Thoughtcrime

[Lemur]

The blame lies with the the sheeple

Haters gonna hate.

[HoreTore]

Sure, and I never put the blame on the company. The blame lies with the sheeple of california.

So, when they disagree with you they're sheeple?

And since you don't believe I should boycott a company over gay rights, what behaviour justifies a boycott in your opinion? Or should we just continue buying stuff without any thought given to company behaviour?

[rvg]

And since you don't believe I should boycott a company over gay rights, what behaviour justifies a boycott in your opinion?

Making shoddy product/service, illegal business practices, etc. You know, the stuff that actually has something to do with the product that the company produces.

[HoreTore]

Making shoddy product/service, illegal business practices, etc. You know, the stuff that actually has something to do with the product that the company produces.

How does an illegal business practice affect their product?

Anyway, why am I not allowed to boycott the company for any other reasons? Why should I be forced to buy stuff from people I don't like? Why should I have to buy stuff from a company support, say, Al-Qaida or has publicly supported the idea that 9/11 was done by Mossad?

[rvg]

How does an illegal business practice affect their product?

Depends on the specifics, but being illegal is enough to warrant a boycott.

Anyway, why am I not allowed to boycott the company for any other reasons? Why should I be forced to buy stuff from people I don't like? Why should I have to buy stuff from a company support, say, Al-Qaida or has publicly supported the idea that 9/11 was done by Mossad?

Who says you're not allowed? You're most certainly allowed. If you wanna bleat with the rest of them, go ahead and bleat to your heart's content. In the meantime I will call this bleating for what it is.

[HoreTore]

Who says you're not allowed? You're most certainly allowed. If you wanna bleat with the rest of them, go ahead and bleat to your heart's content. In the meantime I will call this bleating for what it is.

I can't see how this attitude does not put you in the category of "sheeple".

How, exactly, am I a "sheeple" for staying informed about company profiles and making my economic decisions based on how I view their contribution to the wider society? Why should I only care about filling their coffers, and nothing else?

[rvg]

How, exactly, am I a "sheeple" for staying informed about company profiles and making my economic decisions based on how I view their contribution to the wider society? Why should I only care about filling their coffers, and nothing else?

Because you're operating within the same mindset as the sheep that were boycotting The Dixie Chicks back ten years ago or so.

[rvg]

And your mindset is basically promoting corporate welfare at your own expense. Pretty toolish. Pretty sheepish.

No, my mindset is promoting corporate welfare at your expense. Quite different.

[HoreTore]

Because you're operating within the same mindset as the sheep that were boycotting The Dixie Chicks back ten years ago or so.

So your opinion then is that I should mindlessly buy stuff without thinking about who my purchases support. And if I don't, I'm sheeple. Brilliant logic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have the right not to purchase the goods or services of any company and for any reason.

As long as you do not advocate violence, you also have the right to persuade others to boycott the organization in question. Arguably, depending on your code of ethics, it may be a moral duty for you to do so and not to simply refrain from that organization yourself.

Chick-Fil-A stays closed on Sundays. If people find this Christian-centric choice on their part to be inappropriate, then they should stop buying the chicken sandwiches. If enough folks stop, then Chick-Fil-A closes. If Chick-Fil-A counters with an ad campaign that says "proud to be a Christian chicken shop" or whatever, then the ad campaign may knock the boycott flat. All part of the game.

Public pressure, social media version, sponsored/propelled by a website with its own agenda, got this guy ousted. Apparently, Mozilla got scared and thought they would lose enough market share to knuckle under. I think they made the wrong call, but it was their call to make.

I work in academe. We actually still encourage the exchange of opposing viewpoints without squelching the opposition.

From this website's perspective, however, this was nothing but a win. Their agenda item is front and center and every social-media sensitive organization was just served notice to toe the line with our agenda or we will squelch you. The Constitution protects the freedom of speech...from government. If you want to boycott a person or group for their views you can. If you can swing it, you can crush them and leave them broken and rule by fear of your clout. Tacky, but within your rights. It's not as though the NRA hasn't been doing much the same in Congress for years.

[HoreTore]

Our interests are the same unless you're a billionaire.

You're arguing against someone who apparently believes that a Jew who doesn't want to buy stuff from a neo-nazi is a sheep.

I think it's quite safe to assume he's not entirely aware of what his interests are.

[rvg]

You're arguing against someone who apparently believes that a Jew who doesn't want to buy stuff from a neo-nazi is a sheep...

No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.

P.S. Godwin stronk.

[HoreTore]

No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.

You generalized your opinion on the previous page to state that actions unrelated to the quality of the product or the legality of the business are never grounds for a boycott.

Is this inaccurate?

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.

P.S. Godwin stronk.

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).

[Sarmatian]

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).

There's really a committee of un-American activities or something to that effect?

What does it do? What activities are considered un-American?

[rvg]

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).

I don't think it makes much difference for the Mozilla guy whether or not he got fired because of the effort of a government agency or a group of californians. BTW, The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is very real. It was and still is active in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan as well as in Saudi Arabia.

You generalized your opinion on the previous page to state that actions unrelated to the quality of the product or the legality of the business are never grounds for a boycott.

Is this inaccurate?

No, that's very accurate. so?

[HoreTore]

No, that's very accurate. so?

So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?

[Sarmatian]

It was the red scare witch-hunt. It no longer exists, though todays laws allow for much worse theoretically.

Go Patriot Act.

Sucks.

Cold war had all these committees with cool names, and what do we have now? Committee for chicken protection (I know there's got to be one like that).

No wonder we're in decline as a species...

The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

Ok, I'll accept that one as semi-cool. When they start to act like the Spanish inquisition, I'll promote them to cool.

[HoreTore]

Sucks.

Cold war had all these committees with cool names, and what do we have now? Committee for chicken protection (I know there's got to be one like that).

Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that.

[Sarmatian]

Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that.

Oh, God Almighty, spare us the misery and finish us off now.

So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?

Ignorance once again, Sven? Not sheep - sheeple. Half sheep-half people. Best of both worlds. They graze on the pastures but democratically elect their sheepleherder.

[rvg]

So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?

What's he supposed to be buying in the neo-nazi store, swastikas? Give me more information about this hypothetical case.

[HoreTore]

What's he supposed to be buying in the neo-nazi store, swastikas? Give me more information about this hypothetical case.

Let's say it's your run-of-the-mill grocery store, with slightly lower prices than the store across the street.

Run by the local head of the national-socialist party. Should a Jew be compelled to shop at his store?

[rvg]

Let's say it's your run-of-the-mill grocery store, with slightly lower prices than the store across the street.

Run by the local head of the national-socialist party. Should a Jew be compelled to shop at his store?

Of course! He's a Jew for Christ's sake, they really know a good deal when they see one.

All the joking aside, this is America. Here you will find Neo Nazis asking a 90% Jewish ACLU to defend the Neo Nazis' right to march through a Jewish neighborhood of a Chicago suburb. And you will see the ultra liberal ACLU help Nazis get their right to march so that they can offend the residents of the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Skokie. America is like that. Witch hunts belong in the 1950s.

[HoreTore]

Of course! He's a Jew for Christ's sake, they really know a good deal when they see one.

All the joking aside, this is America. Here you will find Neo Nazis asking a 90% Jewish ACLU to defend the Neo Nazis' right to march through a Jewish neighborhood of a Chicago suburb. And you will see the ultra liberal ACLU help Nazis get their right to march so that they can offend the residents of the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Skokie. America is like that. Witch hunts belong in the 1950s.

That's civil rights organizations behaving like they should(and like they do in most places), and just like you found the ACLU standing up for anyone's right to free speech, you will also find organizations who refuse to deal with certain segments. But this hardly relates to an individual consumer's choice of where to shop his salmon.

So I ask again: should the individual Jewish man shop at a grocery store run by a neo-nazi? And more to the point, is he a sheep if he chooses not to?



Also, a "Jew for Christ's sake"....hmmm.....

[rvg]

So I ask again: should the individual Jewish man shop at a grocery store run by a neo-nazi?

Of course he should.

And more to the point, is he a sheep if he chooses not to?

A sheep and a fool.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm sorry rvg. But that is just silly. The market and the public sphere are not two distinguishable entities. The former is a subsection of the latter. A Jewish man is being perfectly rational in thinking that he does not want his money in part to be directed towards an individual (e.g. through salary) who believes and acts according to a philosophy that rejects his status as a citizen and a human being.

The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.

[Papewaio]

Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that.

That's a poultry excuse for an organization.

[rvg]

I'm sorry rvg. But that is just silly. The market and the public sphere are not two distinguishable entities. The former is a subsection of the latter. A Jewish man is being perfectly rational in thinking that he does not want his money in part to be directed towards an individual (e.g. through salary) who believes and acts according to a philosophy that rejects his status as a citizen and a human being.

With that line of thinking in mind a Jew should never do business with a Muslim. Ever. Not buy from him, not sell to him, not hire one, nor work for one. Who is being silly here?

The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.

I never disputed the legality of it. Lots of stupid things are completely legal. Suppose you're drowning near some pier in the San Francisco Bay. You're wearing your "No to Prop 8!" T-shirt, "I love hemp" panama hat, and whatever else a liberal hippy would normally wear. Then there comes a Jack-booted Nazi thug with his "Sieg Heil" tattoos, brown shirt and a swastika lapel pin. You clearly see who he is and he clearly sees who you are. He extends his hand and offers help. Will you take his hand or will you choose to drown?

[drone]

Some clarifications/corrections: We are not the customers of the Mozilla Corporation, we don't buy Firefox or Thunderbird. Google is Mozilla Corp's customer. Eich was "asked to leave" Mozilla Corp, the taxed, wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation appoints the board for the Corporation, which in turn selects the Corp's CEO. All this talk of Jews buying from Nazis is pointless, although I would be curious to know of any missives sent from Google HQ.

[Papewaio]

If someone was paying a political referendum to deny your right to drive or own a computer or surf the net?

Now how about someone paying to deny your relationship/friendship/marriage to your significant other how would you feel?

I know that if someone was running a political campaign to divorce me of my wife because we did not fit his criteria of a couple I would not be a happy chap.

To deny access to material goods based on some sort of class system is bad enough. That is what the open source movement fights against.

But to deny access to an adult relationship based on another form of class system is far worse. It is crossing the line from material segregation to human segregation. It's a denial of human rights that is as abhorrent as slavery, apartheid, Australian aboriginals on the wildlife census or other forms of racial segregation.

If it was your access to your loved ones in a special event being denied be it birth, death, wedding, graduation, hospital, emergency or any other major life event what would you do to the person paying to deny you access to them?

Can any of you honestly say you would meekly limit yourselves to just commerical boycotting? Would you also not be the hero fighting the dragon for your love? Or would you just accept that injustice is the way of the world and accept that it is fine for someone to pay away your rights?