May I see your papers, citizen?

I have friends in Arizona.

I go there for conventions sometimes.

I 'll try to leave a little more cash behind next time.

David

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

That being said, personal bigotry and politics of bigotry are not the same thing either.

I'd say it's a difference in quantity, not quality. Political bigotry equals personal bigotry, multiplied by the number of persons in the electorate.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But that's a changeable factor. I'm not discriminating based upon the dude's inherent characteristics. There is a difference between the two cases.

I think you are seriously underestimating the practical difficulties of closing down a business in one state and starting it up from scratch in another. (In most cases, this means, new employees, new customer base, new everything.) Not all businesses are internet providers.

Not my problem. The costs of doing business are the problems of the owners.

I think I've defended my point sufficiently well by now. Off to lunch!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Political bigotry equals personal bigotry, multiplied by the number of persons in the electorate.

...if the bigots are able to get 50% +1 vote.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Thomas, There are many things I personally boycott. Walmart because the don't pay a living wage, blood diamonds - I buy Canadian stones. I don't buy crap chocolate because many of the ingredients come from slave farms in Africa. I buy ethical stocks too. I won't support certain business because they are an affront to my personal beliefs. Are you saying I should?

I disagree about Walmart, but in my experience that's a thread onto itself, so I'd prefer not to get into it here. As to blood diamonds and slave-produced chocolate, I approve of your choices, but they're not comparable to the case of boycotting Arizona. (Or Cuba. Or South Africa.) By not buying blood diamonds, you specifically decline to send money to warlords who then use it to kill, rape, and burn. By not buying slave-produced chocolate, you specifically decline to send money to slave-drivers. But by boycotting Arizona, you generally decline to send money to Arizonans, most of whom have done nothing wrong. One thing is a targeted sniper attack, the other is carpet bombing. I'm against economic carpet bombing.

0 Replies

I highly doubt my refraining from visiting Arizona could in any way be likened to carpet bombing. People boycotted seal hunting. Now the hunt is dead. This has adversely affected a people (Inuit) and an economy that has little else for options, to eke out a living. I don't recall bigotry being thrown around when this happened. I'm sure the good people of Arizona will prevail and maybe think twice about electing bigots.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

That would be nice.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

They did.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Again, boycotting seal hunters targets specific people for specific actions you disapprove of. By contrast, boycotting Arizona targets everyone from Arizona, whether they have voted for the current Senate majority or against it.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Again, boycotting seal hunting targets specific people for specific actions you disapprove of. By contrast, boycotting Arizona targets everyone from Arizona, whether they have voted for the current Senate majority or against it.

What about the wives and children of those seal hunters? They have done nothing wrong, but are still hurt by your boycott.

You will never find a situation where boycotting something only hurts those who made the tough decisions and nobody else. That's not how boycotts work, or are even supposed to work.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Wrong, the entire northern eastern communities have been affected. Not everybody hunts.
How then do you think we should go about sending a message of disgust? By doing nothing? That has been tried many times and it fails to send a message.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If the seal hunters can find other jobs with reasonable ease, the wives and children won't be affected. If they can't, I will revise my statement and disapprove of boycotts against seal hunting. Come to think of it, I actually wouldn't boycott seal hunting without boycotting chicken-farming, cow-farming, and pig-farming first. It's discrimination against chicken for not being cute, and discrimination against the Inuit for being a minority living in remote areas. There is no good reason to call seal hunting "an outrage" while calling chicken-farming "our traditional way of life". But that, too, is probably a topic for some other thread.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If the seal hunters can find other jobs with reasonable ease, the wives and children won't be affected. If they can't, I will revise my statement and disapprove of boycotts against seal hunting. Come to think of it, I actually wouldn't boycott seal hunting without boycotting chicken-farming, cow-farming, and pig-farming first. It's discrimination against chicken for not being cute, and discrimination against the Inuit for being a minority living in remote areas. There is no good reason to call seal hunting "an outrage" while calling chicken-farming "our traditional way of life". But that, too, is probably a topic for some other thread.

This position essentially puts you against all boycotts, because ALL of them will harm people who are not those who made the decisions you disagree with.

If this is your position, fine; I don't have a problem with that being your position. But it is pretty extreme.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Wrong, the entire northern eastern communities have been affected. Not everybody hunts.

Fair enough. I stand corrected then, and from now on oppose boycotts on seal hunting.

Ceili wrote:

How then do you think we should go about sending a message of disgust? By doing nothing? That has been tried many times and it fails to send a message.

Actually I'm quite fond of the maxim, "don't just do something, sit there!" I have little patience with consumer activism. Although there are exceptions, my general impression is that it's mostly about making the activists feel holier than you, not about achieving tangible benefits for the alleged cause.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

thomas wrote :

Quote:

boycotting seal hunters targets specific people for specific actions you disapprove of.

you may very well " target " the seal hunters but a lot of other people will suffer in the process of " targeting " .
how about the makers of snowmobiles , rifles , sleds ... how about the transportation services accepting the pelts for transport , the processors of the pelts ... the list goes on-and-on .

i have difficulty seeing that it is possible to isolate a group during a boycott action .
perhaps it is the best one can do ... but there are almost always others who will suffer from a boycott - even if they are just sitting on the sidelines .
( i don't see that it can ever be avoided ) .

i know i'm getting rather outlandish here - just want to see if i'm the only one here with such a view .

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This position essentially puts you against all boycotts, because ALL of them will harm people who are not those who made the decisions you disagree with.

Not all of them, just most of them. Boycotting blood diamonds probably does bring more good to the villages not pillaged than harm to warlord families not made rich.

0 Replies

@hamburgboy,

hamburgboy wrote:

i have difficulty seeing that it is possible to isolate a group during a boycott action .

That's a fair point, and it makes me even more skeptical of boycotts than I already was. When I conceded to Ceili that some boycotts may be a net benefit to the world, it was in the spirit of bending over backwards to acknowledge that there may be exceptions to my general position on consumer boycotts. Nevertheless, my general opposition to it remains.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

thomas wrote :

Quote:

That's a fair point, and it makes me even more skeptical of boycotts than I already was. When I conceded to Ceili that some boycotts may be a net benefit to the world, it was in the spirit of bending over backwards to acknowledge that there may be exceptions to my general position on consumer boycotts. Nevertheless, my general opposition to it remains.

i'd say that " boycotts " are pretty well individual decisions .
if i don't like the products , service offered by a merchant ( supermarket ) , i may decide not to buy there anymore .
i guess it's a kind of boycott and may very well hurt the emplyees of the merchant - perhaps in a very small way .

( and i likely won't worry - or even think - about my " boycott " having any impact on the employees ) .

1 Reply

@hamburgboy,

hamburgboy wrote:

if i don't like the products , service offered by a merchant ( supermarket ) , i may decide not to buy there anymore .
i guess it's a kind of boycott and may very well hurt the emplyees of the merchant - perhaps in a very small way .

Really? I cancelled my Blockbuster online account because of the abominable customer service and it never occurred to me that I was 'boycotting' them.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas, I see your point-- but I think that the carpet bombing metaphor is a little strong. Pick a whatever you consider justified military action (since you are using the bombing metaphor), and you will see that the whole nation is affected (not just people who support the regime).

Anytime there is a military action, or a political struggle, there are consequences that ripple beyond the target. That is the nature of battle.

This is a battle about justice; there are people and communities and principles that are threatened by this law. Many of us feel that this is important enough to fight strongly against.

The Arizona legislature is elected by Arizona. They represent Arizona. Arizona is responsible for them-- and Arizona has the only direct way to restrain their legislature. For Americans who are deeply angered by the actions of the Arizona legislature, we have no choice but to pressure Arizona.

It makes no sense to pretend that the residents and businesses of Arizona aren't responsible for their legislature and governor..

I am consciously separating the discussion between what is effective from the discussion about what is moral.

But the legislature, which represents the state and is accountable to the state as a whole, has taken an action that is deeply offensive to me as an American. I don't have any problem if Arizona, as the state that is responsible for their legislature, feels some pain in our attempt to force Arizona to reverse course.

Ironically enough, some of the strongest calls for the boycott are coming from an elected official (who happens to be Hispanic) from Arizona who is asking for help to oppose this law.

2 Replies

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know