This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Go ahead; people have every right to boycott something, no matter how bigoted/racists/sexist/stupid it makes you look.
No one was arguing against their right to boycott.
Really? Could fool me with the way you've been going on tonight there MyTie.
As I've said, this really isn't news; if any comic company caved in because fans said they were going to boycott, then the Clone Saga, Infinite Crisis and Civil War would never have happened....and Bendis wouldn't have penned all that crap.
Post by
MyTie
Really? Could fool me with the way you've been going on tonight there MyTie.Could you quote where I said they don't have the right to do this? I firmly beleive in a person's right to be a bigot, to protest, to boycott. I'm also a firm believer in pointing out double standards and hypocricy. That's all I've been doing. Perhaps you misunderstood?
Let me put it into perspective:
Adamsm, I think you need to realize that DC can continue making comics if they want to. They have that right.As I've said, this really isn't news; if any comic company caved in because fans said they were going to boycott, then the Clone Saga, Infinite Crisis and Civil War would never have happened....and Bendis wouldn't have penned all that crap.
I don't know about all that. I found it interesting.
Post by
Adamsm
Um...no kidding? I've been saying that this won't affect anything at DC, since people have been screaming for boycotts of writers and artists since the comics came out. This is just sensationalism that Fox is glomped onto because it happens to fit their view point on what the world should be good for....cause you know if it was the opposite view it wouldn't be showing up there.
Post by
MyTie
Um...no kidding?
Now you know what I mean. Go ahead; people have every right to boycott something, no matter how bigoted/racists/sexist/stupid it makes you look.Um...no kidding?
On that note, I'm off to bed. Nighty night.
Post by
Ksero
Software finds oldest common mammalian ancestor.
Post by
Adamsm
And yet another sign of the stupidity of humanity....
Post by
Squishalot
And yet another sign of the stupidity of humanity....
Eh, I don't see it as being any different to having a school uniform policy.
Post by
Nathanyal
Her hair looks fine. It's just that some schools are extremely strict. For a while my school banned Guy Harvey t-shirts because they were racist or something. They also banned flip flops. But since then, people have worn them.
What I find strange though is a middle schooler that must abide by "Hair, including beards, mustaches and sideburns, should be groomed so that it is neat and clean".
How many 12-14 year olds have beards and mustaches that are able to be neat and clean?
Edit: Fixed my redundancy.
Post by
Ksero
Her hair looks fine. It's just that some schools are extremely strict. For a while my school banned Guy Harvey t-shirts because they were racist or something. They also banned flip flops. But since then, people have worn them.
What I find strange though is a middle schooler that must abide by "Hair, including beards, mustaches and sideburns, should be groomed so that it is neat and clean" to be a little strange.
How many 12-14 year olds have beards and mustaches that are able to be neat and clean?
I knew a kid named Joe in highschool, and when he was 13 his beard grew in 3 times as thick as mine does now, and I'm 20 lol.
Post by
gamerunknown
It's different than other boycotts because it is a boycott not over a problem with quality, service, or product provided, but over an opinion that someone has that works there, that is completely unrelated to his work.
I don't buy McDonalds due to their support from Planned Parenthood.
From
here
.
Ed: That said, the use of boycott is considered a war of position by Gramsci and one of the tools available to the disenfranchised.
Post by
MyTie
It's different than other boycotts because it is a boycott not over a problem with quality, service, or product provided, but over an opinion that someone has that works there, that is completely unrelated to his work.
I don't buy McDonalds due to their support from Planned Parenthood.
From
here
.
Ed: That said, the use of boycott is considered a war of position by Gramsci and one of the tools available to the disenfranchised.
Some of the money that is spent at McDonalds is directly to Planned Parenthood. PP doesn't use federal funds for abortion, but other funds, like those from McDonalds. Therefore, a slight percentage of every item bought at McDonalds goes to pay for abortion. Therefore, my issue is not with an opinion of someone working at McDonalds, but the actual way that money is used by McDonalds. If this weren't an issue, but I learned that the cashier at McDonalds supported abortion, I would still eat at McDonalds, not boycott it in demand of their termination. Your example of my boycott is a perfect illustration between the differences of boycotting a company to stifle someone else's opinion (which is bigotry), and boycotting a company due to issues with that company.
(completely beside the point that the product offered by McDonalds is substandard anyway)
Post by
gamerunknown
A portion of the money made by Card from his tenure at DC will be used to support NOfM, which provides a service individual comic store owners disagree with.
Post by
Monday
A portion of the money made by Card from his tenure at DC will be used to support NOfM, which provides a service individual comic store owners disagree with.
That's by an individual, not by a company.
Post by
MyTie
A portion of the money made by Card from his tenure at DC will be used to support NOfM, which provides a service individual comic store owners disagree with.
That's by an individual, not by a company.
Well spoken. Why can a person not spend the money he earned the way he wants? If an employee of a business used her earnings to have an abortion, I wouldn't boycott the company, because it isn't the company's fault, nor should a person be denied employment because of their beliefs or what they do with their money. This is why I have such a problem with the argument that "liberals" are for more personal liberty. That is only the case if the individual liberties are ones they agree with. If not, they think you shouldn't be employable, apparently. It's so hypocritical.
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't think it is. Part of the capitalist conception of liberty is freedom of choice between competitors in a market. One doesn't feel an obligation to consume certain goods in order to provide for one's common man. In this conception, liberty is not guaranteeing a salary to an individual, but ensuring that the government does not intervene to deprive a man of his salary.
I suppose the analogy breaks down a little, but what if a company you patronised employed a former head of Planned Parenthood as head of marketing?
Post by
MyTie
I suppose the analogy breaks down a little, but what if a company you patronised employed a former head of Planned Parenthood as head of marketing?
I've sufficiently answered this. I dislike giving a clear cut opinion on a matter, providing an example, and then answering further examples. I'll do it this time, to make doubly clear, but after this I'm done with examples.
I would not stop using that company. I do not feel that every company I do business with should only hire those that have complimentary viewpoints to me. To believe that those who don't have the same viewpoints as me should not be employable is not capitalism, but is fascism.
Post by
gamerunknown
To believe that those who don't have the same viewpoints as me should not be employable is not capitalism, but is fascism.
No, fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology supporter the merge of state and corporate power. An individual making the decision on whatever basis to purchase or not purchase a product? The basis of the free market. An individual using state power to limit dissenting viewpoints? Absolutely not the basis of the free market.
Post by
MyTie
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, gamer. I was busy being sick.
The people in that article are not deciding not to buy a product due to their demand for the product. The people in that article like the product. The capitalistic thing would be to buy the product. They are deciding to, as a community, exert "power to limit dissenting viewpoints". Throw in some brown shirts and a little militancy, and you've got fascism. What I see, in that article, is a group of people trying to strong arm, and intimidate someone, not based on their performance, but on their opinion and viewpoint. If the role were reversed, and a group of people were demanding someone be fired because they were gay, you wouldn't be calling it capitalism.
Post by
gamerunknown
They like the product, but feel strongly enough about one of the writers not to buy it. They gain more utility by not buying it. Likewise if someone feels strongly enough about homosexuality not to use facebook due to Chris Hughes.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.