Naw. If you are consuming then because you don’t know the background, and the person is bringing it up to tell you the background, that’s really not a criticism of you. Now, if you listen and reply, “naw, i don’t care” it might turn into a criticism. But i don’t think it starts that way.
IME, that’s how most people will take it.
For instance, have you happened to see how someone will take a suggestion not to use the word “uppity” in a thread talking about civil rights leaders?
That is the most likely reaction, yes.
It may not be intended to start that way by the person helpfully informing the other as to the background of the product they are supporting, but that’s how it usually ends up.
Let’s RP this.
You see an acquaintance eating some Chick-fil-a. You say, “Did you know that they donate to anti-LGBT hate groups?” They say, “I don’t care.”
Where do you go from there? Do you leave it at that, or do you press the matter?
If you leave it at that, you’ve been defeated. You have tried to change the world one person at a time, and have failed. You sit and watch as someone knowingly and willingly supports those who would see you and yours dead.
If you don’t leave it at that, you are seen “lecturing”, as the person in the OP is described, and as you can see, there are quite a number of posters in this thread that would have cut off all ties with her over that.
It seems the only way for a marginalized group or their allies to win is to simply shut up and not inconvenience the privileged in any way. If they can behave and stay quiet, then maybe they will be allowed to exist.
And what if instead of saying “I don’t care”, they say instead "well, in the great scheme of things the marginal profit that might derive from such a boycott by one person, a few times a year, seems utterly insignificant to me, and I have no confidence that any alternate purchase wouldn’t accomplish the same thing, because the whole system is rotten. So for me, giving up this product I enjoy for purely symbolic reasons feels empty and meaningless. "
In a case like that, would you still feel like you failed, you were “defeated” unless you kept pushing the matter? Or is that just “I dont care” with extra steps?
Can you conceptualize a person who disagrees with you on the issue but is not insisting that you
This is what i ment earlier: if you think reasonable people can reach different conclusions on the issue, then speaking your piece and backing down is not a defeat. But if you don’t, then yes, you are right.
Yes, that is exactly what it is. A lot of rationalization to do what they want to do.
Basically, it’s a lecture back at the person who brought it up to shut up and leave them alone.
Sure, reasonable people can reach different conclusions, it’s just based on their priorities. If they prioritize the deliciousness of Chick-fil-a over the symbolic gesture of not knowingly and willingly supporting people who are attempting genocide, then that’s perfectly reasonable based on their priorities.
So, yes, it is a defeat, and to boot, anyone that speaks up gets a lecture that their actions are empty meaningless symbolic gestures.
Do these social lecturers draw lines on which topics they will lecture on? Is it only Chick-fil-A and Harry Potter, or do they lecture people on plastic bags, non-nutritious food, Elon Musk, etc ad infinitum.
If they say their piece and the other person says, “Thank you” - or something else clearly indicating “This is not something I wish to discuss further,” does the lecturer let it drop?
I recall back in 04, when I thought the presidential election was important enough that I’d mention it to one of my friends. Turned out he was far more conservative and supportive of the incumbent than I had imagined (on economic and international relations issues), and my attempts to broach the subject permanently altered our friendship.
I think there are a lot more possible answers. For instance, “Thank you, I didn’t realize that, I’ll think about it going forward.” No promise that you will change your behavior, but not a blanket “no”, either. Honestly, if “Chick-fil-a is anti gay” or “Rowling has been publicly and aggressively anti-trans” is new information to you, that’s probably the best answer. It’s not as if anyone really wants to spend their gaming time talking about that stuff.
Is Chik-Fil-A on equally bad footing with Harry Potter/JK Rowling?
I mean Chik Fil-A is giving money to actively hurt the LGBTQ+ community. JK Rowling is clueless; or, is she actively donating to odious hate groups? Because you’ll not convince me that because she espouses stupid/hurtful/dangerous opinions that some of her readers will follow her and treat those views as acceptable.People who agree with her were already lost souls.
As a group, we’ve been playing board games for more than a decade on almost a weekly basis. She knew full well I was aware of Chick-Fil-A’s stance and she knew the Potter fan was aware of Rowling’s beliefs on trans people. I don’t think informing was the goal in this particular case.
I think they’re equivalent, in that they are enabling the people who WILL harm anti-LGBT people.
Rowling is clearly caught in the false belief that men are disguising themselves as women in order to harm women. Because she amplifies this belief socially, she is enabling people who will act our physically and / or legislatively against trans people.
I don’t know what Chik-Fil-A is doing, but I’m sure their money is enabling people who will act our physically and / or legislatively against trans people, but also other LGBTQ+ people.
True, and fair. I was responding to that answer.
Sure. They know you made no promises or commitments to change your behavior, and that you most likely won’t. It’s a dismissive answer that says that you don’t want to talk about it.
It’s also the best answer if you do know, as in the case of the OP. The person should know what their priorities are, and act accordingly. They should know that they aren’t going to change those priorities, and that they will choose a chicken sandwich over backing the rights of marginalized people.
I mean, I understand, a chicken sandwich fills you up, what do gay rights do for you?
No, they don’t. And it’s great that there are so many people, the vast majority in fact, that don’t need to spend any time at all talking about or even thinking about that stuff, as it doesn’t affect them at all.
Problem is, is that there is that minority of people who can’t afford to stop thinking about it, as the people who want them wiped out of existence never stop thinking about them.
Like I said, most people not personally affected by these things would really rather that marginalized minorities and their advocates shut up and not make them think about it, they’d rather spend the time playing board games.
Um… That’s not a dismissive answer. It’s an “I’ll look into that later” answer. Have you never changed your behavior because of something a friend said? Have you always done it immediately, without question? Have you always dropped everything to talk about it right at this moment?
You know, speaking as a queer man, the Chik-Fil-A boycott’s never really done anything to change my life one way or the other. Eat there, don’t eat there, it’s really not that big a deal. Setting up a dichotomy where either you join in the symbolic protest, or you don’t actually care about gay rights, is dumb, and doesn’t help anyone.
Well, speaking as someone where generally tries to be an ally to queer people, I’m boycotting Rowling (in that I’m not sending any more of my money her way) but I’m not boycotting Chick-fil-A. They actually changed their corporate donation policy as a result of the initial boycott, and while I’m sure the owners still do things i don’t like, that’s probably true of pretty much everything. Also, i don’t eat enough chicken sandwiches from anywhere for it to matter.
But i have friends who bring up random social issues at all sorts of random times, and it doesn’t generally turn into anything adversarial. And sometimes i stop buying stuff based on something a friend says.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I support both boycotts. And there’s nothing wrong with talking about why they’re problematic. But if someone decides that having .00000000001 cent of their chicken sandwich purchase go to the National Organization for Marriage isn’t that big a deal, well… they’re not wrong.
Eat the chicken sandwich and vote for the Democrat, and you’re doing okay on the subject as far as I care.
It is dumb to set up that dichotomy, I agree.
Like I said, it’s a matter of priorities, and those are a matter of degree. If someone told me that Ford was a terrible company that does terrible things, I wouldn’t stop driving my Ford car, as I need to be able to go to work and the store and stuff. If someone told me the atrocities that my electrical company has committed, I would keep using electricity, as I kinda need it to function.
They could be right that I am supporting terrible organizations that do terrible things, but my priorities would prevent me from boycotting these items. They would be asking too much of me to join in their boycott.
But I can get a chicken sandwich anywhere. If I continue to support Chick fil a, knowing what I know, then that says what my priorities are.
They do still donate to anti-LGBT causes.
No one really does. That’s why it requires a group effort to make it matter.
I’d say that it’s largely on the part of the recipient as to whether it turns adversarial, and so your reaction of not taking offense at someone telling you what to do is what prevents that confrontation.
Do you ever feel like you are being lectured by your friends?
And sometimes I do, too. It depends on my priorities, and whether the product or service is something I can do without or substitute. Sometimes it’s easy, like not eating at a particular restaurant or consuming a particular book, movie, and video game franchise. Sometimes it’s hard, like not going to any home improvement store, as they all have something they do that I disagree with.
I’ve had two fast food chicken sandwiches in the past decade. My choices here REALLY don’t matter.
Yeah, sometimes. I invite it, though, because i ask to learn more.
Then why are you doing it?
I also rarely eat fast food chicken sandwiches (can’t remember the last time).
That brings up a question: should we be actively buying chicken sandwiches from Chick-fil-A’s competitors, to sock it to them?
If you do that, it may not help much, as this article about Popeyes points out.
Better just have a salad at Vicky Vegan’s.
Yeah - I don’t eat fast food - or shop at hobby stores, but if I had the urge for a chicken sandwich or some hobby supplies, I’d choose the option that didn’t support reprehensible policies.
But those are about the only 2 retailers I apply that to. I hear folk say Home Depot is pretty crappy, but it is SO much more convenient to me that Menard’s or Lowes, that they still get my business.