# Ugh, Embarrassed this Douche is on "My side" (Chik-fil-a) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 3, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329 "2012-08-03T18:15:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/141 "2012-08-05T15:47:15Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And are you reasonably confident that this drive-thru window girl must work at this job in order to make ends meet? Careful, boys. It may _look_ like a harmless blobfish, but if you get too close and it thinks it smells food, it’ll latch on with its jaws and never let go. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/142 "2012-08-05T15:57:15Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If there are no general principles, then there really isn’t anything to discuss. I mean “useful, cleanly stateable general principles.” Even without fully general principles, anyway, you can still have typical cases and atypical cases. > [@](#): > > And are you reasonably confident that this drive-thru window girl must work at this job in order to make ends meet? No. I was giving one case in which I would work guilt free at an avowedly evil corporation. For one thing, Chick Fil A isn’t an avowedly evil corporation. For another thing, I do not claim that “needing to make ends meet” is necessary for it to be okay to work in a low level position at an avowedly evil corporation. You simply asked whether I’d work at one. The answer is yes. If you want to be more specific, you’ll need to be more specific. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/143 "2012-08-05T16:12:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And are you reasonably confident that this drive-thru window girl must work at this job in order to make ends meet? Maybe she’s just waiting for her trust fund to kick in, or is a Hollywood star in disguise going undercover to prepare for a role, or she is a replican, or has a drive through order taking fetish. There are just so many possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/144 "2012-08-05T16:12:45Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Heee! Brilliant. It would seem so, but actually it’s not. There’s a fundamental difference between being able to exercise your right to boycott a product you may like and bought as a luxury, but decline to purchase anymore based on some conflicting moral/ethical principle(s) between you and the holders of that product – and being held hostage by a resource/commodity monopolized by an organization that would profoundly effect your livelyhood on an individual level and the economy on a national/international level if you decided to boycott without a _much_ more organized and solidified political base to have any altruistic (or even self-serving) effect.\* But, **brazil84** is too fucking dense – nay! _sparse_ actually – to see that. \*Yes, I know there are alternatives to fossil fuels, but the infrastructure is not here yet, and pretty much impossible to avoid without accepting major lifestyle changes, such as living off the grid, and off of the land. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/145 "2012-08-05T16:20:49Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > But, **brazil84** is too fucking dense – nay! _sparse_ actually – to see that. Things don’t have to be perfectly logical to be funny though. Hell, most comedy is probably based on not being totally logical for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/146 "2012-08-05T16:23:34Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Things don’t have to be perfectly logical to be funny though. Hell, most comedy is probably based on not being totally logical for that matter. I understand that, of course. Still, while even I chuckled, I wouldn’t look nearly as smug as Willy Wonka does in that meme, as I’m sure **b84** does right now, if I were using it as an actual argument. ETA, Hint: Illogic is **b84’s** MO. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/147 "2012-08-05T16:34:26Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > Maybe she’s just waiting for her trust fund to kick in, or is a Hollywood star in disguise going undercover to prepare for a role, or she is a replican, or has a drive through order taking fetish. There are just so many possibilities. Sure, it’s also possible that the fast-food joint down the street is hiring. Or that she lives with her parents and works this job just for extra money to spend on clothing. Lots of possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/148 "2012-08-05T16:38:04Z")
I like this response better: [The Chick-On-Chick sandwich.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/04/beavers-houston-chick-fil-a-chick-on-chick-filet_n_1742375.html) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/149 "2012-08-05T16:42:08Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I mean “useful, cleanly stateable general principles.” I’m not sure what your point is here, but perhaps it will help if I restate the question a bit differently: Under what circumstances does an employee of an evil corporation or institution deserve criticism for voluntarily serving as an employee of an evil corporation or institution? Please tell me your general principle as best you can. Or are you saying that the question is impossible to answer? > [@](#): > > No. I was giving one case in which I would work guilt free at an avowedly evil corporation. Ok, so if a person is knowingly working for an evil corporation and has some degree of choice about it, then they deserve criticism? > [@](#): > > For one thing, Chick Fil A isn’t an avowedly evil corporation. I agree with you, but you are confusing my first original question – whether Chick Fil A is evil – with my second original question – whether it is reasonable to berate low-level employees assuming for the sake of argument that the employer is evil. > [@](#): > > The answer is yes. If you want to be more specific, you’ll need to be more specific. Probably it’s not necessary. Can I take it there are circumstances under which you would NOT knowingly work for an evil corporation, for example if you had plenty of other choices in order to make ends meet? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/150 "2012-08-05T16:43:24Z")
Looks like the U of A is distancing themselves from Mr. Smith too. > **[Agen338: Situs RTP Live Slot Tertinggi Hari Ini Mudah Menang 2023](https://www.guadalupeent.com/)** > > Agen338 adalah situs judi slot gacor dengan bocoran rtp live modal receh gampang menang di tahun 2023 I’ll bet his name becomes synonymous with a one step career ending fuck up. How long before Adam Smith makes it to the Urban Dictionary with the above definition? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/151 "2012-08-05T16:45:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I like this response better: [The Chick-On-Chick sandwich.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/04/beavers-houston-chick-fil-a-chick-on-chick-filet_n_1742375.html) Why is it that mockery seems much more effective than smugness? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/152 "2012-08-05T17:38:34Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/153 "2012-08-05T17:40:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What I do want out of this boycott is for the issue of gay rights to stay in the public consciousness, for the issue to continue to be debated, and most of all, for the anti-gay rights movement to continue to display its intolerance, stupidity, and hypocrisy. > > Towards that end, the boycott has already been wildlypointed successful. Mm, I don’t know. I think the intolerance of the anti-equality set was already pretty clear. I mean, it’s kind of definitional. On the other hand, the stories generated on the pro-equality side (the politicians, vandals and threats, assholes like this guy) are showing _their_ stupidity and hypocrisy. I’m sure Chick-fil-A is on the losing side of thethe war, in the long run–simply publicizing their stance should have hurt them–but I’m not so sure that the IRL manifestations of this particular skirmish are helping. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/154 "2012-08-05T17:43:05Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > It would seem so, but actually it’s not. > > There’s a fundamental difference between being able to exercise your right to boycott a product you may like and bought as a luxury, but decline to purchase anymore based on some conflicting moral/ethical principle(s) between you and the holders of that product – and being held hostage by a resource/commodity monopolized by an organization that would profoundly effect your livelyhood on an individual level and the economy on a national/international level if you decided to boycott without a _much_ more organized and solidified political base to have any altruistic (or even self-serving) effect.\* > > But, **brazil84** is too fucking dense – nay! _sparse_ actually – to see that. > \*Yes, I know there are alternatives to fossil fuels, but the infrastructure is not here yet, and pretty much impossible to avoid without accepting major lifestyle changes, such as living off the grid, and off of the land. Your patronizing pontifications notwithstanding, the shit was brilliant because it’s funny as hell. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/155 "2012-08-05T18:02:04Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Your patronizing pontifications notwithstanding, the shit was brilliant because it’s funny as hell. It is fucking funny, but believe me when I say **b84** is really, and I mean _actually_ using that as an argument. Patronizing and pontifical how, exactly? I spoke my fucking mind on **b84’s** bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/156 "2012-08-05T18:12:16Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Why is it that mockery seems much more effective than smugness? Because mockery shows the stupidity of your targets ideas. Smugness just makes you look like you think you are right because you are righter/smarter/better/more smug. People usually go with the smug. “Your ideas are stupid because of X reasons” is a much more convincing method than “I’m better than you”. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/157 "2012-08-05T18:13:20Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Because mockery shows the stupidity of your targets ideas. Smugness just makes you look like you think you are right because you are righter/smarter/better/more smug. > > People usually go with the smug. > > “Your ideas are stupid because of X reasons” is a much more convincing method than “I’m better than you”. Zactly. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/158 "2012-08-05T18:18:52Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The point of the boycott isn’t to shut down Chik-Fil-A. If you want to get more pie-in-the-sky about it, the absolute best outcome would be for Chik-Fil-A to stop donating money to hate groups. I’d be perfectly happy with that happening without a single chicken stand going under. I don’t think that’s likely, anymore than I expect this boycott to do significant harm to the corporation. What I do want out of this boycott is for the issue of gay rights to stay in the public consciousness, for the issue to continue to be debated, and most of all, for the anti-gay rights movement to continue to display its intolerance, stupidity, and hypocrisy. > > Towards that end, the boycott has already been wildly successful. Uh, I don’t think so. While you’re correct in that the issue came to the fore, the pro SSM crowd came off looking like douches. From public officials how think they have the power to keep businesses out due to a religious stance and the Adam Smith. For right now, they are the spokespeople. I wouldn’t call that a success if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/159 "2012-08-05T18:25:19Z")
It doesn’t matter. History will look on those outspokenly against same-sex marriage in the same light as those that were supportive for any other form of civil injustice; as fucking assholes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/160 "2012-08-05T18:27:49Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > It doesn’t matter. History will look on those outspokenly against same-sex marriage in the same light as those that were supportive for any other form of civil injustice; as fucking assholes. Yeah, whatever you say. But your civil injustice is bullshit. If “civil injustice” were the real cause, civil unions would be the logical and happy median. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329.md?page=9)