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.
And the point of berating that girl is not to make her feel bad.
The same sort of pie-in-the-sky outcome can be imagined under the Adam Smith approach. The girl looks for a new job and ends up making more money. Meanwhile Chick-fil-a sees the error of its ways and stops opposing gay marriage.
The point probably wasn’t to make the audience sympathize with her and find Smith an arrogant jackoff, either, nor to alienate a large number of people who would ostensibly side with him otherwise. And yet, he managed to accomplish all those things.
Sometimes being sure of the “point” isn’t enough; one has to give serious thought to the best way to make it. As one of the board’s leading craftsmen of expertly made, thoughtfully considered arguments, I’m sure you’ll agree.
And I engage with brazil84 who thinks blacks are intellectually inferior to whites due to genetics to point and laugh at him. See this entire beautiful train wreck of this thread as a cite.
She’s not “serving” chick fil a. She gives them her work, and they give her their money. What they do with her work is their business, not hers. What she does with their money is her business, not theirs.
At least I thought that was how it was supposed to be conceptualized. Did I miss a memo?
Ummm, that’s how service normally works. Person A provides services to Person B and in return, Person B pays money to Person A.
In this case, the individual in question is manning Chick-Fil-A’s drive through window.
Does this principle apply universally? i.e. is it your position that nobody deserves criticism for working for any organization or corporation, no matter how evil that organization or corporation is?
Perhaps you think about things this way, but most people do not. Would you take a job working for an organization you considered to be evil?
I was trying and failing to satirize one line of argument I hear from people against the boycott. In actuality I think individual situations are too complicated gor general principles when it comes to worker/employer relations and advocacy.
Typically I do think low level employees are absolved of responsibility for high level policies, and yes I would work, guilt free, at an avowedly evil corporatiopn at a low level if I had to in order to make ends meet.
To be fair, you’re associated with the company you work for by default. And vice versa, which is why Smith lost his job.
She could risk getting fired by publicly agreeing with Smith’s opinions on CFA’s corporate policy; claim indifference; or admit she supports CFA’s policy. Anyway you dice it though, that’s a lose/lose/lose position for her now that it’s hit the press at this level.
Best she should do is clam up, at least until this dies down, or she chooses to move on to working for a different company.
Man, haven’t any of you ever worked a counter at a fast food place? That guy was pretty nice. Usually you get screamed at, called every dirty name in the book and physically threatened because the back line guy forgot to put extra pickles on the sandwich. If this happens less than 3 times in a shift it is a good day.
Agreed. But b84 is utterly incapable of arguing anything beyond a kindergarten level of simplistic circumstances. He’ll keep attempting to water down the argument, until it reaches unrealistically idealistic absurdities, and then will keep needling you on a yes or no answer on issues that are blatantly gray areas.
Keep arguing with him, and eventually you end up on his fake “ignore” list, which is really just a convenient way for him to bounce you out of any debate and never having to deal with any propositions that punch holes into his worldview like an iceberg to the Titanic.