And I so did love the movies...

[grumpyhermit]

May 9, 2019 15:41:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 9, 2019 15:31:16 GMT -5 sheilaincali said:

Hubs and I were talking about this last night. He figures these states are pushing these statewide bills to try to force it to get kicked to the US supreme court. They think they now have the numbers to overturn Roe v Wade. At least that's his assumption.

BINGO! Your husband's assumption is probably correct. The SCOTUS justice to watch would be John Roberts. He is not as dependable as conservatives think he is.

This is exactly what they are doing. 

[NastyWoman]

May 9, 2019 16:32:03 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 9, 2019 15:58:15 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

True, but if I feel strongly enough about an issue I will do everything I can to make sure that the (in this case) state in question does not get any of my money. And that includes letting comanies a,b,c, etc., know that if they continue to do business there I won't be doing business with them. If enough people take that stance, the company may not feel strongly about the issue, but they will feel strongly about their bottomline to take action.  The power of the purse strings is not solely in the hand of the government → "we the people" can and do have the same power.

A few points (let's keep using McDonald's as our fictional example):

1.  I don't want McDonald's to start laying off employees because people are protesting the fact that they refuse to get involved in politics.
2.  I don't want to politicize non-political organizations any more than they already are, because I don't want to politicize things like hiring and firing of folks who also avoid voicing their politics.
3.  This concept works really well when you end up in the majority of financial power, when you end up in the minority you basically get run over by huge companies with huge amounts of money to actively spend against your position, even if the position you hold is held by the vast majority of the population but the minority of the wealth.
4.  Ignoring that we already have money driving so much of politics, I don't want to ADD to that concept by essentially forcing the companies who DON'T want to drive politics with money to do so because it's the only way to sustain their business.

It just makes very little sense to me to say "Hey McDonald's, unless you get involved in politics, I'm not going to eat your food...or your other option is to stop doing business in Georgia and absolutely ruin all of your franchisees there who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation in the first place".  I find it...unseemly...in general to threaten people who aren't taking sides that you're going to punish them for staying neutral in something that actually isn't any of their business to begin with.  Yes, it can be effective, threatening people with monetary damages often is.  And people tend to find the whole thing just fine when it's their side, and when it's not supporting their side tend to think the corporation is evil.  It's like fighting with your neighbor about loud music and pulling in the guy who cuts both your lawns to pick a side.  You threaten to fire him unless he picks your side.  It's not his business, he doesn't want to be involved, and the side he picks has nothing to do with how well he provides the service he is paid to do.  Yes threatening to fire him might make him pick your side, but it doesn't make you any more or less right than you already were.  You just blackmailed a guy who was uninvolved and trying to make a living into doing your dirty work because you either didn't want to or couldn't.  And it seems like even more of a bad idea to get him involved if you're one of the least wealthy people in the neighborhood, which compared to the wealthy, most of us on this board fall into that least-wealthy (or at least frugal enough to have little impact) crowd.

What can I say: Citizens United. → If you are a "person" under the law, you get to take the bad with the good. So McDonalds (in your example) → you either take a stance (I like) or you'll lose my business. The "guy" I "blackmailed" has a choice an so do I.

 I am under no obligation under the law to continue buying your goods/services if I don't like what you do or don't do. And I do have the right to decide where I spend my money. You chose to support or ignore certain legislation that is up to you and what comes from that is yours to deal with; my reaction is mine and will I deal with no longer eating any Big Macs (no hardship there for me but in keeping with your example)

[weltschmerz]

May 9, 2019 18:33:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

May 9, 2019 16:32:03 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

A few points (let's keep using McDonald's as our fictional example):

1.  I don't want McDonald's to start laying off employees because people are protesting the fact that they refuse to get involved in politics.
2.  I don't want to politicize non-political organizations any more than they already are, because I don't want to politicize things like hiring and firing of folks who also avoid voicing their politics.
3.  This concept works really well when you end up in the majority of financial power, when you end up in the minority you basically get run over by huge companies with huge amounts of money to actively spend against your position, even if the position you hold is held by the vast majority of the population but the minority of the wealth.
4.  Ignoring that we already have money driving so much of politics, I don't want to ADD to that concept by essentially forcing the companies who DON'T want to drive politics with money to do so because it's the only way to sustain their business.

It just makes very little sense to me to say "Hey McDonald's, unless you get involved in politics, I'm not going to eat your food...or your other option is to stop doing business in Georgia and absolutely ruin all of your franchisees there who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation in the first place".  I find it...unseemly...in general to threaten people who aren't taking sides that you're going to punish them for staying neutral in something that actually isn't any of their business to begin with.  Yes, it can be effective, threatening people with monetary damages often is.  And people tend to find the whole thing just fine when it's their side, and when it's not supporting their side tend to think the corporation is evil.  It's like fighting with your neighbor about loud music and pulling in the guy who cuts both your lawns to pick a side.  You threaten to fire him unless he picks your side.  It's not his business, he doesn't want to be involved, and the side he picks has nothing to do with how well he provides the service he is paid to do.  Yes threatening to fire him might make him pick your side, but it doesn't make you any more or less right than you already were.  You just blackmailed a guy who was uninvolved and trying to make a living into doing your dirty work because you either didn't want to or couldn't.  And it seems like even more of a bad idea to get him involved if you're one of the least wealthy people in the neighborhood, which compared to the wealthy, most of us on this board fall into that least-wealthy (or at least frugal enough to have little impact) crowd.

What can I say: Citizens United. → If you are a "person" under the law, you get to take the bad with the good. So McDonalds (in your example) → you either take a stance (I like) or you'll lose my business. The "guy" I "blackmailed" has a choice an so do I.

 I am under no obligation under the law to continue buying your goods/services if I don't like what you do or don't do. And I do have the right to decide where I spend my money. You chose to support or ignore certain legislation that is up to you and what comes from that is yours to deal with; my reaction is mine and will I deal with no longer eating any Big Macs (no hardship there for me but in keeping with your example)

^This^

We have a food company here called Saputo. When the public found out they were buying their dairy for cheese from farms which abused their cows, by beating them with chains and rakes, there was a massive outcry and everyone boycotted their products. They immediately switched providers, as it was really impeding their financial bottom line.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 9, 2019 10:50:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

May 9, 2019 10:04:47 GMT -5 oped said:

It isn’t buying political opinion. It’s saying we can’t get women to work in your state if they may be threatened with prison for a miscarriage or be unable to leave the state to get an abortion without legal acton against them... 


And individuals are always able to exert pressure through boycot. 

I do not understand how a state can restrict an individual's travel. That is fucking insane. I know there are other problems with this bill (and they are also quite terrible) but being arrested for going to another state and doing something legal has got to be unconstitutional. If I go to Vegas and gamble, should AZ be able to arrest me? If I go to Wyoming, buy and gun and sell it and then go home to California, should they be allowed to arrest me because I bought a gun without a license? If I go to Texas and drive 85 miles per hour and go home to Baltimore, the State of Maryland can give me a speeding ticket?

Removing the abortion discussion, is that really the kind of control we want to give our governments? Meanwhile, corporations can toxic waste into any waterways, say Republicans. WTF?

what they choose to act on and what they ignore is so heinous.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 9, 2019 16:32:03 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 9, 2019 15:58:15 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

True, but if I feel strongly enough about an issue I will do everything I can to make sure that the (in this case) state in question does not get any of my money. And that includes letting comanies a,b,c, etc., know that if they continue to do business there I won't be doing business with them. If enough people take that stance, the company may not feel strongly about the issue, but they will feel strongly about their bottomline to take action.  The power of the purse strings is not solely in the hand of the government → "we the people" can and do have the same power.

A few points (let's keep using McDonald's as our fictional example):

1.  I don't want McDonald's to start laying off employees because people are protesting the fact that they refuse to get involved in politics.
2.  I don't want to politicize non-political organizations any more than they already are, because I don't want to politicize things like hiring and firing of folks who also avoid voicing their politics.
3.  This concept works really well when you end up in the majority of financial power, when you end up in the minority you basically get run over by huge companies with huge amounts of money to actively spend against your position, even if the position you hold is held by the vast majority of the population but the minority of the wealth.
4.  Ignoring that we already have money driving so much of politics, I don't want to ADD to that concept by essentially forcing the companies who DON'T want to drive politics with money to do so because it's the only way to sustain their business.

It just makes very little sense to me to say "Hey McDonald's, unless you get involved in politics, I'm not going to eat your food...or your other option is to stop doing business in Georgia and absolutely ruin all of your franchisees there who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation in the first place".  I find it...unseemly...in general to threaten people who aren't taking sides that you're going to punish them for staying neutral in something that actually isn't any of their business to begin with.  Yes, it can be effective, threatening people with monetary damages often is.  And people tend to find the whole thing just fine when it's their side, and when it's not supporting their side tend to think the corporation is evil.  It's like fighting with your neighbor about loud music and pulling in the guy who cuts both your lawns to pick a side.  You threaten to fire him unless he picks your side.  It's not his business, he doesn't want to be involved, and the side he picks has nothing to do with how well he provides the service he is paid to do.  Yes threatening to fire him might make him pick your side, but it doesn't make you any more or less right than you already were.  You just blackmailed a guy who was uninvolved and trying to make a living into doing your dirty work because you either didn't want to or couldn't.  And it seems like even more of a bad idea to get him involved if you're one of the least wealthy people in the neighborhood, which compared to the wealthy, most of us on this board fall into that least-wealthy (or at least frugal enough to have little impact) crowd.

fine - so you won't boycott. Do what you see fit.

The rest of us, will also do as we see fit. As will the companies involved.

[hoops902]

May 9, 2019 18:33:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

May 9, 2019 16:32:03 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

A few points (let's keep using McDonald's as our fictional example):

1.  I don't want McDonald's to start laying off employees because people are protesting the fact that they refuse to get involved in politics.
2.  I don't want to politicize non-political organizations any more than they already are, because I don't want to politicize things like hiring and firing of folks who also avoid voicing their politics.
3.  This concept works really well when you end up in the majority of financial power, when you end up in the minority you basically get run over by huge companies with huge amounts of money to actively spend against your position, even if the position you hold is held by the vast majority of the population but the minority of the wealth.
4.  Ignoring that we already have money driving so much of politics, I don't want to ADD to that concept by essentially forcing the companies who DON'T want to drive politics with money to do so because it's the only way to sustain their business.

It just makes very little sense to me to say "Hey McDonald's, unless you get involved in politics, I'm not going to eat your food...or your other option is to stop doing business in Georgia and absolutely ruin all of your franchisees there who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation in the first place".  I find it...unseemly...in general to threaten people who aren't taking sides that you're going to punish them for staying neutral in something that actually isn't any of their business to begin with.  Yes, it can be effective, threatening people with monetary damages often is.  And people tend to find the whole thing just fine when it's their side, and when it's not supporting their side tend to think the corporation is evil.  It's like fighting with your neighbor about loud music and pulling in the guy who cuts both your lawns to pick a side.  You threaten to fire him unless he picks your side.  It's not his business, he doesn't want to be involved, and the side he picks has nothing to do with how well he provides the service he is paid to do.  Yes threatening to fire him might make him pick your side, but it doesn't make you any more or less right than you already were.  You just blackmailed a guy who was uninvolved and trying to make a living into doing your dirty work because you either didn't want to or couldn't.  And it seems like even more of a bad idea to get him involved if you're one of the least wealthy people in the neighborhood, which compared to the wealthy, most of us on this board fall into that least-wealthy (or at least frugal enough to have little impact) crowd.

What can I say: Citizens United. → If you are a "person" under the law, you get to take the bad with the good. So McDonalds (in your example) → you either take a stance (I like) or you'll lose my business. The "guy" I "blackmailed" has a choice an so do I.

 I am under no obligation under the law to continue buying your goods/services if I don't like what you do or don't do. And I do have the right to decide where I spend my money. You chose to support or ignore certain legislation that is up to you and what comes from that is yours to deal with; my reaction is mine and will I deal with no longer eating any Big Macs (no hardship there for me but in keeping with your example)

You're under no obligation, but you're also encouraging (I won't say creating since it already exists) a system in which big business drives political decisions.  And specifically, we're talking about encouraging it within a business which has no interest in political entanglements.  

My premise is essentially that it's your right to do it, but that it encourages a thing which most of us would prefer in general to not have happen (forcing big business into politics, or even small business into politics)...even if in this particular instance it may work in your favor.  

In fairness, I also think there's a lot more "You do what I like or you'll lose my business" talk than there is action.  Because when we insist on politicizing non-political entities, they are bound to disagree with us at some point, and there simply aren't enough entities selling us the same set of goods for everyone's individual beliefs to perfectly align with an entities supported beliefs.  

[hoops902]

May 9, 2019 18:41:48 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 9, 2019 18:33:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

What can I say: Citizens United. → If you are a "person" under the law, you get to take the bad with the good. So McDonalds (in your example) → you either take a stance (I like) or you'll lose my business. The "guy" I "blackmailed" has a choice an so do I.

 I am under no obligation under the law to continue buying your goods/services if I don't like what you do or don't do. And I do have the right to decide where I spend my money. You chose to support or ignore certain legislation that is up to you and what comes from that is yours to deal with; my reaction is mine and will I deal with no longer eating any Big Macs (no hardship there for me but in keeping with your example)

^This^

We have a food company here called Saputo. When the public found out they were buying their dairy for cheese from farms which abused their cows, by beating them with chains and rakes, there was a massive outcry and everyone boycotted their products. They immediately switched providers, as it was really impeding their financial bottom line.

Totally different animal to be outraged over something the company is actually doing in the course of their business.

[oped]

Any company that subjects women to draconian practices by operating under oppressive laws is choosing to do something.

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 7:45:46 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

May 9, 2019 16:32:03 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

A few points (let's keep using McDonald's as our fictional example):

1.  I don't want McDonald's to start laying off employees because people are protesting the fact that they refuse to get involved in politics.
2.  I don't want to politicize non-political organizations any more than they already are, because I don't want to politicize things like hiring and firing of folks who also avoid voicing their politics.
3.  This concept works really well when you end up in the majority of financial power, when you end up in the minority you basically get run over by huge companies with huge amounts of money to actively spend against your position, even if the position you hold is held by the vast majority of the population but the minority of the wealth.
4.  Ignoring that we already have money driving so much of politics, I don't want to ADD to that concept by essentially forcing the companies who DON'T want to drive politics with money to do so because it's the only way to sustain their business.

It just makes very little sense to me to say "Hey McDonald's, unless you get involved in politics, I'm not going to eat your food...or your other option is to stop doing business in Georgia and absolutely ruin all of your franchisees there who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation in the first place".  I find it...unseemly...in general to threaten people who aren't taking sides that you're going to punish them for staying neutral in something that actually isn't any of their business to begin with.  Yes, it can be effective, threatening people with monetary damages often is.  And people tend to find the whole thing just fine when it's their side, and when it's not supporting their side tend to think the corporation is evil.  It's like fighting with your neighbor about loud music and pulling in the guy who cuts both your lawns to pick a side.  You threaten to fire him unless he picks your side.  It's not his business, he doesn't want to be involved, and the side he picks has nothing to do with how well he provides the service he is paid to do.  Yes threatening to fire him might make him pick your side, but it doesn't make you any more or less right than you already were.  You just blackmailed a guy who was uninvolved and trying to make a living into doing your dirty work because you either didn't want to or couldn't.  And it seems like even more of a bad idea to get him involved if you're one of the least wealthy people in the neighborhood, which compared to the wealthy, most of us on this board fall into that least-wealthy (or at least frugal enough to have little impact) crowd.

fine - so you won't boycott. Do what you see fit.

The rest of us, will also do as we see fit. As will the companies involved.

Yes, but unfortunately people will see fit to boycott, and then those same people will be on here complaining that big business and special interest groups are too involved in politics...when those same people are forcing them to be involved.  You can't encourage a system to be a certain way, then complain when the system you've encouraged happens to end up on the opposing side of an issue.

For example, i wonder how the same people who understand "it's just about the money, not anything about actual beliefs" would react if they found out McDonald's was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into getting this bill passed...because they did some research and found out that they'd win net dollars by taking that side.  My "guess" is that they would not be saying "oh well, it's just a dispassionate business decision that's smart of them to do".

It just feels very anti-YM for people to WANT big business to drive politics based on their profits.  I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that outside of any specific issue, most on here would take the stance of "hell no I wish big business wasn't so involved in politics"...

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 7:52:23 GMT -5 oped said:

Any company that subjects women to draconian practices by operating under oppressive laws is choosing to do something.

Of course they're choosing to do something, they're choosing to run a business rather than get themselves in politics that they aren't suited to be involved in.

I assume you pay federal taxes...some of that money goes to Georgia...are you boycotting your taxes?  Or leaving the country to avoid supporting this legislation?  Otherwise you're doing the same as these companies.

[gs11rmb]

But big business is heavily involved with politics.  Usually it has to do with regulations and taxation but I don't think you can claim that corporations are apolitical.

Living in Georgia I'm not sure how to proceed.  If this bill had passed in Florida then I would actively boycott the state and let them know why.  It's hard to do in a place where I live.

BTW, my daughter needs new running shoes.  For the last year our first stop has always been Dicks because I'm actively trying to support a business that removed assault weapons for sale.

[grumpyhermit]

May 10, 2019 7:49:13 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 9, 2019 18:33:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

What can I say: Citizens United. → If you are a "person" under the law, you get to take the bad with the good. So McDonalds (in your example) → you either take a stance (I like) or you'll lose my business. The "guy" I "blackmailed" has a choice an so do I.

 I am under no obligation under the law to continue buying your goods/services if I don't like what you do or don't do. And I do have the right to decide where I spend my money. You chose to support or ignore certain legislation that is up to you and what comes from that is yours to deal with; my reaction is mine and will I deal with no longer eating any Big Macs (no hardship there for me but in keeping with your example)

You're under no obligation, but you're also encouraging (I won't say creating since it already exists) a system in which big business drives political decisions.  And specifically, we're talking about encouraging it within a business which has no interest in political entanglements.  

My premise is essentially that it's your right to do it, but that it encourages a thing which most of us would prefer in general to not have happen (forcing big business into politics, or even small business into politics)...even if in this particular instance it may work in your favor.  

In fairness, I also think there's a lot more "You do what I like or you'll lose my business" talk than there is action.  Because when we insist on politicizing non-political entities, they are bound to disagree with us at some point, and there simply aren't enough entities selling us the same set of goods for everyone's individual beliefs to perfectly align with an entities supported beliefs.  

Oh, please.

In our current world ALL big businesses are inherently political, and if you don't think they are, you haven't been paying attention. The amount of money in politics almost ensures it.

But please, do continue to equate women's bodily autonomy to the selling of hamburgers.

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 8:17:14 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

But big business is heavily involved with politics.  Usually it has to do with regulations and taxation but I don't think you can claim that corporations are apolitical.

Living in Georgia I'm not sure how to proceed.  If this bill had passed in Florida then I would actively boycott the state and let them know why.  It's hard to do in a place where I live.

BTW, my daughter needs new running shoes.  For the last year our first stop has always been Dicks because I'm actively trying to support a business that removed assault weapons for sale.

They are political, but they aren't political on every single issue in every single area of the country (or specifically, many are not political in ways that aren't specific to the running of their actual business).  And these types of actions encourage/force them to be MORE political, and more political in areas that I think absent a specific idea many would be actively pissed that they're trying to be political about.  

It's not hard for me to imagine McDonald's as our example again, if they said before this bill passed "McDonald's is currently considering whether they support or oppose this bill" to hear lots of people, including people I can think of on this board, saying "WTF McDonald's, this has nothing to do with you, stay the hell out of this". 

Or just the simple pre-legislation question "Do you want corporate profits to be a driver of legislation based on what women can/can't do with their bodies?"...it's REALLY difficult to picture people on here saying "yes, of course we do" even though now that's exactly what they're wanting because it's already passed so there's no "downside" to getting the corporations involved now (I mean, they aren't going to double-pass the bill...either it stays how it is which they don't want, or it changes which they do want, there's little immediate downside other than things staying the same).

I think the 2nd bolded point is exactly what we need more of.  We need to hold businesses responsible for running their businesses and how they do that.  

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 8:34:40 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

May 10, 2019 7:49:13 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

You're under no obligation, but you're also encouraging (I won't say creating since it already exists) a system in which big business drives political decisions.  And specifically, we're talking about encouraging it within a business which has no interest in political entanglements.  

My premise is essentially that it's your right to do it, but that it encourages a thing which most of us would prefer in general to not have happen (forcing big business into politics, or even small business into politics)...even if in this particular instance it may work in your favor.  

In fairness, I also think there's a lot more "You do what I like or you'll lose my business" talk than there is action.  Because when we insist on politicizing non-political entities, they are bound to disagree with us at some point, and there simply aren't enough entities selling us the same set of goods for everyone's individual beliefs to perfectly align with an entities supported beliefs.  

Oh, please.

In our current world ALL big businesses are inherently political, and if you don't think they are, you haven't been paying attention. The amount of money in politics almost ensures it.

But please, do continue to equate women's bodily autonomy to the selling of hamburgers.

You understand that a boycott of a company like McDonald's would be boycotting a company that sells hamburgers right?  We're talking about the boycott.  Or maybe you love the hamburgers so much you're only going to boycott the McChicken McNuggets and keep eating the Big Macs?  

[hoops902]

Ultimately, I'm just very surprised by how many people on this thread WANT corporate profits to be the driver of legislation around what women can do with their bodies.  The idea that capitalism is desirable as the driving force behind what human rights people should have is...shocking...to see from people here.  I'm fine with people who want to believe that, I'm just very surprised that the women on here in particular think it's not only a good idea to have corporate profits determining their rights, but actively encouraging it.  I certainly don't want to encourage corporate profits to determine my human rights.

[grumpyhermit]

May 10, 2019 8:45:46 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Ultimately, I'm just very surprised by how many people on this thread WANT corporate profits to be the driver of legislation around what women can do with their bodies.  The idea that capitalism is desirable as the driving force behind what human rights people should have is...shocking...to see from people here.  I'm fine with people who want to believe that, I'm just very surprised that the women on here in particular think it's not only a good idea to have corporate profits determining their rights, but actively encouraging it.  I certainly don't want to encourage corporate profits to determine my human rights.

Which just shows you are spectacularly missing the point. Ultimately, I'm not surprised to see that from a man on here.

No one wants corporate money driving policy, but that ship has already sailed. Given that frame work, the only way ordinary citizens have to try to influence decision is to spend, or not spend, accordingly.

[hoops902]

Yes, they do want corporate money driving policy...people just fail to account for the fact that when they want corporate money driving policies they support...they're also going to end up in situations where corporate money drives policies they don't support.  

Everyone's fine when the devil is on their side, and SHOCKED when the devil turns on them.

[sheilaincali]

May 10, 2019 8:45:46 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Ultimately, I'm just very surprised by how many people on this thread WANT corporate profits to be the driver of legislation around what women can do with their bodies.  The idea that capitalism is desirable as the driving force behind what human rights people should have is...shocking...to see from people here.  I'm fine with people who want to believe that, I'm just very surprised that the women on here in particular think it's not only a good idea to have corporate profits determining their rights, but actively encouraging it.  I certainly don't want to encourage corporate profits to determine my human rights.

It's not so much as a "WANT" as a "NEED". Let's face it the reality is that politicians don't actually listen to constituents anymore. But they do cave to pressure from big business.

Again- to carefully walk the line so as not to make this too political. In my real life I'm pretty outspoken and am friends with women that are very outspoken. I/We've attended marches. We written, called, emailed our senators.  We get the same "voicemail box is full" response when we call to complain or voice our concern or complaint. If 1 phone call from the CEO of Nike gets more attention from a senator than 1000 phone calls from every day concerned citizens I'm not going to scold Nike for making the call if it's one I believe in.

At the end of the day this is a case of women's rights and women being able to have autonomy over decisions regarding their body. If states or corporations feel that I shouldn't get a say in what happens to my body that I have that right to protest as I see fit. Whether that be avoiding the state, not supporting that corporation, calling my senator to complain. etc.

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 9:10:26 GMT -5 sheilaincali said:

May 10, 2019 8:45:46 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Ultimately, I'm just very surprised by how many people on this thread WANT corporate profits to be the driver of legislation around what women can do with their bodies.  The idea that capitalism is desirable as the driving force behind what human rights people should have is...shocking...to see from people here.  I'm fine with people who want to believe that, I'm just very surprised that the women on here in particular think it's not only a good idea to have corporate profits determining their rights, but actively encouraging it.  I certainly don't want to encourage corporate profits to determine my human rights.

It's not so much as a "WANT" as a "NEED". Let's face it the reality is that politicians don't actually listen to constituents anymore. But they do cave to pressure from big business.

Again- to carefully walk the line so as not to make this too political. In my real life I'm pretty outspoken and am friends with women that are very outspoken. I/We've attended marches. We written, called, emailed our senators.  We get the same "voicemail box is full" response when we call to complain or voice our concern or complaint. If 1 phone call from the CEO of Nike gets more attention from a senator than 1000 phone calls from every day concerned citizens I'm not going to scold Nike for making the call if it's one I believe in.

At the end of the day this is a case of women's rights and women being able to have autonomy over decisions regarding their body. If states or corporations feel that I shouldn't get a say in what happens to my body that I have that right to protest as I see fit. Whether that be avoiding the state, not supporting that corporation, calling my senator to complain. etc.

Except I think if the question was posed PRIOR to the legislation passing, the same people would have said "hell no I don't want them involved".  And it's coming up now because the side those people supported lost, which has turned it into "ok, well we lost, now it's a free-for-all to do anything we can".  There's inherent dangers in encouraging a system you don't actually want because you think that "this time" it'll get you what you want.  It's also massively hypocritical (which I think given the responses here, people might actually be ok with the recognition that it's hypocritical because it gets them what they want and they feel strongly about it).  

I'm less surprised by attitudes of "this is so important I just don't care what it takes", and more surprised by the general idea that people want corporations to act politically on issues of individual rights (and the specific premise that they should act based on dollars on those issues).  I'm not really surprised by people being hypocritical if they said "I don't want this system, but in this one case, pull the trigger"...I think we're all probably like that on at least a few issues we care deeply about.  We'll sacrifice our ideology for something we feel is super important.  I'm much more surprised by the ideology piece that this is how it SHOULD work and is the way individuals and corporations should act as a whole.

ETA:  I think if a state, or corporation, or senator, or whoever is supporting legislation you don't like...you should absolutely protest it.  I'm questioning whether you should protest Joe the apple grower who is trying to run a business, happens to ship some of his apples to Georgia, hasn't taken a stand in anything political, and is boycotted because he didn't refuse to fulfill his Georgia apple shipments because the state of Georgia passed legislation you don't like.  People seem to be equating "You do business in a state" with "You support every piece of legislation that has ever passed into law in that state"...which seems crazy to me.

That also ignores the idea that people seem super willing to punish OTHERS into taking a stand, while they won't take a stand themselves that actually impacts them in a real way.  How many people here are willing to risk jail time by refusing to pay their federal taxes because federal tax money goes into Georgia?

[bean29]

May 10, 2019 9:22:17 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 10, 2019 9:10:26 GMT -5 sheilaincali said:

It's not so much as a "WANT" as a "NEED". Let's face it the reality is that politicians don't actually listen to constituents anymore. But they do cave to pressure from big business.

Again- to carefully walk the line so as not to make this too political. In my real life I'm pretty outspoken and am friends with women that are very outspoken. I/We've attended marches. We written, called, emailed our senators.  We get the same "voicemail box is full" response when we call to complain or voice our concern or complaint. If 1 phone call from the CEO of Nike gets more attention from a senator than 1000 phone calls from every day concerned citizens I'm not going to scold Nike for making the call if it's one I believe in.

At the end of the day this is a case of women's rights and women being able to have autonomy over decisions regarding their body. If states or corporations feel that I shouldn't get a say in what happens to my body that I have that right to protest as I see fit. Whether that be avoiding the state, not supporting that corporation, calling my senator to complain. etc.

Except I think if the question was posed PRIOR to the legislation passing, the same people would have said "hell no I don't want them involved".  And it's coming up now because the side those people supported lost, which has turned it into "ok, well we lost, now it's a free-for-all to do anything we can".  There's inherent dangers in encouraging a system you don't actually want because you think that "this time" it'll get you what you want.  It's also massively hypocritical (which I think given the responses here, people might actually be ok with the recognition that it's hypocritical because it gets them what they want and they feel strongly about it).  

I'm less surprised by attitudes of "this is so important I just don't care what it takes", and more surprised by the general idea that people want corporations to act politically on issues of individual rights (and the specific premise that they should act based on dollars on those issues).  I'm not really surprised by people being hypocritical if they said "I don't want this system, but in this one case, pull the trigger"...I think we're all probably like that on at least a few issues we care deeply about.  We'll sacrifice our ideology for something we feel is super important.  I'm much more surprised by the ideology piece that this is how it SHOULD work and is the way individuals and corporations should act as a whole.

Well, given that Citizens United is the law of the land, he who can pay the bigest “bribes” has all the power. Until CU is overturned we will continue to use whatever means we think will work, even if you think it is not the most desirable.

[Lizard Queen]

Just jumping in with only having read half of this thread because my break is about done:
Since the SC decided corporations are people, it's become completely valid for holding corporations responsible for the government they support with their contributions and tax dollars.

Anyone have a comprehensive list of businesses located in Georgia to boycott?

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 9:30:24 GMT -5 bean29 said:

May 10, 2019 9:22:17 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Except I think if the question was posed PRIOR to the legislation passing, the same people would have said "hell no I don't want them involved".  And it's coming up now because the side those people supported lost, which has turned it into "ok, well we lost, now it's a free-for-all to do anything we can".  There's inherent dangers in encouraging a system you don't actually want because you think that "this time" it'll get you what you want.  It's also massively hypocritical (which I think given the responses here, people might actually be ok with the recognition that it's hypocritical because it gets them what they want and they feel strongly about it).  

I'm less surprised by attitudes of "this is so important I just don't care what it takes", and more surprised by the general idea that people want corporations to act politically on issues of individual rights (and the specific premise that they should act based on dollars on those issues).  I'm not really surprised by people being hypocritical if they said "I don't want this system, but in this one case, pull the trigger"...I think we're all probably like that on at least a few issues we care deeply about.  We'll sacrifice our ideology for something we feel is super important.  I'm much more surprised by the ideology piece that this is how it SHOULD work and is the way individuals and corporations should act as a whole.

Well, given that Citizens United is the law of the land, he who can pay the bigest “bribes” has all the power. Until CU is overturned we will continue to use whatever means we think will work, even if you think it is not the most desirable.

I think specifically the undesirable part is taking companies who aren't already intermingled, and using social pressure to force them INTO being involved.  I feel like we should be celebrating companies who refuse to get into that muck, as opposed to threatening them that we're going to hurt their business unless they actively muck it up on our side.  People protesting companies for their policies who have already decided to jump into the muck on their own seems completely fair game.  It's the idea that we're going to take companies who are already acting desirably...likely at some cost to them already because it's hard to play a more clean game when those around you are mucking it up, and then essentially forcing those companies to join in the muck.  

It seems unlikely to make any real progress if we're actively punishing the companies who are staying out of it like we want them to.  

You bribe the other side...and I don't like that side...protest.  But what we're talking about here is a company that doesn't bribe anyone on either side, and telling them that if they don't bribe OUR side, we're also protesting.  

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 9:33:07 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Just jumping in with only having read half of this thread because my break is about done:
Since the SC decided corporations are people, it's become completely valid for holding corporations responsible for the government they support with their contributions and tax dollars.

Anyone have a comprehensive list of businesses located in Georgia to boycott?

I would guess any major business in the US has some link to Georgia, as well as any money paid to our federal government.  

[gs11rmb]

May 10, 2019 8:45:46 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Ultimately, I'm just very surprised by how many people on this thread WANT corporate profits to be the driver of legislation around what women can do with their bodies.  The idea that capitalism is desirable as the driving force behind what human rights people should have is...shocking...to see from people here.  I'm fine with people who want to believe that, I'm just very surprised that the women on here in particular think it's not only a good idea to have corporate profits determining their rights, but actively encouraging it.  I certainly don't want to encourage corporate profits to determine my human rights.

I think my point is not that corporate profits should determine human rights but that corporate entities should support human rights and actively take a stance against legislation that is violating those rights.  To use their undoubted power to protect basic human rights.  That's not the same as a corporation taking a stance on a social issue that I may or may not care about.

I don't think I'm articulating this very well.  What about this as an example:  in Brunei it is not social acceptable to be gay.  A gay person may be kicked out of their family or otherwise ostracized by their community.  I think that's an incredibly sad situation but would not/did not think that companies should cease to do business with Brunei.  That is their culture and has to change/modernize on their own terms.  Making being gay a capital offense is not simply a cultural attitude but a complete violation of basic human rights.  Corporations should take a stance and say no. 

To be frank, the bar is pretty damn low...

[gs11rmb]

May 10, 2019 9:33:07 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Just jumping in with only having read half of this thread because my break is about done:
Since the SC decided corporations are people, it's become completely valid for holding corporations responsible for the government they support with their contributions and tax dollars.

Anyone have a comprehensive list of businesses located in Georgia to boycott?

www.knowatlanta.com/jobs/atlanta-fortune-500/

Don't just boycott; tell them why!

[gs11rmb]

May 10, 2019 9:43:34 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 10, 2019 9:33:07 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Just jumping in with only having read half of this thread because my break is about done:
Since the SC decided corporations are people, it's become completely valid for holding corporations responsible for the government they support with their contributions and tax dollars.

Anyone have a comprehensive list of businesses located in Georgia to boycott?

I would guess any major business in the US has some link to Georgia, as well as any money paid to our federal government.  

Start with those headquartered here.

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 9:43:40 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

May 10, 2019 8:45:46 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Ultimately, I'm just very surprised by how many people on this thread WANT corporate profits to be the driver of legislation around what women can do with their bodies.  The idea that capitalism is desirable as the driving force behind what human rights people should have is...shocking...to see from people here.  I'm fine with people who want to believe that, I'm just very surprised that the women on here in particular think it's not only a good idea to have corporate profits determining their rights, but actively encouraging it.  I certainly don't want to encourage corporate profits to determine my human rights.

I think my point is not that corporate profits should determine human rights but that corporate entities should support human rights and actively take a stance against legislation that is violating those rights.  To use their undoubted power to protect basic human rights.  That's not the same as a corporation taking a stance on a social issue that I may or may not care about.

I don't think I'm articulating this very well.  What about this as an example:  in Brunei it is not social acceptable to be gay.  A gay person may be kicked out of their family or otherwise ostracized by their community.  I think that's an incredibly sad situation but would not/did not think that companies should cease to do business with Brunei.  That is their culture and has to change/modernize on their own terms.  Making being gay a capital offense is not simply a cultural attitude but a complete violation of basic human rights.  Corporations should take a stance and say no. 

To be frank, the bar is pretty damn low...

I think you're articulating it fine, it's a difficult premise while trying to avoid the entirety of the actual underlying rights issue so that the thread doesn't get moved.  I think there are very few issues that one side feels so strongly about that they think it is a human rights issue, where their opponent does not also feel it is some sort of human rights issue but comes to the opposing conclusion.  One side thinks Group A has a right to do a thing.  Another side thinks Group B has a right to do another.  Those things are diametrically opposed and therefore one group has to win over the other.  Both sides are vehement that this issue is a "human rights issue" and both sides are vehement their side is the only decent human action...yet they are still diametrically opposed.  

So whenever you say "corporate entities should support human rights and actively take a stance against legislation that is violating those rights" it's almost definitely within the context of this presumption that YOUR view of human rights is the stance they would obviously be supporting.  But people on the other side are going to go in with the context that is probably similar, they want corporations to support human rights...but it's the rights that THEIR view supports.  And while you may hold some views that seem more "universally held" than others...in the case of this particular legislation, there are lots of people on both sides who each feel like the other side is probably borderline (or maybe not even borderline, just full on) evil in their views.  

There's just this presumption that when we say we want corporations to take a stand on human rights that we mean "on the human rights I personally believe in".  And people need to consider that when they pull in a neutral party to join the fray, that party may not come in on the side they were hoping for (which I think is particularly hard on human rights issues, because each side thinks they are so obviously correct that there should be no doubt).

[hoops902]

May 10, 2019 9:47:14 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

May 10, 2019 9:43:34 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I would guess any major business in the US has some link to Georgia, as well as any money paid to our federal government.  

Start with those headquartered here.

Why wouldn't you start with those that can make the biggest impact instead?  All you're doing with headquarters is saying "well, you got unlucky you picked a headquarters that perhaps decades later would pass some legislation".  Boycott the federal government who does major business in Atlanta in particular and Georgia in general.  Boycott the military who does major business there.  Everyone should just stop paying federal taxes and go AWOL from the military branches.  If you want to draw attention, that seems pretty effective.

[gs11rmb]

hoops902 I guess we're never going to agree.  

The Atlanta business community has successfully enticed various HQ's to the city and work hard to keep those existing businesses here.  That community is very sensitive to public pressures as I mentioned earlier regarding the flag and religious freedom.

I don't want the Georgia economy to suffer; I live here and depend upon its success.  The HQ's here feel the same way.

[NastyWoman]

May 10, 2019 7:49:13 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 9, 2019 18:33:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

What can I say: Citizens United. → If you are a "person" under the law, you get to take the bad with the good. So McDonalds (in your example) → you either take a stance (I like) or you'll lose my business. The "guy" I "blackmailed" has a choice an so do I.

 I am under no obligation under the law to continue buying your goods/services if I don't like what you do or don't do. And I do have the right to decide where I spend my money. You chose to support or ignore certain legislation that is up to you and what comes from that is yours to deal with; my reaction is mine and will I deal with no longer eating any Big Macs (no hardship there for me but in keeping with your example)

You're under no obligation, but you're also encouraging (I won't say creating since it already exists) a system in which big business drives political decisions.  And specifically, we're talking about encouraging it within a business which has no interest in political entanglements.  

My premise is essentially that it's your right to do it, but that it encourages a thing which most of us would prefer in general to not have happen (forcing big business into politics, or even small business into politics)...even if in this particular instance it may work in your favor.  

In fairness, I also think there's a lot more "You do what I like or you'll lose my business" talk than there is action.  Because when we insist on politicizing non-political entities, they are bound to disagree with us at some point, and there simply aren't enough entities selling us the same set of goods for everyone's individual beliefs to perfectly align with an entities supported beliefs.  

Well, that is one way of looking at it. As for "politicizing non-political entities" that boat sailed in 2010 with the Citizens United SC ruling. However, in this case I posit that I am using non-political entities as a tool. Unless they were already inclined to take a stance this is an economic decision by corporations, not a political one.

And in a time where politicians gerrymander states to not even closely resemble anything that repesents all people in that state, where they throw up barrier after barrier to make sure only their most desirable voters actually are able to vote, I am not bringing a knife to a gun fight, let alone stand by and wring my hands going "oh, please don't do that"... Personally I am all for bringing the one big gun that politicians understand and listen to → money. Money talks, money walks, and money is MY TOOL, MY GUN! I own the tool not the other way around.