oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 10, 2019 11:16:52 GMT -5
David Simon of "The Wire" and "The Deuce" won't film in GA over abortion ban. “I can’t ask any female member of any film production with which I am involved to so marginalize themselves or compromise their inalienable authority over their own bodies,”
In case anyone missed his original point... his follow up...
"You mistake my stance for tactics. I am not being tactical or strategic at all. I am simply stating what I am obliged to do to protect the rights of all of those who I ask to labor with me on any of my productions. My responsibility as an employer lies there."
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 11:29:30 GMT -5
David Simon of "The Wire" and "The Deuce" won't film in GA over abortion ban. “I can’t ask any female member of any film production with which I am involved to so marginalize themselves or compromise their inalienable authority over their own bodies,” I don't know anything about David Simon to know if he's currently filming anything significant there or not. But I'll be curious to see what actual sacrifices are made in the name of protest (for example, it's no real sacrifice to say "I won't film there in the future, I'll just go somewhere else instead", but packing up a corporate HQ and moving it costs money, and would be real financial sacrifice if someone did that). It's super easy to say "I won't eat at McDonald's, I'll just go across the street to Burger King instead"...it's a lot harder to say "I'm going to quit my job at McDonald's because of this". I'm curious to see how much of the boycotts/protests are the typical "I'm saying this so I'll get some media/social media attention, but I'm not actually doing anything meaningful" and how much turns out to be actual meaningful protest where the protester actually faces negative consequences.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 10, 2019 11:35:55 GMT -5
David Simon of "The Wire" and "The Deuce" won't film in GA over abortion ban. “I can’t ask any female member of any film production with which I am involved to so marginalize themselves or compromise their inalienable authority over their own bodies,” I don't know anything about David Simon to know if he's currently filming anything significant there or not. But I'll be curious to see what actual sacrifices are made in the name of protest (for example, it's no real sacrifice to say "I won't film there in the future, I'll just go somewhere else instead", but packing up a corporate HQ and moving it costs money, and would be real financial sacrifice if someone did that). It's super easy to say "I won't eat at McDonald's, I'll just go across the street to Burger King instead"...it's a lot harder to say "I'm going to quit my job at McDonald's because of this". I'm curious to see how much of the boycotts/protests are the typical "I'm saying this so I'll get some media/social media attention, but I'm not actually doing anything meaningful" and how much turns out to be actual meaningful protest where the protester actually faces negative consequences. You're correct. Paypal halted expansion plans costing North Carolina roughly $2B in opposition to the "bathroom bill" - www.knowatlanta.com/jobs/atlanta-fortune-500/ UPS and Delta might not up-sticks and leave but they also might have difficulty attracting new employees to come to Atlanta. What about companies that the state is trying to woo? Norfolk Southern is in the process of moving their HQ to Atlanta from Virginia. NCR arrived last year. Would they have done so if this piece of legislation had happened last year? Will other companies consider moving?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 11:39:50 GMT -5
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.
Yes, but you also have to understand that by inviting a non-political entity into a political fight, and using money as your way of wielding it...you're also encouraging people with more money and more influence to turn that gun on you rather easily. There's a reason they tell people who don't know how to use a gun not to actually pull one out, they end up getting shot with their own gun far too often. People seem to be quick to pull their gun out before analyzing whether their opponent might have a more powerful gun in return.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 11:44:13 GMT -5
I don't know anything about David Simon to know if he's currently filming anything significant there or not. But I'll be curious to see what actual sacrifices are made in the name of protest (for example, it's no real sacrifice to say "I won't film there in the future, I'll just go somewhere else instead", but packing up a corporate HQ and moving it costs money, and would be real financial sacrifice if someone did that). It's super easy to say "I won't eat at McDonald's, I'll just go across the street to Burger King instead"...it's a lot harder to say "I'm going to quit my job at McDonald's because of this". I'm curious to see how much of the boycotts/protests are the typical "I'm saying this so I'll get some media/social media attention, but I'm not actually doing anything meaningful" and how much turns out to be actual meaningful protest where the protester actually faces negative consequences. You're correct. Paypal halted expansion plans costing North Carolina roughly $2B in opposition to the "bathroom bill" - www.knowatlanta.com/jobs/atlanta-fortune-500/ UPS and Delta might not up-sticks and leave but they also might have difficulty attracting new employees to come to Atlanta. What about companies that the state is trying to woo? Norfolk Southern is in the process of moving their HQ to Atlanta from Virginia. NCR arrived last year. Would they have done so if this piece of legislation had happened last year? Will other companies consider moving? I guess I'm less interested in whether other companies will CONSIDER moving. While that's lost opportunity for Georgia, it's a "boycott" that costs the boycotter nothing essentially...which doesn't seem that meaningful to me. That kind of thing is rather easy to do. It seems a lot more powerful if someone is willing to make a move that actually costs themselves something.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 10, 2019 11:46:22 GMT -5
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? How would it impact Georgia in a negative way if I, an individual person, refuses to pay my taxes to avoid any of the money going to GA? GA couldn't give two shits about me.
On the other hand, if I, as a consumer of Coke products, get together with a million other Coke users and sign a petition asking Coke to move their headquarters out of Atlanta because Georgia has a draconian law I disagree strongly with, and that public pressure forces Coke to threaten to leave the State, do you think GA will sit up and pay attention to that? Do you know how many people in GA work for Coke?
Companies and States and Countries rarely pay attention to individuals. They pay attention to large groups of people, either in corporations or organizations, that can impact their economic well being either through boycotts or by relocating their operations (and jobs). That's simply how the world works.
You seem to be hung up on individual people taking political stands based on their principles. As an activist, I'm hung up on doing what works. If I can sign on to boycott a company I think can pressure GA to back down from this stupid law, I and a million other angry women's rights supporters will.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 10, 2019 11:48:00 GMT -5
You're correct. Paypal halted expansion plans costing North Carolina roughly $2B in opposition to the "bathroom bill" - www.knowatlanta.com/jobs/atlanta-fortune-500/ UPS and Delta might not up-sticks and leave but they also might have difficulty attracting new employees to come to Atlanta. What about companies that the state is trying to woo? Norfolk Southern is in the process of moving their HQ to Atlanta from Virginia. NCR arrived last year. Would they have done so if this piece of legislation had happened last year? Will other companies consider moving? I guess I'm less interested in whether other companies will CONSIDER moving. While that's lost opportunity for Georgia, it's a "boycott" that costs the boycotter nothing essentially...which doesn't seem that meaningful to me. That kind of thing is rather easy to do. It seems a lot more powerful if someone is willing to make a move that actually costs themselves something. It's not about how much it costs the protestor. It's about how meaningful the protestor's actions are.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 10, 2019 12:10:28 GMT -5
It is fucking ridiculous that human rights are a ‘political’ issue... telling. But fucking ridiculous.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on May 10, 2019 12:22:45 GMT -5
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.
Yes, but you also have to understand that by inviting a non-political entity into a political fight, and using money as your way of wielding it...you're also encouraging people with more money and more influence to turn that gun on you rather easily. There's a reason they tell people who don't know how to use a gun not to actually pull one out, they end up getting shot with their own gun far too often. People seem to be quick to pull their gun out before analyzing whether their opponent might have a more powerful gun in return. And what you seem to fail to understand is that we are already living that reality. There is no virtue in sitting silently on the sidelines and holding on to some moral high ground as people are actively working to strip away your basic civil rights. If you want to do that, have at it, but lecturing women how to protest against legislation that affects ONLY their body, is more than a little patronizing.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,350
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 10, 2019 12:27:00 GMT -5
I would like to point out one additional thing: using boycots as a political tool not only sends out a message to the state in question (Georgia in this case) if they are not sleeping or sleeping around 24/7, it also sends a message to our representatives in DC. Perhaps with the exception of the WH inhabitant since he is somewhat impaired in interpretation of signals from outside his safety bubble.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 12:33:51 GMT -5
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? How would it impact Georgia in a negative way if I, an individual person, refuses to pay my taxes to avoid any of the money going to GA? GA couldn't give two shits about me.
On the other hand, if I, as a consumer of Coke products, get together with a million other Coke users and sign a petition asking Coke to move their headquarters out of Atlanta because Georgia has a draconian law I disagree strongly with, and that public pressure forces Coke to threaten to leave the State, do you think GA will sit up and pay attention to that? Do you know how many people in GA work for Coke?
Companies and States and Countries rarely pay attention to individuals. They pay attention to large groups of people, either in corporations or organizations, that can impact their economic well being either through boycotts or by relocating their operations (and jobs). That's simply how the world works.
You seem to be hung up on individual people taking political stands based on their principles. As an activist, I'm hung up on doing what works. If I can sign on to boycott a company I think can pressure GA to back down from this stupid law, I and a million other angry women's rights supporters will.
So you think a valid comparison is "what if i do this alone" compared to "what if I do this different thing with a million people"? If you conveniently take the action you want to take, and multiply it times a million, and take the action you don't want to take and multiply it times one, you're almost always just going to get a result that isn't reflective of anything other than you arbitrarily assigning a x1,000,000 weighting to the action you wanted in the first place.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 12:44:17 GMT -5
It is fucking ridiculous that human rights are a ‘political’ issue... telling. But fucking ridiculous. Curious how you would resolve it outside of politics, which is essentially just legislation, when 2 rather large factions have distinctly different ideas on where the rights of one group should end and the others should begin. War? Rock Paper Scissors? What's a less ridiculous alternative that isn't just based on the assumption of "i'm right, everyone should just do what i say"? Because both sides think that, so how do you resolve the conflict then?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 12:53:07 GMT -5
I guess I'm less interested in whether other companies will CONSIDER moving. While that's lost opportunity for Georgia, it's a "boycott" that costs the boycotter nothing essentially...which doesn't seem that meaningful to me. That kind of thing is rather easy to do. It seems a lot more powerful if someone is willing to make a move that actually costs themselves something. It's not about how much it costs the protestor. It's about how meaningful the protestor's actions are. Protests which cost the protester nothing but words have no meaning. Effective protests don't have to cost the protester money, but they have to cost them something to have any kind of meaning. I agree with you it's about how meaningful it is...how meaningful is something which costs you nothing? It has to cost you time, or emotional energy, or money, or inconvenience...SOMETHING. Otherwise it has all the meaning of random people online who post "thoughts and prayers" after a tragedy...it costs nothing, it is done simply to shine a light on the protester for attention. It can't just be "I continued with my day/life/plans as normal, but count it as a protest so I get some credit ok?".
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 10, 2019 13:47:46 GMT -5
I go to the movies at least 3 times a month. Sometimes 3 times a week.. I like movies. But I like women to have rights more.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 10, 2019 13:52:28 GMT -5
It is fucking ridiculous that human rights are a ‘political’ issue... telling. But fucking ridiculous. Curious how you would resolve it outside of politics, which is essentially just legislation, when 2 rather large factions have distinctly different ideas on where the rights of one group should end and the others should begin. War? Rock Paper Scissors? What's a less ridiculous alternative that isn't just based on the assumption of "i'm right, everyone should just do what i say"? Because both sides think that, so how do you resolve the conflict then? Your suggestion is that this is ‘just politics’ and companies shouldn’t be asked to ‘get involved’ in ‘politics’.... I think the quote I used above shows that this is more fundamental... Should slavery have been ‘political’.. or should it just have been fucking common sense not to own other people... pedophilia ? Should that be ‘politics’ people should just ignore as they make a dollar?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 14:12:21 GMT -5
Curious how you would resolve it outside of politics, which is essentially just legislation, when 2 rather large factions have distinctly different ideas on where the rights of one group should end and the others should begin. War? Rock Paper Scissors? What's a less ridiculous alternative that isn't just based on the assumption of "i'm right, everyone should just do what i say"? Because both sides think that, so how do you resolve the conflict then? Your suggestion is that this is ‘just politics’ and companies shouldn’t be asked to ‘get involved’ in ‘politics’.... I think the quote I used above shows that this is more fundamental... Should slavery have been ‘political’.. or should it just have been fucking common sense not to own other people... pedophilia ? Should that be ‘politics’ people should just ignore as they make a dollar? It's fundamental to you because you're on one side of an issue, and to the people on the other side of an issue it's fundamental in the other way. My question is outside of politics, how do you propose that it "should" be worked out? It sounds like your answer is really just "Everyone should have the exact same beliefs as I do, and I should decide everyone's rights". So I'll ask again, if you have 2 groups who believe that a set of rights exist, and those 2 rights are diametrically opposed at some point, how would you propose that the rights issue is decided outside of politics? On your side, "it should be common fucking sense to give these people these specific rights". On the other side, people think "it should be common fucking sense to give these people these specific rights". And those 2 things oppose. So while it would be very simple to just say "it's common sense, everyone should follow my beliefs"...that's not very practical in a situation where there are 2 rather large groups. When it comes to these issues, BOTH sides think "yeah, it's super fucking obvious that I'm right, how can anyone with a brain think I'm not". And they both believe it just as strongly as the other, so how do you settle that conflict then outside of the political arena? An answer of "everyone should just agree with me because I say so" doesn't really hold. If you think political decision-making isn't the answer, what do you think IS the answer? Historically the answer to "we shouldn't decide that via politics" has ended up being "let's go to war".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 14:17:58 GMT -5
I go to the movies at least 3 times a month. Sometimes 3 times a week.. I like movies. But I like women to have rights more. No wrong answers, but I'm genuinely curious about the kind of rabbit hole this kind of thing can lead to. Will you simply not go to ANY movies as a result? Will you just not go to movies that are openly and obviously filmed in GA? Will you research whether any major departments of the movie have a presence in GA? Where's the line you draw between wanting to not support the state, and the practicality of not wanting to get into the nitty gritty about whether the Assistant Associate Stunt Man happens to live in Atlanta? Curious where people draw the line of "I can reasonably get this deep into it, but then I've just gotta call that the line and live with the results knowing I did the level I'm comfortable with".
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 10, 2019 14:20:10 GMT -5
If your state changed the laws so that every man must get a vasectomy in puberty which can’t be reversed until they have a bank account sufficient to raise a child... would there be 2 sides to that fucking issue?
Is there two two sides to owning people?
Two sides to molesting children?
This is about the marginalization and oppression of women. Making them second class citizens and controlling their lives. It is fucking fundamental. I will not let Gilead take root.
You minimize the potential impact of this to your peril. The republic is crumbling already. Start making rights geographical and self selection is the slowest way this country ends.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 14:50:08 GMT -5
If your state changed the laws so that every man must get a vasectomy in puberty which can’t be reversed until they have a bank account sufficient to raise a child... would there be 2 sides to that fucking issue? Is there two two sides to owning people? Two sides to molesting children? This is about the marginalization and oppression of women. Making them second class citizens and controlling their lives. It is fucking fundamental. I will not let Gilead take root. You minimize the potential impact of this to your peril. The republic is crumbling already. Start making rights geographical and self selection is the slowest way this country ends. If there ARE 2 sides, then there ARE 2 sides. Whether you think there SHOULD be 2 sides is irrelevant, there ARE 2 sides both of significant proportion. I'm pretty sure there are 2 sides to molesting children, because I'm guessing someone out there supports it, it just happens to be a very uneven 2 sides in terms of population. I can't tell you if there would be 2 sides to hypotheticals, because that would depend on whether there ARE 2 sides. You don't want the issue decided by politics, your only answer seems to be "everyone should just agree I'm right because I say so" which is very 2019 Presidential of you, but isn't very practical for actual resolving issues.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 10, 2019 14:50:27 GMT -5
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"... when big business interests were GOP slanted, it was all "businesses have the right to pursue their own self interests" Now that some big business interests are left aligned, it's suddenly problematic? And you ignore how much of this is coming from inside the industry itself.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 10, 2019 14:56:51 GMT -5
It's not about how much it costs the protestor. It's about how meaningful the protestor's actions are. Protests which cost the protester nothing but words have no meaning. According to whom? And by what metric? It's the result that matters.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 15:00:24 GMT -5
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"... when big business interests were GOP slanted, it was all "businesses have the right to pursue their own self interests" Now that some big business interests are left aligned, it's suddenly problematic? And you ignore how much of this is coming from inside the industry itself. I think businesses absolutely have the rights to pursue their own self interests, wherever those interests align (I would argue that pursuing your business's interests is not the same as pursuing non-business interests of your customers because it makes for good PR...they have the RIGHT to, but I think it's undesirable). I think it's foolish to take businesses that are acting as we'd intelligently prefer they act (which is to stay out of things which aren't their business, and which they probably aren't educated enough in to act, and which ends up boiling down to cowtowing to consumers) and trying to blackmail them into acting. I think if Joe the Peach Farmer comes out and says "I give lots of money to Bill 555 because I really support this legislation" and you want to boycott him forever because you disagree, that's fine. I think if Joe the Peach Farmer says "I'm just trying to grow the best peaches I can, my farm happens to be in Georgia, I'm just trying to run a business and feed my family here", then it's dumb as bricks to say "we're boycotting Joe, he lives in Georgia where they passed some legislation that has nothing to do with his peaches that I simply don't like and he has his business there". I think anything coming from within an industry is fine. I think there's a world of difference between not wanting to run your business a certain way, and having consumers (or in many cases, non-consumers, just potential consumers who may or may not ever purchase your product) trying to strong-arm businesses to jump on their bandwagon when those businesses don't want to actively engage in issues that have nothing to do with their business. That's ideological, it doesn't even get into the fact that anyone who actually wants to boycott "Georgia" probably needs to go live as a hermit somewhere or they're eventually going to do something which feeds dollars back there in some way.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 15:04:59 GMT -5
Protests which cost the protester nothing but words have no meaning. According to whom? And by what metric? It's the result that matters. Are you sure it's the results that matter? So if I protest by writing on a sheet of paper everyday "I'm mad, overturn Bill 555", and eventually it gets overturned, then me writing on a piece of paper was meaningful? But if the bill doesn't get overturned it wasn't?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 10, 2019 15:13:35 GMT -5
According to whom? And by what metric? It's the result that matters. Are you sure it's the results that matter? So if I protest by writing on a sheet of paper everyday "I'm mad, overturn Bill 555", and eventually it gets overturned, then me writing on a piece of paper was meaningful? But if the bill doesn't get overturned it wasn't? Are you suggesting that's a "result"?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 15:22:23 GMT -5
Are you sure it's the results that matter? So if I protest by writing on a sheet of paper everyday "I'm mad, overturn Bill 555", and eventually it gets overturned, then me writing on a piece of paper was meaningful? But if the bill doesn't get overturned it wasn't? Are you suggesting that's a "result"? I'm suggesting some people will feel that is a result in the same way that some people think praying for someone has a "result". If you aren't going to go by what the protester sees as the result, then you're in a very murky area where you're trying to attribute an outcome to some action that you may not be able to tie directly to that outcome (i.e. Is it a result if you protested, the legislation gets overturned, but the reason it got overturned can't be tracked back to any particular action?). Because it's very unlikely that if the bill gets overturned that anyone is going to say "it's because Jenny in Ohio didn't go see this particular movie". Or is it better to simply leave it nebulous so that people who didn't impact the result can feel good about themselves?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 10, 2019 15:23:38 GMT -5
It's not about how much it costs the protestor. It's about how meaningful the protestor's actions are. Protests which cost the protester nothing but words have no meaning. Effective protests don't have to cost the protester money, but they have to cost them something to have any kind of meaning. I agree with you it's about how meaningful it is...how meaningful is something which costs you nothing? It has to cost you time, or emotional energy, or money, or inconvenience...SOMETHING. Otherwise it has all the meaning of random people online who post "thoughts and prayers" after a tragedy...it costs nothing, it is done simply to shine a light on the protester for attention. It can't just be "I continued with my day/life/plans as normal, but count it as a protest so I get some credit ok?". I don't understand your arbitrary requirement that protesting must 'cost' something.
One of the best protests in the 60's were sit ins - that cost nothing but some time to go sit in the Dean's office, or in a diner. You get 100 people to go with you, though, and it's very effective.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2019 15:29:22 GMT -5
Protests which cost the protester nothing but words have no meaning. Effective protests don't have to cost the protester money, but they have to cost them something to have any kind of meaning. I agree with you it's about how meaningful it is...how meaningful is something which costs you nothing? It has to cost you time, or emotional energy, or money, or inconvenience...SOMETHING. Otherwise it has all the meaning of random people online who post "thoughts and prayers" after a tragedy...it costs nothing, it is done simply to shine a light on the protester for attention. It can't just be "I continued with my day/life/plans as normal, but count it as a protest so I get some credit ok?". I don't understand your arbitrary requirement that protesting must 'cost' something.
One of the best protests in the 60's were sit ins - that cost nothing but some time to go sit in the Dean's office, or in a diner. You get 100 people to go with you, though, and it's very effective.
You might try rereading what I wrote (bolded). Sit ins also cost you possibly getting arrested, which seems like a pretty significant cost.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on May 10, 2019 15:30:24 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that's a "result"? I'm suggesting some people will feel that is a result in the same way that some people think praying for someone has a "result". If you aren't going to go by what the protester sees as the result, then you're in a very murky area where you're trying to attribute an outcome to some action that you may not be able to tie directly to that outcome (i.e. Is it a result if you protested, the legislation gets overturned, but the reason it got overturned can't be tracked back to any particular action?). Because it's very unlikely that if the bill gets overturned that anyone is going to say "it's because Jenny in Ohio didn't go see this particular movie". Or is it better to simply leave it nebulous so that people who didn't impact the result can feel good about themselves? Sales/profits are a very poignant result, and you know damn well those companies are looking for an explanation/excuse.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 10, 2019 15:30:25 GMT -5
Protests which cost the protester nothing but words have no meaning. Effective protests don't have to cost the protester money, but they have to cost them something to have any kind of meaning. I agree with you it's about how meaningful it is...how meaningful is something which costs you nothing? It has to cost you time, or emotional energy, or money, or inconvenience...SOMETHING. Otherwise it has all the meaning of random people online who post "thoughts and prayers" after a tragedy...it costs nothing, it is done simply to shine a light on the protester for attention. It can't just be "I continued with my day/life/plans as normal, but count it as a protest so I get some credit ok?". I don't understand your arbitrary requirement that protesting must 'cost' something.
One of the best protests in the 60's were sit ins - that cost nothing but some time to go sit in the Dean's office, or in a diner. You get 100 people to go with you, though, and it's very effective.
Yep. Doesn't matter what it costs, matters what it does.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 10, 2019 15:35:13 GMT -5
David Simon of "The Wire" and "The Deuce" won't film in GA over abortion ban. “I can’t ask any female member of any film production with which I am involved to so marginalize themselves or compromise their inalienable authority over their own bodies,” Three production companies are now refusing to film in Georgia. www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/entertainment/georgia-movies-heartbeat-law/index.html
|
|