I can see where you’re coming from but, giving our esteemed colleague Roger_That’s argument proper attention, I think you are mistaken in attributing simple hedonism to him. Look at the examples given, and you will notice each time that Roger_That is sacrificing something he enjoys.
He used to like watching football, but now doesn’t, because he doesn’t like the NFL’s handling of the Kaepernick kneeling, and therefore he sacrificed that pleasure in protest.
He used to like watching and even playing baseball, but doesn’t like a proposed rule, and is considering sacrificing the sport in protest.
He used to shop at Home Depot and Lowes, probably with some convenience, but because he doesn’t like the politics of the CEOs, he sacrificed that convenience in protest.
There is a pattern here, but I don’t think it’s blind pursuit of pleasure. You could say it’s a noble dedication to social justice, but I think one of these is not like the others: the baseball example betrays something more base, a “my way or the highway” approach to personal association. And no one states this better than Roger_That himself, in the very first post, hidden in plain sight:
To which I respond, everything is fundamentally flawed. I personally choose a higher standard of non-association than “fundamentally flawed” - I ask myself if association is worthwhile. If it’s going to weigh on my conscience, if I’m losing sleep, maybe it’s not worthwhile. If there are alternatives that are less flawed, maybe sticking to a more flawed one isn’t worthwhile.
But I’m a registered Republican. Your mileage may vary 
~Max