Reads as very much the same thing to me. Why do you think it isn’t?
That’s not what the sense of “ally” being discussed in this thread means. You are part of your family. It’s not a group that you’re not a member of.
There are many words in English that have different meanings depending on the context. If people are discussing what dogs (canines) should and shouldn’t eat, it’s entirely irrelevant to point out that chocolate does no harm to fireplace andirons or to untrustworthy humans.
If you’re insisting on giving unwanted advice to someone, I don’t think you are treating them as a competent adult.
Yup. Someone that persists in giving me unwanted advice is showing me a fundamental lack of respect, and their worldview is sufficiently different from mine that their advice is suspect as shit.
I was giving my definition of what a meaningful “ally” relationship looks like to me. If that is not of interest to you then feel free to ignore it.
There are times in my adult life when I haven’t wanted advice but people who care about my welfare have done so nonetheless.
I am hugely grateful they did so and prevented me for taking the wrong path.
If that had been done to me in every situation then I agree, they would not be treating me as a competent adult. But part of being a competent adult is both an acceptance that you may need to listen to good advice that you didn’t ask for and also that you need to judge when to intervene and offer it.
Were they people who knew you well and genuinely understood your actual situation?
If not, that is absolutely irrelevant to this thread, which is about advice being given by people who are outside the group to which they’re giving it.
But doesn’t this also apply in the opposite direction? “You should boycott this if you want to be an ally” is unsolicited advice that is also emotionally coercive. It implies that a grown adult needs to be told what to do in order to be a virtuous person; they can’t possibly judge for themselves what makes the bigger impact on a cause.
That’s how you get scenarios where a person who donates hundred of dollars to a particular special interest group is suddenly being told they aren’t an ally merely because they purchased something. Not likely to go over well, is it. Prioritizing symbolic gestures of support over strategic actions is not how winning occurs.
The Montgomery Bus boycotts was one of the most successful boycotts in American history. Imagine how effective activists would’ve been if their energies had been spent on publicly shaming the people who continued to ride the bus rather than helping people find alternative ways of getting around.
Let’s be very clear, this is telling people who want credit for “enthusiastically supporting your fight for equal rights” that continuing to take the bus is making that support seem pretty hollow. People “on your side” are giving aid and comfort to the people who hate you and want you to disappear.
Go ahead and ride the bus, just don’t ask for hugs and kisses from the people who are boycotting the bus.
I’m sure the people in Montgomery who took the bus did so knowing full well it wouldn’t engender admiration from the boycotters. Most adults can figure this out on their own, which is why it tends to be poorly received when stated in a unsolicited manner.
A lot of people (white and black) who continued to take the bus did so because they made their livelihoods on the other side of town. They couldn’t find alternative ways of getting to where they needed to keep food on the table. To infer their level of support from just this one act would be very wrong.
The Montgomery boycott was an amazing feat precisely because it was extremely difficult for working class people to abstain from this mode of transportation. Those who managed to do so deserve so much praise, but that doesn’t mean those who could not deserve scorn.
Btw, I honestly don’t understand why so much focus is on boycotting HL but not Twitter.
The Harry Potter boycott was an amazing feat precisely because it was extremely difficult for working class people to abstain from buying this particular video game, or that particular movie, or tickets to Universal Orlando. Those who managed to do so deserve praise, but that doesn’t mean those who could not deserve scorn.
I’m not sure if you think I disagree with this, but I don’t (except I believe the boycott is actually backfiring and therefore it’s not an “amazing feat”).
In todays world, the vast majority of gamers do find it difficult to abstain from this game.
The fact that it’s commercially successful. It hasn’t tanked, it hasn’t bombed. It is doing well in sales despite all efforts to stop people from buying the thing. As I mentioned earlier, the game has broken records.
If I’m supposed to believe it’s easy for gamers to abstain from this product, I haven’t see evidence to support that.
I don’t know about the game, but that bothered me about the books the first time i read them. I mean, it’s not “about upholding slavery”, but it’s awfully slavery-friendly, and i didn’t get the sense that bothered the author.
Public shaming–or the threat thereof–was absolutely a part of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Certainly it wasn’t the primary tactic, but it was there, alongside the positive support mechanisms.
Uh, lots of things are easy to abstain from, but people choose not to, for whatever reason. I imagine it’s pretty easy for most people to abstain from this game.