While you're right about incentivizing, I guarantee you: you boycott a bad business in the market, and they will feel punished, maybe even victimized.
Can you separate an author from his or her work?
While you're right about incentivizing, I guarantee you: you boycott a bad business in the market, and they will feel punished, maybe even victimized.
Which is part of why sometimes boycott isn't the best route to a desired goal.
While you're right about incentivizing, I guarantee you: you boycott a bad business in the market, and they will feel punished, maybe even victimized.
Hmm, this line of discussion reveals what might be a separation of methods and purposes.
You should tip Hitler the Waiter if he does a good job at his job and is not actively ranting his ranty stuff during the meal (which would in fact, be part of "doing a good job"). Hitler serving food as his day job is not offensive.
The same as you should watch a Roman Polanski film if its something you would enjoy. You're not condoning or even judging his hobby, and "not watching his film" isn't really an effective tool for changing his behavior anyway. Roman making movies is not offensive, nor does stopping him from making movies remove or cure the offense.
Now to Walmart, or Market Basket. Aside from not being a real person, as businesses, it is their very business activity (i.e. their professional interaction) that offends people. Telling off the staff at a store doesn't even relay up to management that you don't like their corporate strategy.
Since a corporation's offensiveness often lies directly in their policy and behavior in dealing with customers (or PR statements as Chickfilet hates gay people), it seems justifiable to seek a means to issue a correction to the corporation. Where Hitler the Waiter is only a jerk at parties that I don't attend, the corporation is right here, smack dab trying to do crappy business which hurts my local economy.
At that point, it seems I may be justified in pursing a conflict against Walmart, but not Hitler the Waiter's personal life choices.
Which comes to the methods. We already know that me not watching Roman's films is impactful to Roman, and if it was, it'd me more damaging to the people who worked on his film than Roman himself.
In theory, the same harmful aspect is true of a corporation. If I get everyone to not shop Walmart, a lot of employees' jobs are at risk. However, what are my real, practical choices in getting Walmart to change its behavior:
I basically see 2 angles: PR and hurting their sales.
The fact is, unless you're opposed to the beliefs of a single person who has no staff or family, there is no action you take that won't have some kind of collateral damage.
Even Hitler the Waiter might have goldfish (named Crockett & Tubbs) who may go belly up of everyone refused to hire him because he's a racist S.O.B.
Even Hitler the Waiter might have goldfish (named Crockett & Tubbs) who may go belly up of everyone refused to hire him because he's a racist S.O.B.
There have been several blogs comments I read that worry me on this subject and that is if you know that someone has done something bad and you still choose to buy their work then you are at worse condoning their crime or at best you are saying you don't care. I don't believe that. I personally can't watch Woody Allen films. I doubt I will ever read any MZB books but I will still read the Drakover novels being written by new authors. But I have no issue with people who enjoy Allen movies.
Things are rarely black and white take the Chik Fla A boycott I choose not to buy food from there but I have a friend who does care as much as I do about LGBT rights who feels differently his point is what about all the employees who depend about their paycheck should they be punished too. He had a valid point. My point was valid too I don't want my money going to someone who uses it to openly discriminate against other people. I don't have an issue with people's views if they think homosexuality is a sin fine that is their opinion but when they support groups that are imo hate groups then I have to say no.
David Gerrold the SF writer is openly gay he did not support the boycott of Ender's Game. There was some backlash against Card over some comic he had been hired to write. Gerrold said it disturbed that any writer would be banned from writing because of their beliefs to him it would be as bad as someone not letting him write because he was gay.
At the end of the day we all just have to decide where we draw the line for ourselves.
The Michael Vick thing really bothered me I feel that animal abusers are a special evil. The man should never be allowed to own pets again. But once he did his punishment he should be allowed to continue with his life. The fact that people wanted him banned from playing football did not make any sense to me. His career as a football player had nothing to do with the animal abuse. Secondly once someone has dome their time they should not be punished the rest of their life for it. He has right to use his talent to make a living.
Things are rarely black and white take the Chik Fla A boycott I choose not to buy food from there but I have a friend who does care as much as I do about LGBT rights who feels differently his point is what about all the employees who depend about their paycheck should they be punished too. He had a valid point. My point was valid too I don't want my money going to someone who uses it to openly discriminate against other people. I don't have an issue with people's views if they think homosexuality is a sin fine that is their opinion but when they support groups that are imo hate groups then I have to say no.
David Gerrold the SF writer is openly gay he did not support the boycott of Ender's Game. There was some backlash against Card over some comic he had been hired to write. Gerrold said it disturbed that any writer would be banned from writing because of their beliefs to him it would be as bad as someone not letting him write because he was gay.
At the end of the day we all just have to decide where we draw the line for ourselves.
The Michael Vick thing really bothered me I feel that animal abusers are a special evil. The man should never be allowed to own pets again. But once he did his punishment he should be allowed to continue with his life. The fact that people wanted him banned from playing football did not make any sense to me. His career as a football player had nothing to do with the animal abuse. Secondly once someone has dome their time they should not be punished the rest of their life for it. He has right to use his talent to make a living.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Maybe. But NFL teams also have the right to avoid hiring someone with an image that problematic, someone who will increase the negative press for the team.
The comic in question was Superman.
And, Gerrold's analogy breaks down. Gerrold did not choose to be gay, and cannot just change his mind about it and stop. Card can realize he's being a nozzle, and change his ways and his position.
They- and all other professional sports associations- do and they have...but they use that power with surgical precision. It shouldn't be a surprise that the better an athlete you are, the less likely you are to face serious repercussions like suspensions or outright black balling. It IS big business, after all, and results matter.
The disappointing aspect of this, though, is how many athletes could be tossed under just such standards. Towards the end of the Troy Aikman era, the Dallas Morning News printed an exposé on the NFL, detailing who had how many athletes with criminal records or subtantiated but unprosecuted charges on their teams. Most teams had between 20-50% of their athletes that fell into that category. Most of it was things like domestic violence, public drunkenness, DWIs or drug charges, but assaults, burglaries, armed robberies and even the odd homicide popped up.
IOW, if they didn't play favorites, they'd have problems being able to play at all.
pickin_grinnin
Explorer
The fact that he took part in dog fighting to begin with says something about the type of person he is. That alone is enough to shun the guy. What if he had raped someone, or murdered a child? Do you think that a rapist (or child murderer) is ever going to be a person you could trust or want to be around? Would you be arguing that the NFL should welcome him back with open arms?
Secondly, his punishment didn't fit the crime. He should have been thrown into the pit with some fighting dogs to experience what he put other living things through. That's not going to happen in our society, but his punishment should have been much, much more severe than it was, within the bounds of the types of punishments we use in our society.
I'm not sure that's wholly true.
it seems to be VERY difficult to get people to change their minds. in most cases, I think it's the person themselves evolving to change their viewpoint. Which is technically the same as what you meant, but I don't think it'll be rapid or dramatic.
Given that he's espousing the same views as his church (as I am told, but could be wrong), he's inherently in an environment to maintain his current viewpoint.
In practicality, he's not likely able to change his mind. Now if he moved off to GayTown (no clue where that is) and gets some nice neighbors, he may actually see they are nice people, possibly even better examples of behavior than some people he knows back home.
THAT, might cause him to soften his views, and ultimately change his mind.
Similar Threads
