That’s what I’m doing! Campaigning to (politically) grind the racists and misogynists into metaphorical dust to minimize the chance of these hateful and stifling views having any prominence in the future. So hopefully when those assholes die, no one is left to inherit their bigotry.
Yes, so when HMHW and others say ‘hang on, your campaign is having unfortunate side effects on freedom of expression, and maybe also giving the deplorables more ammunition’, it’s a bit odd to throw up your hands and ask what you can possibly do about that.
But that’s exactly what you are saying that we should not do.
If I campaign for say, SSM, then I’m going to also point out outspoken public figures and influencers who campaign against it. If I am protesting against an injustice, then I am going to point out those who support that injustice. If I am educating people, then part of that is explaining harmful speech, and pointing it out when I see it.
Education would also be involved for those times when someone says, “This guy got fired from GE for stuff he wrote 30 years ago.” to explain the entirety of the context of the situation. I have yet to see a good example of “cancel culture” that was either not a much different situation than as described, or that didn’t backfire.
Let’s use James Gunn as an example of a time when I would agree that cancel culture went “amok”. Some right wing peoples dug up some off color jokes he told some time back. His employer reacted too swiftly, fearing public backlash, and fired him. Then comes a massive swell of public support for him, so they reinstated him with an apology.
See what happened there, when “Cancel Culture” gets out of control, it does self correct. Both the public and the employers get “inoculated” against spurious or malicious accusations.
And that is the only solution to what I honestly don’t see as that big a problem. Anything else treads on people’s rights a bit too much for my preferences.
I’m unconvinced my efforts, and those of folks that think like me, are contributing to this in any way. I’m still not clear what you think I’m doing wrong.
Good to know you’re finally on the side of the peaceful protesters being violently assaulted by unhinged crazies in uniform to silence them.
Or, if I used my position as a business leader to lobby for positions, then I also do think that my business should be held accountable.
And to be honest, if someone looked far enough into me to see that I made a donation to a democratic candidate, and “boycotted” me for that, then that’s fine, I don’t want their business anyway. They sound like an asshole.
No, and I have done so on several occasions. We have them weekly in the town square, and I have joined in a couple of times when I was able. They are peaceful as all get out, with cops and demonstrators mingling and having a grand 'ol time. Some of my clients are the cops, and I wave or nod to them as I see them.
If someone takes exception to my presence at a BLM demonstration, and boycotts me, then I don’t want them as a client.
If I joined in the rioting, then I could see people thinking differently. If it were a Nazi organized march, then I would hope and expect to not have any clients the next day.
Well, the story of the Boeing executive would be exactly what you are asking for. I could add in Chikfillet with their owners advocating for anti-gay causes, or even J.K. Rowling, using her commercially obtained fame in order to give extra weight to her opinions.
No, the arguments were not tailored to you. Believe it or not, us liberals do believe in the free market. We just don’t believe that the free market solves all problems, and that some need to be solved with social intervention.
I never make an argument in order to “impress” or convince my interlocutor, I make the best argument I can as to the facts of the matter. Trying to convince another poster on the internet of anything is a fool’s errand at the very best. I am happy to respond to questions or comments as to my argument, as well as offer questions or comments upon another’s, but if you are here with the expectation of either impressing or convincing other posters, then you are doing the internet wrong.
The difference is that govt censorship can make something illegal. Corporate “censorship” can only mean that they are not offering or supporting it.
I’m impressed with the level of confidence in this kind of statement. Not too long ago my wife and I participated in a consumer boycott of a local sandwich shop chain. We did so because we discovered the owner contributed to and was an active supporter of the Trump administration. It was a difficult decision on two levels. One: the sandwiches were outstanding and every bit as good as those available in Philadelphia. Two: They employed a largely minority staff that were the obvious targets of bigotry of the Trump administration. The boycott resulted in the closing of all the restaurants in the DC metro area. This cost a lot of people their jobs. Jobs they did not deserve to lose simply because their boss was an “asshole”.
Perhaps you have a far greater sense of clarity about this sort of socio-political activism. I’m not always sure that I do. And not because I can no longer get a decent fucking sandwich in this hell hole.
ETA: Or perhaps I was the “asshole” for boycotting them? What do you think?
I think that the whole point of having a public being free to speak and act is to work out what ideas are workable and acceptable, and what are not.
Do you boycott every restaurant owner that has donated to Trump? If not, why not? Do you look up every owner before you go partake in their establishment to see what donations are being given?
I assume you do not do this, and so, the reason that you boycotted this business was not solely due to his campaign contributions, but due to some other public actions or statements in which he was using his position to amplify his voice.
So, let me ask you to make this clear. What brought this person’s actions to your attention?
Honestly, if you did boycott him solely because of his political contributions, without knowing anything else about him, then that is your right, but I do not think that that is the most appropriate or useful way to use the power of your wallet to influence public policy.
Now, if he did more than just donate to a major political party, if he used his resources to amplify his voice, he is the one that is bringing his business into this.
As far as feeling bad for people losing their jobs, well, you didn’t boycott lunch, did you? If everyone stops frequenting a racist owner, and goes to non-racist establishments, then that makes more jobs available in non-racists environments. Everybody wins. Well, except the racists.
I am not sure if I was supposed to know who it was that you were talking about, or what company.
Well, yes, of course. The thing is just that I have a hard time viewing that as a good thing, and if it’s not, then it’s gotten worse over time, which also implies that it doesn’t have to be this way—hence, I find this sort of stance somewhat baffling:
Evidently, if things were better in the past, then things don’t have to be the way they are now. We don’t have to just accept that (taking the study at face value) 40% of Americans don’t feel free to utter their views. It’s not just a fact of life; it’s something that can be changed—and if, like I think is the case, it’s a bad thing, it’s something that ought to be changed.
Hence, we ought to foster a climate in which disagreement and debate is encouraged, rather than—as evidently a sizable portion of the population feels—one in which the holding of divergent views leads to social stigmatization. Which is basically the point of the thread in a nutshell.
I’m not sure if I understand you correctly here. I’d think that the anonymity of the internet would foster unfettered expression of one’s views—hence, it seems likely that it’s predominantly in the face-to-face interactions that we’re seeing a divergence compared to earlier times. Or am I missing something?
It was not clear to me, in reading the study, how they went about gathering the latest data and whether they had considered/included the manner in which people interact now. I believe that people are much more censorial on social media (facebook, etc) than in real life. So when asked whether they feel more or less free in sharing their political opinions, they are more likely to respond that they are less free to express it without judgement.
The restaurants in question were called Taylor’s Gourmet. They sold mainly subs/hoagies type sandwiches. They brought it bread and ingredients from Philadelphia. The owners (two partners) were originally from there and rightly understood that DC could use a good sandwich. They opened several restaurants to much anticipation and fanfare in two short years before Trump arrived on the scene.
One of the owner, perhaps the major partner, was later photographed attending a Trump small business summit or mixer. He tried to deny it. Then pictures came out. His contributions to the campaign were made public. Boycotts ensued. A couple of years later he shut down all restaurants but one. The last one is in DC but under new ownership.
We do not make a habit of checking the background of every business we frequent. This was just too public to miss and too disappointing to dismiss.
You might consider this not relevant as we obviously haven’t stopped going to restaurants, however, an exceptionally good restaurant was closed through the social boycott actions of many customers. We may have won the battle but I think that overall, the restaurant scene is much worse off in the DC metro area. And I’m not convinced we’re less a single Trump supporter for having won it.
So about the study, I note:
I can think of many extended families (mine included) where sometimes people will not express a unpopular view to prevent yelling at the dinner table. And this goes both ways. Or an agreement that “we will not discuss politics”. Is that considered the same as other self-censorship here?
Interesting—my impression runs the other way, both on non-anonymous sites like facebook, and much more so on anonymous platforms. If anything, I would’ve thought that the ability to go online and self-select some appropriate peer group to agree with you fosters unfettered expression, as @DemonTree also proposed:
What if, for perhaps the first time in history, racists and bigots are worried that there could be very significant social consequences for discussing their views? Would that be worse than a world (say, the United States for most of its existence) in which such views were generally tolerated, if not welcomed?
The unattributed “quote from another thread” is mine. And I am liberal. I’m a liberal who owned and operated a successful construction subcontracting business for over 25 years. I believe in regulated capitalism operating inside the framework of a representative democracy.
But your selective quoting removed the nuance from my post. I acknowledged “corporate personhood”, I don’t agree with it. I believe that corporations are essentially amoral and cannot be held accountable for their actions in same way a person can. As the only available penalties are financial, every moral decision becomes a cost benefit decision.
That is why I feel capitalism only works within the bounds of a free society with a robust democracy. The people’s ability to enact legislation, form unions and organize boycotts is an essential element of capitalism.
I think my point may have been that there is no such thing as “conservative principles” anymore, it’s become an oxymoron.
Conservative support for the free market only lasts until Adam Smith’s invisible hand bitch-slaps them, then it’s all butthurt snowflake tears about the mean liberals oppressing speech because they hate the moral values of some corporate person.
Of course, the conservative “principle” of financial prudence didn’t survive a con man promising pie-in-the sky returns in exchange for running up record deficits, and the conservative “principle” of limited federal government gets tossed aside as long as the government troops are rounding up blacks and liberals.
And don’t even start me on the party of family values and stable 2 family homes worshipping an adulterer that fathered 5 children with three different women.
I don’t know that I agree with “good and bad” from the perspective of social activism. IMHO, ethics are what you do to bring about the world you want to live in. If that means not supporting those who work against the things that you believe in, then that’s what it means, even if it also means that others do not have to support you if they think that you work against the things that they believe in.
I just don’t know how else it could work.
There are three reasons that I would put forth as to why people are less comfortable talking about their political views.
One is that some views have become unwelcome. You used to be able to say racist or misogynistic things, and it was fine. You would face no social repercussions. Now there are social repercussions, so you are not as free to express your bigotry as openly.
Second is people are more sensitive. They hear of a story of a guy at GE getting fired for something that they wrote 30 years ago, and they suddenly think that they are next. Calls against the PC police and “rightthink” are hyperbolic hysteria, but they still manage to convince some that there is a there there. They are not going to get into trouble for voicing their opinion, but the media that they have chosen to consume tells them that they will.
And third is the internet. Used to be, if I was mad at someone for what they said, I waved my fist in the air and yelled at the clouds. Now, they actually hear that criticism through twitter or other social media, and feel under attack. It is no more disagreement than they had before, it’s just that they were ignorant of it before.
I don’t agree that simply holding divergent views leads to social stigmatization. I think that advocating for certain views comes with a level of very deserved criticism, though.
You said that you joined in this boycott, right? Do you feel you were wrong to do so? I don’t have enough information about what he did to say for sure, but from what I have heard, I would not have refused him my custom for his public actions. What was it that put you over the top?
I asked who this was because I wasn’t sure if it was some famous case that I should have been aware of. But, looking into it, it’s not as clear cut, anyway.
And I don’t know why anyone would expect that support for Trump would wane from boycotting one of his supporters. That’s not the goal. In fact, the only goal is not giving money to people you don’t want to give it to.
Some random anonymous people did contradict that, saying
to which the company responded:
So, it sounds like your boycott was not as effective as the company’s own mismanagement.
Depends on what you mean. If we are talking face to face in a specific social setting, then people are going to be much more free in their expressions than in the general public.
The problem with social media is that it is an unholy fusion of public and private, so what I tell my close friends can be heard by the whole world, and audience I was not intending to take into account.
I recall thinking that it was disappointing that he was a Trump supporter but that he would go as far as lying about it and then having been busted for the lie that put it over the top. The overall temperature about Trump as president was quite high in 2017. So this was all part of that “RESIST” mentality - to punish those who aligned themselves with Trump by not giving them money.
Jury is out about whether the boycott caused them to fail and to what extent. Mismanagement aside, a 40% drop in sales overnight and one that persisted could not have helped or made investors feel confident over the long term.
How do I personally feel about it now? Somewhat mixed. Mostly hungry.
Oh, so it was about the lying about it, not the part about being a Trump supporter.
I can get behind that, I don’t want my sandwich made by dishonesty. If he is lying about something so blatant, what else is he lying about?
I looked for some sort of sales figures of any kind, and didn’t really dig anything up. But the source for that 40% and the persistence is an anonymous person who is “familiar” with the company.
Maybe what made the investors feel less confident was that the person that they were investing in was lying to the public, and they too wondered what else he is lying about.
So, just to be clear on this, the reason that you participated in the boycott was not that he supported Trump, but that he is a liar, correct?
The restaurant was usually very busy and lines were a pretty regular thing. It was after the news of his support and lying got out that there was a notable change in patronage. Far fewer customers, store local to me was often completely empty. Which was bad given the amount of foot traffic and general retail activity in the area. It was one of those planned shopping/living districts that NoVa is so fond of.
The decision was a 60/40 split. 60% because he was a Trump supporter, 40% because he lied in such a skeevy way about it. I might have let the need for a good sandwich override the 60% in time.
If I’m honest, I feel like I should have just let it go and continued to shop there. Not because I can no longer have their sandwich but because all I know about him is that he supported Trump. As far as I know, he didn’t enforce child separation for his employees. For all I know, he may even regret some of his decision now. I boycotted the guy because he voted wrong.