating at a place because you're not hungry.
Either way, the business doesn't end up with my money. If it's because I don't like the owner or because I wasn't hungry doesn't change their bottom line. How can one be harming and the other not if both have the same exact impact?
And one of the ways to do that is to avoid supporting activists for bad policies.
Bad policies as defined by you.
But who are you to define what is bad and good? Isn't it all just your opinion in the end?
Note that this isn't me saying that homophobic is good or anything, or that gay rights is bad or anything. I am rather questioning the concept you seem to be bringing up. That is, so long as a policy is good, then we should support it. If a policy is bad, then we shouldn't support it.
But since whether a policy is good or bad is largely subjective and dependent on limited information, one cannot actually make an objective and absolute claim that a policy is good or bad.
Therefore, one cannot make the claim you made in the quote above without running into incredibly murky waters.
So what? None of that impedes his right to voice his opinion or to donate to political causes.
Fine. I will complete it for you.
Thus, one way that someone can avoid being protested against is if he doesn't voice his opinion. Ergo, if he doesn't want to get protested against, then he has no choice but to not voice his opinion.
Either way, the business doesn't end up with my money. If it's because I don't like the owner or because I wasn't hungry doesn't change their bottom line. How can one be harming and the other not if both have the same exact impact?
Two people died. In one case a man died because a man accidentally shot him. In another, a man died because a man deliberately shot him.
By your logic, the intent and circumstance is irrelevant. The end result is that a man died in both cases. Because both have the same impact, you cannot differentiate between one being an active intent to harm, and one not being an active intent to harm.
But who are you to define what is bad and good? Isn't it all just your opinion in the end?
Note that this isn't me saying that homophobic is good or anything, or that gay rights is bad or anything. I am rather questioning the concept you seem to be bringing up. That is, so long as a policy is good, then we should support it. If a policy is bad, then we shouldn't support it.
But since whether a policy is good or bad is largely subjective and dependent on limited information, one cannot actually make an objective and absolute claim that a policy is good or bad.
Therefore, one cannot make the claim you made in the quote above without running into incredibly murky waters.
Yes, it's my opinion. People can vote for bad candidates just as well as good candidates. That doesn't make voting bad or "murky waters". People can donate money to bad causes or good causes. That doesn't make donating bad or "murky waters". Boycotting is just like these other methods of advocating for change. It can be used for good or evil.
I'm sure you do.
That's a productive angle for you to take. :/
Fine. I will complete it for you.
Thus, one way that someone can avoid being protested against is if he doesn't voice his opinion. Ergo, if he doesn't want to get protested against, then he has no choice but to not voice his opinion.
Sounds like censorship to me.
If, for example, someone voices an ill-informed or ignorant opinion, people will think less of them. If someone doesn't want people to think less of them in this way, they have no choice but to not voice their opinion. Therefore thinking less of someone who says something dumb is censorship.
No. Censorship is when you prevent someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not merely actions having consequences. He is just as able to voice his opinions today as he was before this whole affair. He has not been censored in the least.
Two people died. In one case a man died because a man accidentally shot him. In another, a man died because a man deliberately shot him.
By your logic, the intent and circumstance is irrelevant. The end result is that a man died in both cases. Because both have the same impact, you cannot differentiate between one being an active intent to harm, and one not being an active intent to harm.
In both cases, the man was harmed. It has nothing to do with an intent to harm. It's harming a man if I shoot him deliberately, and harming him if I shoot him accidentally. Similarly, if it's harming the store for me to shop elsewhere because of the owner's views, it must also be harming the store for me to shop elsewhere because I'm not hungry, or whatever other reason. What I intend to do is irrelevant to the end effect on the store.
Yes, it's my opinion. People can vote for bad candidates just as well as good candidates. That doesn't make voting bad or "murky waters". People can donate money to bad causes or good causes. That doesn't make donating bad or "murky waters". Boycotting is just like these other methods of advocating for change. It can be used for good or evil.
The "murky waters" refers to the fact that your post insinuated that you can avoid doing harm through government by not supporting "bad policies".
And my question essentially was - how do you define "bad policies"?
If, for example, someone voices an ill-informed or ignorant opinion, people will think less of them. If someone doesn't want people to think less of them in this way, they have no choice but to not voice their opinion. Therefore thinking less of someone who says something dumb is censorship.
This is an awfully convenient way to look at it isn't it? Just decide with certainty that he is wrong and ignorant, and therefore what he says or believes in is "dumb"
And since when does "protesting someone"="thinking less of?"
No. Censorship is when you prevent someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not merely actions having consequences. He is just as able to voice his opinions today as he was before this whole affair. He has not been censored in the least.
Actions having consequences? So if an individual expressed his pro-gay opinions and acted on it and people boycotted him and forced him to be silent, then that is simply his actions having consequences?
In both cases, the man was harmed. It has nothing to do with an intent to harm. It's harming a man if I shoot him deliberately, and harming him if I shoot him accidentally. Similarly, if it's harming the store for me to shop elsewhere because of the owner's views, it must also be harming the store for me to shop elsewhere because I'm not hungry, or whatever other reason. What I intend to do is irrelevant to the end effect on the store.
Yes. If you do not spend money at a store, then the end result is that the store doesn't receive your money.
But I am differentiating between the intent behind why you chose not to spend money at a store. One is harmful, the other is not.
If you're not hungry and didn't want to eat, then you didn't choose to not eat at a store because you wanted to harm the business for a purpose.
If you boycott a store, then you chose to not eat at a store because you wanted to harm the business for a purpose.
The "murky waters" refers to the fact that your post insinuated that you can avoid doing harm through government by not supporting "bad policies".
And my question essentially was - how do you define "bad policies"?
We're all quite capable of reasoning out what we feel are good policies and bad policies. How do we manage to vote if we're not able to come up with what we think are good and bad ideas?
This is an awfully convenient way to look at it isn't it? Just decide with certainty that he is wrong and ignorant, and therefore what he says or believes in is "dumb"
And since when does "protesting someone"="thinking less of?"
Your biases are showing.
That was a separate example, not a description of the Mozilla case.
Actions having consequences? So if an individual expressed his pro-gay opinions and acted on it and people boycotted him and forced him to be silent, then that is simply his actions having consequences?
Boycotting someone does not force them to be silent.
Yes. If you do not spend money at a store, then the end result is that the store doesn't receive your money.
But I am differentiating between the intent behind why you chose not to spend money at a store. One is harmful, the other is not.
If you're not hungry and didn't want to eat, then you didn't choose to not eat at a store because you wanted to harm the business for a purpose.
If you boycott a store, then you chose to not eat at a store because you wanted to harm the business for a purpose.
My intent has no impact on whether they have my money.
I think we can all agree that I didn't harm my local deli by deciding not have lunch there today. This isn't harmful to them because the neutral state of affairs is that they don't have my money. Just as I'm not harming a beggar by not giving him the $20 in my pocket.
So, when I decide not to have lunch there because I don't like the owner, I'm still not harming them. They don't have my money, and that's just the way things were before I made any decision on the matter. Nothing has changed for them.
We're all quite capable of reasoning out what we feel are good policies and bad policies. How do we manage to vote if we're not able to come up with what we think are good and bad ideas?
And yet you think the man clearly supports a bad policy. Even though you just wrote "We're all capable of reasoning out what we feel are good policies and bad policies."
So, either the man is uniquely incapable of reasoning that out, or he reasoned out that Prop. 8 is a good policy, which you would disagree with.
My intent has no impact on whether they have my money.
I think we can all agree that I didn't harm my local deli by deciding not have lunch there today. This isn't harmful to them because the neutral state of affairs is that they don't have my money. Just as I'm not harming a beggar by not giving him the $20 in my pocket.
So, when I decide not to have lunch there because I don't like the owner, I'm still not harming them. They don't have my money, and that's just the way things were before I made any decision on the matter. Nothing has changed for them.
By this argument boycotts have no purpose and cannot actually do harm or place pressure on people in an attempt to force them to change...
And yet you think the man clearly supports a bad policy. Even though you just wrote "We're all capable of reasoning out what we feel are good policies and bad policies."
So, either the man is uniquely incapable of reasoning that out, or he reasoned out that Prop. 8 is a good policy, which you would disagree with.
Get the picture I'm trying to paint here
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that we all have magical powers that reveal to us the ultimate truth of any matter. I'm saying that when we want to determine if a political activity, be it a vote, a boycott, a donation, whatever is a good or bad thing, we can discuss and think about the merits of the idea being supported. We don't have to ham-fistedly declare that all boycotts are a bad idea because they might support bad things, or that all voting is a bad idea because people might vote for bad things, or that all donations are a bad idea because people might donate to bad causes.
No, we're not going to always agree on what a good cause or a bad cause is, especially not right away, but we have tools at our disposal to sort that out.
The impact can.
Nope, not forcing. Someone can weigh their options and decide they'd rather not be boycotted, but that's not the same as being forced. Consider the following example (which, like the previous example, is not intended to be a description of the Mozilla case):
I go around telling people I meet that I think child pornography should be legal. People look at me funny and don't want to be my friend. Have they forced me to stop advocating for this position? No, of course not. Even though I would have to stop advocating it if I wanted them to like me, they have not forced me to do anything.
Censorship is burning a book, or locking up a protester. It's preventing the person from expressing their view. Eich is not at all prevented from expressing his view.
By this argument boycotts have no purpose and cannot actually do harm or place pressure on people in an attempt to force them to change...
I agree, boycotts cannot force people to change. When you boycott something, you're simply refusing to support it. You've weighed the implications of giving them your business, and decided that, for one reason or another, you'd be better off spending your money elsewhere. You're not harming the target of your boycott. If people wanted to harm Mozilla they could go vandalize their offices, or DDOS their websites. They could assault Eich. That would be harmful, and that would be censorship.
The reason to boycott something isn't because you're going to muscle them into changing. It's that you're instead going to support something you feel is positive (or at least non-negative).
What? No. You're the one who brought up "harm" as if it means anything in particular. People talk about events hurting businesses and whatnot all the time. I am merely going off the same train of though.
You have not rectified this contradiction in my understanding of the word harm. Specifically financial harm.
No *****? Are you really going to argue semantics? Really? Do you really think I'm talking about physical injury here?
So you really are just using the word hurt in a colloquial sense. Are you using the word hurt for emotional effect? Is this just one big appeal to emotion?
I thought you were talking about real harm. Financial harm which is defined. I am unaware of how a boycott cause financial harm to a company.
If you are talking about harm to the C.E.O. that was not done by the boycotters. That was done by mozilla. Mozilla had a choice and they choose to fire him. Look at this article to see what I mean by a company having a choice. Honey Maid
This gets to the heart of what I have been arguing that you seem to just ignore constantly. A boycott is not force. Honey maid was not forced to do anything. They chose to do something.
It is the method recognized by virtually all democratic governments and most of the greatest philosophers and political thinkers of history have determined that some form of democratic method of government is the most preferable method of governance?
Because, if you follow the method as stated theoretically by the Constitution and the ideals of its writers, those who are grieved always have a chance to address their grievances, or at least voice them so that they can actually be heard? (Imo, this is the most important thing)
A boycott is
1.) Right to ownership of property.
2.) Right to freedom of assembly.
3.) Right to freedom of speech.
A boycott fits everything reason why you support the political donation process. This gets to the heart of your argument. It is special pleading.
You approve of one method of people pooling their money together to effect societal change and you disapprove of another method of people to pool their money together to create societal change. The intent behind the ballot initiative can not be reason to decry the action. You decry the boycott based on intention. You approve of tyranny of opinion in ballot initiatives. Complain about tyranny of opinion in boycotts.
Boycotts and political donations are very similar. The use of money to magnify speech. One difference between political donations and boycotts. Political donations are used to institutionalize bigotry when a boycott can never do this.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that we all have magical powers that reveal to us the ultimate truth of any matter. I'm saying that when we want to determine if a political activity, be it a vote, a boycott, a donation, whatever is a good or bad thing, we can discuss and think about the merits of the idea being supported. We don't have to ham-fistedly declare that all boycotts are a bad idea because they might support bad things, or that all voting is a bad idea because people might vote for bad things, or that all donations are a bad idea because people might donate to bad causes.
No, we're not going to always agree on what a good cause or a bad cause is, especially not right away, but we have tools at our disposal to sort that out.
This is exactly what I'm saying that we should be doing... not forcing a CEO to resign because we disagree with him.
I go around telling people I meet that I think child pornography should be legal. People look at me funny and don't want to be my friend. Have they forced me to stop advocating for this position? No, of course not. Even though I would have to stop advocating it if I wanted them to like me, they have not forced me to do anything.
A more comparable example would be-
"I go around telling people I meet that I think child pornography should be legal. People look at me funny and decide to force my place of business to fire me."
Like I said, it's not the fact that they look at your funny that I'm having issue with. It's that they decided your opinion is so bad that you must be punished for it.
I agree, boycotts cannot force people to change. When you boycott something, you're simply refusing to support it. You've weighed the implications of giving them your business, and decided that, for one reason or another, you'd be better off spending your money elsewhere. You're not harming the target of your boycott. If people wanted to harm Mozilla they could go vandalize their offices, or DDOS their websites. They could assault Eich. That would be harmful, and that would be censorship.
The reason to boycott something isn't because you're going to muscle them into changing. It's that you're instead going to support something you feel is positive (or at least non-negative).
You have a very strange definition of boycotts.
From dictionary.com-
to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
From Merriam-Webster-
to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
from thefreedictionary.com-
To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. See Synonyms at blackball.
Notice how all of them say something in the vein of "with intent to force someone to change"?
So you really are just using the word hurt in a colloquial sense. Are you using the word hurt for emotional effect? Is this just one big appeal to emotion?
I thought you were talking about real harm. Financial harm which is defined. I am unaware of how a boycott cause financial harm to a company.
I gave you a whole bunch of definitions of what I intended "harm" to mean. And like I said, if you know of a better word to use here then I'm all ears. I'm sure you know what I'm trying to convey here.
And you tell me what a boycott is meant to do then.
If you are talking about harm to the C.E.O. that was not done by the boycotters. That was done by mozilla. Mozilla had a choice and they choose to fire him.
This is incredibly disingenuous. It's like saying that I didn't kill someone, a knife did.
This gets to the heart of what I have been arguing that you seem to just ignore constantly. A boycott is not force. Honey maid was not forced to do anything. They chose to do something.
... Are you seriously saying that coercion is irrelevant so long as you make the choice that you are coerced into making?
A boycott fits everything reason why you support the political donation process. This gets to the heart of your argument. It is special pleading.
You approve of one method of people pooling their money together to effect societal change and you disapprove of another method of people to pool their money together to create societal change. The intent behind the ballot initiative can not be reason to decry the action. You decry the boycott based on intention. You approve of tyranny of opinion in ballot initiatives. Complain about tyranny of opinion in boycotts.
Boycotts and political donations are very similar. The use of money to magnify speech. One difference between political donations and boycotts. Political donations are used to institutionalize bigotry when a boycott can never do this.
I disapprove of why they're boycotting, not the act of boycott itself. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear.
It's very much the same way I can disapprove of why someone is voting for Prop. 8, but not the act of voting itself.
Oh, and
Political donations are used to institutionalize bigotry when a boycott can never do this.
Specifically,
"Stearns acknowledged Wednesday [March 26] that "a number" of child sponsors canceled their sponsorship in the past 48 hours in protest of the change to World Vision's conduct policy."
This is exactly what I'm saying that we should be doing... not forcing a CEO to resign because we disagree with him.
Still not being forced.
A more comparable example would be-
"I go around telling people I meet that I think child pornography should be legal. People look at me funny and decide to force my place of business to fire me."
Like I said, it's not the fact that they look at your funny that I'm having issue with. It's that they decided your opinion is so bad that you must be punished for it.
Still not being forced.
You have a very strange definition of boycotts.
From dictionary.com-
to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
From Merriam-Webster-
to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
from thefreedictionary.com-
To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. See Synonyms at blackball.
Notice how all of them say something in the vein of "with intent to force someone to change"?
Yes, I understand what the "thefreedictionary.com" says. I'm trying to draw a finer distinction. Apparently that was too much to ask of you.
So, just to be clear, because the CEO made the choice to resign, there is no force?
Therefore, so long as you make the choice to do something, all outside involvements are irrelevant?
So, if someone points a gun to your head to says "give me all your cash" and you do so, there is no force?
I understand that this comes back down to whether your define boycott as the use of force or not. I'm pretty sure you'll say the above example is wrong because boycotts are not a use of force, while pointing a gun to someone's head is. But, as I get to later in the post, conventional wisdom agrees with me. Boycotts are a use of force. Until you can actually prove that boycotts are not meant to be a use of force, we're at an impasse.
Because there can be no discussion when we don't even agree with one another about what boycott means.
Yes, I understand what the "thefreedictionary.com" says. I'm trying to draw a finer distinction. Apparently that was too much to ask of you.
And I am saying that your "finer distinction" is bunk. And I am attempting to support that by saying the conventional definition and conventional recognition of what boycott means agrees with me and not you.
Who cares what your "finer distinction" is? I can make the claim that Koreans are not racist to Southeast Asians. But unless I support it with reasonable examples and manage to beat off all other counterpoints, my claim is nothing but words.
That's what your and Algebra's claims regarding boycott amounts to- nothing but words. You need to give it substantiation.
And, right now, that requires you to reject the definition I gave it through the number of dictionary definitions.
For example
You don't buy a sandwich from Jim's Deli down the street because you weren't hungry, David the shift manager and the employees on duty at that time are not caused any harm by your inaction. You weren't going to be a customer anyways, your money was irrelevant. David is also not fired, or asked to resign by Jim because you didn't buy a sandwich because you weren't hungry. You weren't going to be a customer anyways.
This is NOT the case with what happened with Mozilla and their former CEO.
The Mozilla incident:
Now, you normally eat at Jim's Deli once or twice a month. (yeah, because you NEVER used firefox before right)
David, the shift manager voted democrat. You, being a conservative Christian and living in a conservative neighborhood, find out David voted democrat. Not only that, David voted for equal marriage, and you believe marriage is between a man and a woman only. You then organize a boycott of Jim's Deli because you're mad at David, and want to punish him for his liberal views.
In setting up this boycott, you deliberately lead many other conservatives in the area to also boycott Jim's Deli. Many of these people were often customers of Jim's Deli, eating there frequently. Some may have even planned to eat there that day, and instead joined the boycott.
Jim is now facing a public backlash. The potential loss of income from the boycott could mean many of Jim's employees like Melissa the cashier, might see reduced hours, or other cuts. Jim now feels that David the shift manager is costing him business, and pressures David to leave in order to save the business from more economically painful losses. David is allowed to save face by "voluntarily resigning" his position.
David has now been economically punished simply for exercising his democratic rights protected under our Constitution.
Except, it's not just David who was punished, Jim's Deli, and many other employees who worked at Jim's Deli, even fellow conservatives and people who held similar beliefs to the people boycotting, still lost quite a bit of business.
Other liberals in the area heard of what happened to David, and are now scared to voice their beliefs in public for fear of backlash.
Harm has now actually be done to free speech itself. Literal harm to the market of ideas. People now fear speaking out for equal marriage, and liberal ideas, because they fear losing their jobs, or worse.
People have been fired, or worse, when they were found out to be gay. It was a gross injustice then, and the fear that drove homosexuals to hide from the public, to stay in the closet, rather than face persecution, is the EXACT SAME harmful injustice used to railroad this guy out of his job. It was wrong to force gay people to hide from view, to live in secret, scared of what the public might do if they found out.
It shouldn't matter if he is the janitor, or the owner. Jim, David, or Melissa the cashier.
Do we not want transparency in political donations? Do we really want political contributions to go back behind closed doors, secret donations from secretive people?
That doesn't sound good to me. No transparency will be achieved if we start calling for heads to roll every time someone says something we disagree with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, just because you have controversial opinions doesn't mean we're obligated to buy your product. This is that duck guy all over again. I don't care about your persecution complex; no one is required to buy from you, just because of your political beliefs.
(Seriously, that's what I'm getting from right-wingers wrt: this.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
So, just to be clear, because the CEO made the choice to resign, there is no force?
Therefore, so long as you make the choice to do something, all outside involvements are irrelevant?
So, if someone points a gun to your head to says "give me all your cash" and you do so, there is no force?
I understand that this comes back down to whether your define boycott as the use of force or not. I'm pretty sure you'll say the above example is wrong because boycotts are not a use of force, while pointing a gun to someone's head is. But, as I get to later in the post, conventional wisdom agrees with me. Boycotts are a use of force. Until you can actually prove that boycotts are not meant to be a use of force, we're at an impasse.
Because there can be no discussion when we don't even agree with one another about what boycott means.
No one disagrees about what a boycott is. We disagree about what forcing someone means.
And I am saying that your "finer distinction" is bunk. And I am attempting to support that by saying the conventional definition and conventional recognition of what boycott means agrees with me and not you.
Who cares what your "finer distinction" is? I can make the claim that Koreans are not racist to Southeast Asians. But unless I support it with reasonable examples and manage to beat off all other counterpoints, my claim is nothing but words.
That's what your and Algebra's claims regarding boycott amounts to- nothing but words. You need to give it substantiation.
And, right now, that requires you to reject the definition I gave it through the number of dictionary definitions.
I've already provided a substantive definition of the effects of a boycott. Your response was to quote the dictionary.
IcecreamMan - What does it mean for me to "not going to be a customer anyways"? I eat at my local deli regularly. I would have been a customer had I been hungry. My lack of hunger is analogous to my disapproval of the owner. If not for that factor, I would have eaten there and given them my money.
If I want anchovies on my pizza, but Jim's Pizza doesn't offer them, so I eat at John's Pizza, am I punishing Jim for not offering anchovies? Am I forcing Jim to offer anchovies?
IcecreamMan - What does it mean for me to "not going to be a customer anyways"? I eat at my local deli regularly. I would have been a customer had I been hungry. My lack of hunger is analogous to my disapproval of the owner. If not for that factor, I would have eaten there and given them my money.
I disagree. Because lack of hunger doesn't seem analogous to me. You're not "not hungry", you're deliberately not buying from them, whether you're hungry or not, and you're doing it to make a political point.
I'm never (hungry) or (not hungry) as a matter of principle. I do however (boycott) or (don't boycott) as a matter of principle.
Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the boycott isn't the problem. I actually don't mind boycotts. I'm boycotting the remake of TMNT this summer. Even if I managed to get a million man movement behind me (as opposed to the reality of me standing lonely in front of the movies with my sign as people line up to buy tickets), in no way shape or form, would I support Michael Bay being fired.
The issue is that Eichs was pushed out of his job because of the political ideas he supported back in 2008 (with "the economic impact" and "Mozilla stands for equality...blah blah" being a thinly veiled disguise) with his own personal money. (only $1000 too, pennies in the political donations game)
To me, this was the same as if he was pushed out for being gay.
It's a web browser, his opinion of marriage has virtually zero to do with the services Mozilla provides.
You are also not addressing the issue I am actually talking about. Eichs is not nearly the only employee at Mozilla. They employ hundreds of people. How many of them might be for traditional marriage? Should Mozilla now witch hunt the rest of them down and demand resignations? Should those people hide or bury their beliefs out of fear that they might lose their jobs?
Now what if Eichs was pushed out for being gay? Should the other possibly gay employees be hunted down and forced to resign? Should they hide their orientation and live in fear?
What about the next 25 fortune 500 companies, should they all scour their ranks of anyone who believes in traditional marriage? Why not? If it's so heinous a deed as to be worthy of THIS boycott and resignation, why don't we track them all down? Should the many others who share his beliefs hide their views from sight, put on a face for the public so they don't lose their jobs? Why not, if Eichs deserved it, why not the others?
If I want anchovies on my pizza, but Jim's Pizza doesn't offer them, so I eat at John's Pizza, am I punishing Jim for not offering anchovies? Am I forcing Jim to offer anchovies?
Not analogous. Anchovies is a pizza topping, and it's place on the menu seems slightly relevant to a pizza business. Jim supporting Prop. 8, not so much. You aren't boycotting Jim's Pizza because he didn't offer Anchovies, you're boycotting Jim's Pizza because Jim voted differently than you. The antithesis of democracy, and I further believe that you're being hypocritical. John's Pizza, Chevron, Dave's Groceries, Google Chrome, VISA, General Mills...etc. all likely employ someone who votes contrarily to you, and I don't see you boycotting them. Be consistent, have integrity, or don't, but if not, it makes your "righteous stand" against Jim both hollow, and hypocritical.
Even if <anchovies at a Pizza place> was remotely analogous to <traditional marriage bill supported by a web browser CEO>. I also don't see you acknowledging the fact that you gathered a mob of people to publicly shame Jim's Pizza into changing their menu to include anchovies.
Now, other pizza places who do not think anchovies are proper to have on a pizza, are changing or hiding their opinions not out of good common reason, but out of FEAR.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I disagree. Because lack of hunger doesn't seem analogous to me. You're not "not hungry", you're deliberately not buying from them, whether you're hungry or not, and you're doing it to make a political point.
I'm never (hungry) or (not hungry) as a matter of principle. I do however (boycott) or (don't boycott) as a matter of principle.
None of that is relevant to point I'm trying to make with the analogy, which is that not buying from someone is not punishing them, and it is not forcing them to do anything.
Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the boycott isn't the problem. I actually don't mind boycotts. I'm boycotting the remake of TMNT this summer. Even if I managed to get a million man movement behind me (as opposed to the reality of me standing lonely in front of the movies with my sign as people line up to buy tickets), in no way shape or form, would I support Michael Bay being fired.
The issue is that Eichs was pushed out of his job because of the political ideas he supported back in 2008 (with "the economic impact" and "Mozilla stands for equality...blah blah" being a thinly veiled disguise) with his own personal money. (only $1000 too, pennies in the political donations game)
To me, this was the same as if he was pushed out for being gay.
It's a web browser, his opinion of marriage has virtually zero to do with the services Mozilla provides.
His opinion of marriage has plenty to do with Mozilla. As CEO, the success of the company gives him greater influence and power to fight for his position. If Mozilla is successful, and he's CEO, that empowers him to advance his position in a way he couldn't if that weren't the case.
You are also not addressing the issue I am actually talking about. Eichs is not nearly the only employee at Mozilla. They employ hundreds of people. How many of them might be for traditional marriage? Should Mozilla now witch hunt the rest of them down and demand resignations? Should those people hide or bury their beliefs out of fear that they might lose their jobs?
Now what if Eichs was pushed out for being gay? Should the other possibly gay employees be hunted down and forced to resign? Should they hide their orientation and live in fear?
What about the next 25 fortune 500 companies, should they all scour their ranks of anyone who believes in traditional marriage? Why not? If it's so heinous a deed as to be worthy of THIS boycott and resignation, why don't we track them all down? Should the many others who share his beliefs hide their views from sight, put on a face for the public so they don't lose their jobs? Why not, if Eichs deserved it, why not the others?
As I said earlier, there is a difference between CEO/leader/owner and regular employee. An employee cannot parlay a business's success into political influence in the same way that a business leader can.
Not analogous. Anchovies is a pizza topping, and it's place on the menu seems slightly relevant to a pizza business. Jim supporting Prop. 8, not so much. You aren't boycotting Jim's Pizza because he didn't offer Anchovies, you're boycotting Jim's Pizza because Jim voted differently than you. The antithesis of democracy, and I further believe that you're being hypocritical. John's Pizza, Chevron, Dave's Groceries, Google Chrome, VISA, General Mills...etc. all likely employ someone who votes contrarily to you, and I don't see you boycotting them. Be consistent, have integrity, or don't, but if not, it makes your "righteous stand" against Jim both hollow, and hypocritical.
The calculus of whether someone feels that its worth it to boycott will vary from company to company. If a company offers a service that's very important to me, maybe I'll decide it's worth the trade off. If I like other things about the company, maybe that will balance out the negatives. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to be so all-or-nothing on the question.
This is not the "antithesis of democracy". He's quite able to keep on donating to whatever terrible causes he wants. No one has stopped him from advocating for anything.
Even if <anchovies at a Pizza place> was remotely analogous to <traditional marriage bill supported by a web browser CEO>. I also don't see you acknowledging the fact that you gathered a mob of people to publicly shame Jim's Pizza into changing their menu to include anchovies.
Now, other pizza places who do not think anchovies are proper to have on a pizza, are changing or hiding their opinions not out of good common reason, but out of FEAR.
No one is gathering mobs. There's not a pitchfork-and-torch wielding crowd outside Mozilla's offices. If a bunch of people feel that they don't want to support Mozilla, that's each of their individual prerogatives. If I want to suggest that people consider whether they want to support Mozilla, that's not remotely comparable to "gathering a mob".
I disagree. Because lack of hunger doesn't seem analogous to me. You're not "not hungry", you're deliberately not buying from them, whether you're hungry or not, and you're doing it to make a political point.
I'm never (hungry) or (not hungry) as a matter of principle. I do however (boycott) or (don't boycott) as a matter of principle.
None of that is relevant to point I'm trying to make with the analogy, which is that not buying from someone is not punishing them, and it is not forcing them to do anything.
And I haven't once said that the protestors are punishing him. Mozilla punished him. If you think he wasn't "pushed" to resign, you're dreaming. CEO's don't get fired very often, they "resign".
Mozilla could have said something like
"While we understand your concern, Eichs opinions are his own, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of Mozilla, it's parent company, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Mozilla supports equality, but also free speech, and the exercise of ones beliefs in their own privacy. We hope our customers will understand and support the right of everyone to vote their own conscious."
Something like that.
Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the boycott isn't the problem. I actually don't mind boycotts. I'm boycotting the remake of TMNT this summer. Even if I managed to get a million man movement behind me (as opposed to the reality of me standing lonely in front of the movies with my sign as people line up to buy tickets), in no way shape or form, would I support Michael Bay being fired.
The issue is that Eichs was pushed out of his job because of the political ideas he supported back in 2008 (with "the economic impact" and "Mozilla stands for equality...blah blah" being a thinly veiled disguise) with his own personal money. (only $1000 too, pennies in the political donations game)
To me, this was the same as if he was pushed out for being gay.
It's a web browser, his opinion of marriage has virtually zero to do with the services Mozilla provides.
His opinion of marriage has plenty to do with Mozilla. As CEO, the success of the company gives him greater influence and power to fight for his position. If Mozilla is successful, and he's CEO, that empowers him to advance his position in a way he couldn't if that weren't the case.
All I see here is what amounts to "he's rich, **** him!"
So the Janitor can be a racist homophobe, but he gets off easy.
Also, your point is rather weak when sources have pointed out on several occasions that he only donated $1000.
That's small potatoes, even smaller considering he is a CEO of such a lucrative company.
It's as if I donated .75 cents.
You are also not addressing the issue I am actually talking about. Eichs is not nearly the only employee at Mozilla. They employ hundreds of people. How many of them might be for traditional marriage? Should Mozilla now witch hunt the rest of them down and demand resignations? Should those people hide or bury their beliefs out of fear that they might lose their jobs?
Now what if Eichs was pushed out for being gay? Should the other possibly gay employees be hunted down and forced to resign? Should they hide their orientation and live in fear?
What about the next 25 fortune 500 companies, should they all scour their ranks of anyone who believes in traditional marriage? Why not? If it's so heinous a deed as to be worthy of THIS boycott and resignation, why don't we track them all down? Should the many others who share his beliefs hide their views from sight, put on a face for the public so they don't lose their jobs? Why not, if Eichs deserved it, why not the others?
As I said earlier, there is a difference between CEO/leader/owner and regular employee. An employee cannot parlay a business's success into political influence in the same way that a business leader can.
So you admit that you don't care about the countless others who are voting for Prop 8., just the rich and famous ones. Gotcha.
I mean, it seems ridiculously flawed reasoning, but at least you admit it.
Not analogous. Anchovies is a pizza topping, and it's place on the menu seems slightly relevant to a pizza business. Jim supporting Prop. 8, not so much. You aren't boycotting Jim's Pizza because he didn't offer Anchovies, you're boycotting Jim's Pizza because Jim voted differently than you. The antithesis of democracy, and I further believe that you're being hypocritical. John's Pizza, Chevron, Dave's Groceries, Google Chrome, VISA, General Mills...etc. all likely employ someone who votes contrarily to you, and I don't see you boycotting them. Be consistent, have integrity, or don't, but if not, it makes your "righteous stand" against Jim both hollow, and hypocritical.
The calculus of whether someone feels that its worth it to boycott will vary from company to company. If a company offers a service that's very important to me, maybe I'll decide it's worth the trade off. If I like other things about the company, maybe that will balance out the negatives. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to be so all-or-nothing on the question.
I disagree. It's hypocrisy, period.
This is not the "antithesis of democracy". He's quite able to keep on donating to whatever terrible causes he wants. No one has stopped him from advocating for anything.
Jesus, try to keep up.
It's the "living in the closet" that I was talking about - not HIS personal donations.
If getting fired from your job is a REAL possibility if people find you you have opposing beliefs, you will hide those beliefs, you will live in the closet, you will keep your true voice quiet, a secret. THAT is the anthesis of democracy.
Voices kept silent out of fear.
Even if <anchovies at a Pizza place> was remotely analogous to <traditional marriage bill supported by a web browser CEO>. I also don't see you acknowledging the fact that you gathered a mob of people to publicly shame Jim's Pizza into changing their menu to include anchovies.
Now, other pizza places who do not think anchovies are proper to have on a pizza, are changing or hiding their opinions not out of good common reason, but out of FEAR.
No one is gathering mobs. There's not a pitchfork-and-torch wielding crowd outside Mozilla's offices. If a bunch of people feel that they don't want to support Mozilla, that's each of their individual prerogatives. If I want to suggest that people consider whether they want to support Mozilla, that's not remotely comparable to "gathering a mob".
Hmmmm, it's 2014, the mob with torches and pitchforks has changed it's style no doubt, it is now a legion of twitter pages and Facebook followers, but it's still a mob. The pitchforks are now "likes" and the torches "shares".
You DO know what an analogy is right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Probably not. Since those words were used specifically for this case.
I would rather say I'm not sure why you think someone holding a certain opinion is so disturbing to you that you would condemn an individual as unworthy of your money. Depending on your reasons, I'd probably say you're making a mistake.
I am attempting to differentiate between personal opinion and actions done in a manner that is legal and presumably accepted by most people living in the U.S. as a viable method of expressing your belief, and personal opinion and acting in a manner that is not presumably accepted by most people living in the U.s. as a viable method of expressing your belief.
The people protested because he donated money in support of Prop. 8. Like it or not, that is a viable method of expressing your opinions regarding political/social issues. I really see no difference between this and him voting for Prop. 8. The man voted with his property, which is more than can be said for people who just vote. So in fact I see it as a stronger representation of his beliefs.
People holding that sort of opinion isn't harmless. Lots of gay people have suffered lots of injustices because of him and people like him.
I don't really follow this sentence, I'm afraid.
This doesn't answer my question. In what way am I not supporting his rights?
What? No. You're the one who brought up "harm" as if it means anything in particular. People talk about events hurting businesses and whatnot all the time. I am merely going off the same train of though.
It is generally accepted that strikes are meant to harm businesses to the point that they submit to the striker's will. That would be a perfectly normal way to define a strike. Yet, because the businesses have no actual right to a worker working at a certain time period and such for them, the strikers demanding shorter hours wouldn't actually be harming business, by the way you claimed that my statements are contradictory.
If you think harm is not the proper word to use here, then fine. Bring another up. I'm pretty sure you still know what I'm talking about and are just arguing semantics.
No *****? Are you really going to argue semantics? Really? Do you really think I'm talking about physical injury here? No, I'm pretty sure you're not. You're just being intentionally obstinate.
From dictionary.com-
to affect adversely; harm: to hurt one's reputation; It wouldn't hurt the lawn if you watered it more often.
From Merriam-Webster-
b : to be detrimental to : hamper <charges of graft hurt my chances of being elected>
From Macmillian Dictonary-
[TRANSITIVE] to cause damage or problems, or to harm someone's chance to succeed at something
From vocabulary.com-
cause damage or affect negatively
It is the method recognized by virtually all democratic governments and most of the greatest philosophers and political thinkers of history have determined that some form of democratic method of government is the most preferable method of governance?
Because, if you follow the method as stated theoretically by the Constitution and the ideals of its writers, those who are grieved always have a chance to address their grievances, or at least voice them so that they can actually be heard? (Imo, this is the most important thing)
And that is why blacks received their freedoms. Why women got their right to vote. And vice versa?
Why is my perspective on what's fair skewed when I'm saying he should have all the rights everyone else does? That he seemingly doesn't hold the same belief doesn't exactly give me the right to remove rights from him.
No, censorship can come from other sources than the government.
Hollywood silencing and blacklisting many supposed pro-communist and liberal writers, actors, and film-makers during the height of the Red Scare is an example of censorship.
As I've written multiple times, I fully realize that you have the right to boycott and protest. I just don't think it's a wise decision.
And, no, I don't think any opinion should be considered so dark as to be unmentionable. Otherwise homosexuality would never have become a topic that could be spoken in the open.
Today I didn't go to the Deli down the street because I wasn't hungry. Did I harm their business?
I never said it's not harmless... I am fully aware of the effects of Prop. 8, having a number of gay friends.
But that is how policy making and governance works. If you don't like the effects it has on you, and then you go through the existing methods of government and attempt to make it work for you. This is what millions of LGBT activists are doing right now. They work working through government to make society better for them.
"actions done in a manner that is legal and presumably accepted by most people living in the U.S. as a viable method of expressing your belief"= voting, donating to established political causes and/or initiatives.
"acting in a manner that is not presumably accepted by most people living in the U.s. as a viable method of expressing your belief"= beating someone with a stick because his opinion offends you and/or because his opinion hurts others.
These people protested someone for utilizing his rights in a manner that they do not think is good. Ergo, if he did use his rights in a manner that they do think is good, then they wouldn't have protested.
Thus, one way that someone can avoid being protested against is if he doesn't voice his opinion.
You already asked this. 11 hours ago. I answered with the below.
To which I'll add a bit more- Intent matters. Boycotting=/= not eating at a place because you're not hungry.
And one of the ways to do that is to avoid supporting activists for bad policies.
Hmmm...I don't really understand the relevance of the second part.
So what? None of that impedes his right to voice his opinion or to donate to political causes.
Either way, the business doesn't end up with my money. If it's because I don't like the owner or because I wasn't hungry doesn't change their bottom line. How can one be harming and the other not if both have the same exact impact?
Bad policies as defined by you.
But who are you to define what is bad and good? Isn't it all just your opinion in the end?
Note that this isn't me saying that homophobic is good or anything, or that gay rights is bad or anything. I am rather questioning the concept you seem to be bringing up. That is, so long as a policy is good, then we should support it. If a policy is bad, then we shouldn't support it.
But since whether a policy is good or bad is largely subjective and dependent on limited information, one cannot actually make an objective and absolute claim that a policy is good or bad.
Therefore, one cannot make the claim you made in the quote above without running into incredibly murky waters.
I'm sure you do.
Fine. I will complete it for you.
Thus, one way that someone can avoid being protested against is if he doesn't voice his opinion. Ergo, if he doesn't want to get protested against, then he has no choice but to not voice his opinion.
Sounds like censorship to me.
Two people died. In one case a man died because a man accidentally shot him. In another, a man died because a man deliberately shot him.
By your logic, the intent and circumstance is irrelevant. The end result is that a man died in both cases. Because both have the same impact, you cannot differentiate between one being an active intent to harm, and one not being an active intent to harm.
Yes, it's my opinion. People can vote for bad candidates just as well as good candidates. That doesn't make voting bad or "murky waters". People can donate money to bad causes or good causes. That doesn't make donating bad or "murky waters". Boycotting is just like these other methods of advocating for change. It can be used for good or evil.
That's a productive angle for you to take. :/
If, for example, someone voices an ill-informed or ignorant opinion, people will think less of them. If someone doesn't want people to think less of them in this way, they have no choice but to not voice their opinion. Therefore thinking less of someone who says something dumb is censorship.
No. Censorship is when you prevent someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not merely actions having consequences. He is just as able to voice his opinions today as he was before this whole affair. He has not been censored in the least.
In both cases, the man was harmed. It has nothing to do with an intent to harm. It's harming a man if I shoot him deliberately, and harming him if I shoot him accidentally. Similarly, if it's harming the store for me to shop elsewhere because of the owner's views, it must also be harming the store for me to shop elsewhere because I'm not hungry, or whatever other reason. What I intend to do is irrelevant to the end effect on the store.
The "murky waters" refers to the fact that your post insinuated that you can avoid doing harm through government by not supporting "bad policies".
And my question essentially was - how do you define "bad policies"?
This is an awfully convenient way to look at it isn't it? Just decide with certainty that he is wrong and ignorant, and therefore what he says or believes in is "dumb"
And since when does "protesting someone"="thinking less of?"
Your biases are showing.
Actions having consequences? So if an individual expressed his pro-gay opinions and acted on it and people boycotted him and forced him to be silent, then that is simply his actions having consequences?
Yes. If you do not spend money at a store, then the end result is that the store doesn't receive your money.
But I am differentiating between the intent behind why you chose not to spend money at a store. One is harmful, the other is not.
If you're not hungry and didn't want to eat, then you didn't choose to not eat at a store because you wanted to harm the business for a purpose.
If you boycott a store, then you chose to not eat at a store because you wanted to harm the business for a purpose.
We're all quite capable of reasoning out what we feel are good policies and bad policies. How do we manage to vote if we're not able to come up with what we think are good and bad ideas?
That was a separate example, not a description of the Mozilla case.
Boycotting someone does not force them to be silent.
My intent has no impact on whether they have my money.
I think we can all agree that I didn't harm my local deli by deciding not have lunch there today. This isn't harmful to them because the neutral state of affairs is that they don't have my money. Just as I'm not harming a beggar by not giving him the $20 in my pocket.
So, when I decide not to have lunch there because I don't like the owner, I'm still not harming them. They don't have my money, and that's just the way things were before I made any decision on the matter. Nothing has changed for them.
And yet you think the man clearly supports a bad policy. Even though you just wrote "We're all capable of reasoning out what we feel are good policies and bad policies."
So, either the man is uniquely incapable of reasoning that out, or he reasoned out that Prop. 8 is a good policy, which you would disagree with.
Get the picture I'm trying to paint here?
The impact can.
By this argument boycotts have no purpose and cannot actually do harm or place pressure on people in an attempt to force them to change...
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that we all have magical powers that reveal to us the ultimate truth of any matter. I'm saying that when we want to determine if a political activity, be it a vote, a boycott, a donation, whatever is a good or bad thing, we can discuss and think about the merits of the idea being supported. We don't have to ham-fistedly declare that all boycotts are a bad idea because they might support bad things, or that all voting is a bad idea because people might vote for bad things, or that all donations are a bad idea because people might donate to bad causes.
No, we're not going to always agree on what a good cause or a bad cause is, especially not right away, but we have tools at our disposal to sort that out.
Nope, not forcing. Someone can weigh their options and decide they'd rather not be boycotted, but that's not the same as being forced. Consider the following example (which, like the previous example, is not intended to be a description of the Mozilla case):
I go around telling people I meet that I think child pornography should be legal. People look at me funny and don't want to be my friend. Have they forced me to stop advocating for this position? No, of course not. Even though I would have to stop advocating it if I wanted them to like me, they have not forced me to do anything.
Censorship is burning a book, or locking up a protester. It's preventing the person from expressing their view. Eich is not at all prevented from expressing his view.
I agree, boycotts cannot force people to change. When you boycott something, you're simply refusing to support it. You've weighed the implications of giving them your business, and decided that, for one reason or another, you'd be better off spending your money elsewhere. You're not harming the target of your boycott. If people wanted to harm Mozilla they could go vandalize their offices, or DDOS their websites. They could assault Eich. That would be harmful, and that would be censorship.
The reason to boycott something isn't because you're going to muscle them into changing. It's that you're instead going to support something you feel is positive (or at least non-negative).
No you brought up harm in post 239
I responded to your use of harm in 243
You have not rectified this contradiction in my understanding of the word harm. Specifically financial harm.
So you really are just using the word hurt in a colloquial sense. Are you using the word hurt for emotional effect? Is this just one big appeal to emotion?
I thought you were talking about real harm. Financial harm which is defined. I am unaware of how a boycott cause financial harm to a company.
If you are talking about harm to the C.E.O. that was not done by the boycotters. That was done by mozilla. Mozilla had a choice and they choose to fire him. Look at this article to see what I mean by a company having a choice. Honey Maid
This gets to the heart of what I have been arguing that you seem to just ignore constantly. A boycott is not force. Honey maid was not forced to do anything. They chose to do something.
A boycott is
1.) Right to ownership of property.
2.) Right to freedom of assembly.
3.) Right to freedom of speech.
A boycott fits everything reason why you support the political donation process. This gets to the heart of your argument. It is special pleading.
You approve of one method of people pooling their money together to effect societal change and you disapprove of another method of people to pool their money together to create societal change. The intent behind the ballot initiative can not be reason to decry the action. You decry the boycott based on intention. You approve of tyranny of opinion in ballot initiatives. Complain about tyranny of opinion in boycotts.
Boycotts and political donations are very similar. The use of money to magnify speech. One difference between political donations and boycotts. Political donations are used to institutionalize bigotry when a boycott can never do this.
This is exactly what I'm saying that we should be doing... not forcing a CEO to resign because we disagree with him.
A more comparable example would be-
"I go around telling people I meet that I think child pornography should be legal. People look at me funny and decide to force my place of business to fire me."
Like I said, it's not the fact that they look at your funny that I'm having issue with. It's that they decided your opinion is so bad that you must be punished for it.
You have a very strange definition of boycotts.
From dictionary.com-
to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
From Merriam-Webster-
to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
from thefreedictionary.com-
To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. See Synonyms at blackball.
Notice how all of them say something in the vein of "with intent to force someone to change"?
I gave you a whole bunch of definitions of what I intended "harm" to mean. And like I said, if you know of a better word to use here then I'm all ears. I'm sure you know what I'm trying to convey here.
And you tell me what a boycott is meant to do then.
This is incredibly disingenuous. It's like saying that I didn't kill someone, a knife did.
... Are you seriously saying that coercion is irrelevant so long as you make the choice that you are coerced into making?
I disapprove of why they're boycotting, not the act of boycott itself. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear.
It's very much the same way I can disapprove of why someone is voting for Prop. 8, but not the act of voting itself.
Oh, and
is your bias showing loud and clear. Here-
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-reverses-decision-gay-same-sex-marriage.html
Specifically,
"Stearns acknowledged Wednesday [March 26] that "a number" of child sponsors canceled their sponsorship in the past 48 hours in protest of the change to World Vision's conduct policy."
Boycott.
Still not being forced.
Still not being forced.
Yes, I understand what the "thefreedictionary.com" says. I'm trying to draw a finer distinction. Apparently that was too much to ask of you.
So, just to be clear, because the CEO made the choice to resign, there is no force?
Therefore, so long as you make the choice to do something, all outside involvements are irrelevant?
So, if someone points a gun to your head to says "give me all your cash" and you do so, there is no force?
I understand that this comes back down to whether your define boycott as the use of force or not. I'm pretty sure you'll say the above example is wrong because boycotts are not a use of force, while pointing a gun to someone's head is. But, as I get to later in the post, conventional wisdom agrees with me. Boycotts are a use of force. Until you can actually prove that boycotts are not meant to be a use of force, we're at an impasse.
Because there can be no discussion when we don't even agree with one another about what boycott means.
And I am saying that your "finer distinction" is bunk. And I am attempting to support that by saying the conventional definition and conventional recognition of what boycott means agrees with me and not you.
Who cares what your "finer distinction" is? I can make the claim that Koreans are not racist to Southeast Asians. But unless I support it with reasonable examples and manage to beat off all other counterpoints, my claim is nothing but words.
That's what your and Algebra's claims regarding boycott amounts to- nothing but words. You need to give it substantiation.
And, right now, that requires you to reject the definition I gave it through the number of dictionary definitions.
You don't buy a sandwich from Jim's Deli down the street because you weren't hungry, David the shift manager and the employees on duty at that time are not caused any harm by your inaction. You weren't going to be a customer anyways, your money was irrelevant. David is also not fired, or asked to resign by Jim because you didn't buy a sandwich because you weren't hungry. You weren't going to be a customer anyways.
This is NOT the case with what happened with Mozilla and their former CEO.
The Mozilla incident:
Now, you normally eat at Jim's Deli once or twice a month. (yeah, because you NEVER used firefox before right)
David, the shift manager voted democrat. You, being a conservative Christian and living in a conservative neighborhood, find out David voted democrat. Not only that, David voted for equal marriage, and you believe marriage is between a man and a woman only. You then organize a boycott of Jim's Deli because you're mad at David, and want to punish him for his liberal views.
In setting up this boycott, you deliberately lead many other conservatives in the area to also boycott Jim's Deli. Many of these people were often customers of Jim's Deli, eating there frequently. Some may have even planned to eat there that day, and instead joined the boycott.
Jim is now facing a public backlash. The potential loss of income from the boycott could mean many of Jim's employees like Melissa the cashier, might see reduced hours, or other cuts. Jim now feels that David the shift manager is costing him business, and pressures David to leave in order to save the business from more economically painful losses. David is allowed to save face by "voluntarily resigning" his position.
David has now been economically punished simply for exercising his democratic rights protected under our Constitution.
Except, it's not just David who was punished, Jim's Deli, and many other employees who worked at Jim's Deli, even fellow conservatives and people who held similar beliefs to the people boycotting, still lost quite a bit of business.
Other liberals in the area heard of what happened to David, and are now scared to voice their beliefs in public for fear of backlash.
Harm has now actually be done to free speech itself. Literal harm to the market of ideas. People now fear speaking out for equal marriage, and liberal ideas, because they fear losing their jobs, or worse.
People have been fired, or worse, when they were found out to be gay. It was a gross injustice then, and the fear that drove homosexuals to hide from the public, to stay in the closet, rather than face persecution, is the EXACT SAME harmful injustice used to railroad this guy out of his job. It was wrong to force gay people to hide from view, to live in secret, scared of what the public might do if they found out.
It shouldn't matter if he is the janitor, or the owner. Jim, David, or Melissa the cashier.
Do we not want transparency in political donations? Do we really want political contributions to go back behind closed doors, secret donations from secretive people?
That doesn't sound good to me. No transparency will be achieved if we start calling for heads to roll every time someone says something we disagree with.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, just because you have controversial opinions doesn't mean we're obligated to buy your product. This is that duck guy all over again. I don't care about your persecution complex; no one is required to buy from you, just because of your political beliefs.
(Seriously, that's what I'm getting from right-wingers wrt: this.)
On phasing:
No one disagrees about what a boycott is. We disagree about what forcing someone means.
I've already provided a substantive definition of the effects of a boycott. Your response was to quote the dictionary.
IcecreamMan - What does it mean for me to "not going to be a customer anyways"? I eat at my local deli regularly. I would have been a customer had I been hungry. My lack of hunger is analogous to my disapproval of the owner. If not for that factor, I would have eaten there and given them my money.
If I want anchovies on my pizza, but Jim's Pizza doesn't offer them, so I eat at John's Pizza, am I punishing Jim for not offering anchovies? Am I forcing Jim to offer anchovies?
I disagree. Because lack of hunger doesn't seem analogous to me. You're not "not hungry", you're deliberately not buying from them, whether you're hungry or not, and you're doing it to make a political point.
I'm never (hungry) or (not hungry) as a matter of principle. I do however (boycott) or (don't boycott) as a matter of principle.
Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the boycott isn't the problem. I actually don't mind boycotts. I'm boycotting the remake of TMNT this summer. Even if I managed to get a million man movement behind me (as opposed to the reality of me standing lonely in front of the movies with my sign as people line up to buy tickets), in no way shape or form, would I support Michael Bay being fired.
The issue is that Eichs was pushed out of his job because of the political ideas he supported back in 2008 (with "the economic impact" and "Mozilla stands for equality...blah blah" being a thinly veiled disguise) with his own personal money. (only $1000 too, pennies in the political donations game)
To me, this was the same as if he was pushed out for being gay.
It's a web browser, his opinion of marriage has virtually zero to do with the services Mozilla provides.
You are also not addressing the issue I am actually talking about. Eichs is not nearly the only employee at Mozilla. They employ hundreds of people. How many of them might be for traditional marriage? Should Mozilla now witch hunt the rest of them down and demand resignations? Should those people hide or bury their beliefs out of fear that they might lose their jobs?
Now what if Eichs was pushed out for being gay? Should the other possibly gay employees be hunted down and forced to resign? Should they hide their orientation and live in fear?
What about the next 25 fortune 500 companies, should they all scour their ranks of anyone who believes in traditional marriage? Why not? If it's so heinous a deed as to be worthy of THIS boycott and resignation, why don't we track them all down? Should the many others who share his beliefs hide their views from sight, put on a face for the public so they don't lose their jobs? Why not, if Eichs deserved it, why not the others?
Not analogous. Anchovies is a pizza topping, and it's place on the menu seems slightly relevant to a pizza business. Jim supporting Prop. 8, not so much. You aren't boycotting Jim's Pizza because he didn't offer Anchovies, you're boycotting Jim's Pizza because Jim voted differently than you. The antithesis of democracy, and I further believe that you're being hypocritical. John's Pizza, Chevron, Dave's Groceries, Google Chrome, VISA, General Mills...etc. all likely employ someone who votes contrarily to you, and I don't see you boycotting them. Be consistent, have integrity, or don't, but if not, it makes your "righteous stand" against Jim both hollow, and hypocritical.
Even if <anchovies at a Pizza place> was remotely analogous to <traditional marriage bill supported by a web browser CEO>. I also don't see you acknowledging the fact that you gathered a mob of people to publicly shame Jim's Pizza into changing their menu to include anchovies.
Now, other pizza places who do not think anchovies are proper to have on a pizza, are changing or hiding their opinions not out of good common reason, but out of FEAR.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
None of that is relevant to point I'm trying to make with the analogy, which is that not buying from someone is not punishing them, and it is not forcing them to do anything.
His opinion of marriage has plenty to do with Mozilla. As CEO, the success of the company gives him greater influence and power to fight for his position. If Mozilla is successful, and he's CEO, that empowers him to advance his position in a way he couldn't if that weren't the case.
As I said earlier, there is a difference between CEO/leader/owner and regular employee. An employee cannot parlay a business's success into political influence in the same way that a business leader can.
The calculus of whether someone feels that its worth it to boycott will vary from company to company. If a company offers a service that's very important to me, maybe I'll decide it's worth the trade off. If I like other things about the company, maybe that will balance out the negatives. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to be so all-or-nothing on the question.
This is not the "antithesis of democracy". He's quite able to keep on donating to whatever terrible causes he wants. No one has stopped him from advocating for anything.
No one is gathering mobs. There's not a pitchfork-and-torch wielding crowd outside Mozilla's offices. If a bunch of people feel that they don't want to support Mozilla, that's each of their individual prerogatives. If I want to suggest that people consider whether they want to support Mozilla, that's not remotely comparable to "gathering a mob".
And I haven't once said that the protestors are punishing him. Mozilla punished him. If you think he wasn't "pushed" to resign, you're dreaming. CEO's don't get fired very often, they "resign".
Mozilla could have said something like
"While we understand your concern, Eichs opinions are his own, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of Mozilla, it's parent company, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Mozilla supports equality, but also free speech, and the exercise of ones beliefs in their own privacy. We hope our customers will understand and support the right of everyone to vote their own conscious."
Something like that.
All I see here is what amounts to "he's rich, **** him!"
So the Janitor can be a racist homophobe, but he gets off easy.
Also, your point is rather weak when sources have pointed out on several occasions that he only donated $1000.
That's small potatoes, even smaller considering he is a CEO of such a lucrative company.
It's as if I donated .75 cents.
So you admit that you don't care about the countless others who are voting for Prop 8., just the rich and famous ones. Gotcha.
I mean, it seems ridiculously flawed reasoning, but at least you admit it.
I disagree. It's hypocrisy, period.
Jesus, try to keep up.
It's the "living in the closet" that I was talking about - not HIS personal donations.
If getting fired from your job is a REAL possibility if people find you you have opposing beliefs, you will hide those beliefs, you will live in the closet, you will keep your true voice quiet, a secret. THAT is the anthesis of democracy.
Voices kept silent out of fear.
Hmmmm, it's 2014, the mob with torches and pitchforks has changed it's style no doubt, it is now a legion of twitter pages and Facebook followers, but it's still a mob. The pitchforks are now "likes" and the torches "shares".
You DO know what an analogy is right?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein