Saturday, July 31, 2010

On Boycotts

There are various people calling for boycotts of Target because it dared to spend some of its pocket change for an ad that supports Tom Emmer.

So, here's a question: can I boycott government employees, or more accurately the unions that spend bajillions of dollars on ads that support DFLers and attack Tom Emmer? You can't, of course. You have to deal with governmental agencies and in some instances if you don't obey their dictates you are punished.

Worth remembering the next time you hear someone complaining about how mean spirited or bullying Target and other such corporations are.

32 comments:

Gino said...

i'm boycotting target,too.

not that they dont make it easy in the fisrt place with their years long boycott of me.

my name is Amanda said...

What moral reasoning would there be to boycott unions, which exist to protect workers? The fact that they support the DFL isn't enough (as in, again, what's the moral reasoning?). Whereas boycotting Target, Best Buy et al is about objecting to a candidate who supports hated and intolerance, with his stance on GLBT issues.

Target wants to have it both ways, but until politicians stop trying to deny rights to people who are not straight, cis, white, Christian, or female, it's just not going to happen.

Which isn't to say that I object to people boycotting certain businesses and organizations that support the DFL, whatever the reasoning. I think it's great in fact. If businesses want to get their hands dirty by becoming involved in politics, then they deserve to feel the repercussions by people voting with their dollars, either way.

(And for the record, I admit that I can't think of what things you would want to boycott but which you cannot, by their very nature, and the law. I mean, are we talking about objecting to where our tax money goes? Dems have to deal with that, too.)

my name is Amanda said...

*hatred, not hated. (Whoops.)

Anonymous said...

Can I boycott paying taxes?

Mr. D said...

What moral reasoning would there be to boycott unions, which exist to protect workers? The fact that they support the DFL isn't enough (as in, again, what's the moral reasoning?).

I'll give you two.

1) Unions purport to protect workers, but they spend most of their time and money on politicking. Mrs. D's union (AFSCME) hasn't done much, considering how much they charge her for dues. They probably spend 75-80% of the money they extract from her paycheck on supporting DFL candidates. And she has no choice in the matter, because if she resigns from the union, they take the money out of her salary anyway. Is that enough of a moral reason for you?

2) As anonymous points out, you can't boycott the government or its agents, because they can put you in prison if you don't follow whatever rules they promulgate, whether the rules make sense or not. Target has no such power.

If Randi Reitan wants to boycott Target, that's fine. I'm just tired of the absurd notion that some organizations (like unions and trial lawyers) can buy politicians wholesale, but other organizations (like Target) cannot even express an opinion on the matter.

And I can tell you this -- I worked for Target for 8 1/2 years and they are, without question, one of the most politically correct companies out there. They went out of their way to support gay rights for their employees and made everyone, and I mean everyone, sit through a long list of seminars on diversity, white privilege, feminist theory and all manner of things that people on the Left hold dear.

The reason that Target executives support Emmer is simple, and it has nothing to do with gay rights -- they support Emmer because he won't try to tax the crap out of them, both as a corporation and as individuals. So yes, they are acting in their self-interest. Any reason why Randi Reitan can act in her self-interest and the Target execs can't?

Gino said...

amanda: you really need to stop branding everybody who disagrees with you as being fueld by hatred and bigotry.
it not an intelligent way to discuss, and is often rather hateful and bigoted in itself.

and their plenty of from the LBGT side as well. i'd say, from many perspectives, it is what drives them.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Amanda,

You are a treasure. The DFL needs people like you.

my name is Amanda said...

Mr.D - I cannot give a great reply to your excellent comment from where I am right now, but I plan to revisit and read in greater detail later.

Gino - I do not really need to stop doing that. I really don't want to alienate you personally, but I'm not speaking from a POV of understanding what you think of everything.

Tell me what opposition to GLBT rights is based on, if not prejudice and hatred? Is it just fear of what is not considered "normal" by the majority? If so, well okay, but think about this: when a person's fear or hesitation or whatever it is that causes them to support denying gay people the right to marry, or trans people the right
to identify with their gender unobstructed, etc etc, THEY see the motivation as hatred.

my name is Amanda said...

WBP - If you had a superior opinion you wouldn't have to resort to sarcastic insults.

Gino said...

Amanda: Tradition, traditional morality and traditional understandings of the way certain things in society are supposed to be.

i'm shocked you could not see this for yourself, even if you do disagree with it.

if you want to make the case against the traditions of our society, then do so. but you did not. you just brand ooposition to it as hate.

maybe i'll start doing that,too.

you hate christians, catholics and muslims... thats why you support gay marriage.

you just want to force your morality on them out of bigotry.
thats all it really is.

my name is Amanda said...

Mr D - yes, I imagine it would be upsetting and possibly miserable to be forced to support a union that doesn't seem to improve things, and also supports politicians you wouldn't vote for. I will not to purport to understand that union, or what it's like to belong to one
(I never have), but it's my impression that they aim to achieve their goals via politicking, so I also don't see how that's immoral. But I won't argue about that one.

Basically every time I buy any kind of good and many services (cell phone is a good example), I'm supporting the GOP, and I hate that. But it's up to me to try change that as much as I can. It's true that we don't have that freedom in a lot of other areas, but I don't see how that favors Democrats more. It would be interesting if someone could do study on that, actually, to see how it all evens out.

Gino - "Tradition" isn't synonymous with morality. I truly don't believe that everyone who disagrees with me is a hateful bigot. I'm sorry if the way I spoke was offensive to you. But I passionately believe that keeping my personal religious/spiritual beliefs out of law and politics - which is our politicians should be doing, otherwise, Target wouldn't be getting this press - is the very definition of refraining from imposing my morality on others.

Mr. D said...

Amanda,

Here's the other point, which I wanted to amplify, at least concerning Target. The diversity courses I mentioned in my earlier post were mandatory. There were, at the time I worked there, at least 8,000 people working at Target HQ. They all had to take the courses, which lasted about a half a day.

Do the math -- what is the salary cost of 8,000 people for a half day? And what is the cost for employing a team that doesn't do anything but deal with diversity issues? If the average Targetoid at HQ makes $20/hour (a fair guess), you're talking about nearly a million dollars a year for the program. Meanwhile, Target spent $150K on its contribution to Emmer.

Gino said...

amanda: "But I passionately believe that keeping my personal religious/spiritual beliefs out of law and politics"

this is not true.
you beleive in keeping others religious beliefs out of politics while you attempt to force yours.
we all do.
abortion, for one.
rape is another.
global warming, health care, welfare... its all based on a concept that is supposed to be morally superior to the other one.

and i never said tradition is syno with morality. straw man,there. i did mention a 'traditional morality', tradition here being the qualifier to the subject of morality.

your charges of hatred/racism/whatever do not bother me,personally. i've been called lots of things, and my reaction to such is if thats all you got, then you dont have much. its overused.

thats why i think you need to limit such charges. i think you are better than that, and i respect you reasoning ability. seriously.
you dont need to go down to somebody eles's (that we all know) level.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

If you had a superior opinion you wouldn't have to resort to sarcastic insults.

My superior opinion is this: It is wrong to defame people you don't know. You do it with casual aplomb. "[Tom Emmer] supports hatred and intolerance" just rolls off your tongue like it's no big deal. Well it is.

my name is Amanda said...

And my superior opinion is that people seem to care more about being described as certain adjectives, than the fact they may be supporting the kinds of ideas that definitely deserve those adjectives.

Casual aplomb? Well, it's certainly easier on the Internet. Mostly I hate BS and would prefer to just say what I think. But I really shouldn't have responded that way to you. I'll try to stick to more on-topic replies in other people's threads in the future.

Gino - *kiss/makeup*

W.B. Picklesworth said...

You don't seem to understand that you don't get to be the judge of other people's motivations. Is Tom Emmer anti-gay? You are happy to pronounce him so because you are the all-knowing one. It doesn't seem to occur to you that you haven't a clue what Tom Emmer thinks about gays or about what Tea Partiers think about African-Americans. It's enough that they disagree with you on policy issues at which point you delve into their thought lives and pronounce them haters and bigots. And in all of this casual smearing of people you don't know, somehow you hold on to the idea that you are standing up for good, that you're some kind of humanist. And somehow you think that I'm just concerned with words.

my name is Amanda said...

And it's you who is not listening to what I say if you're convinced that I'm preoccupied with smearing, and with qualifying people as whole composites of one or two characteristics. I've been consistent in commenting on this blog, that all people, your Liberal elitists included, react to others based on stereotypes and privilege (and fear and hate and many other emotions). It's some of the people that disagree with me here, who have been applying my statements as if I go around willy nilly applying "bigot," and "racist," to anyone who has an opposing viewpoint, as if I also don't think that those with opposing viewpoints could have positive aspects to other parts of their lives.

It's also an attempt to derail my comment. What about replying to my point instead of analyzing my character?

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Your point? What was your point? That unions exist to help people? No doubt there is an element of that that still remains in some unions. It might be more accurate to say that unions exist to perpetuate and enrich themselves. Card Check is a fine example of this.

Or was your point that some politicians are "trying to deny rights to people" who are not part of an approved grievance group? I would respond that politicians have been busily denying constituents their rights for a very long time now. This past Congress is not unique in that, but it seems worse than normal. People use to have the right to freely buy their own health insurance. And they had the freedom not to buy it. And by "people" I don't mean special people who are special victims; I mean people in general regardless of skin color or sexual preference.

Or maybe you had some other point? I may not have noticed because you leaped to accusing people of hatred in the very first paragraph of the very first comment.

my name is Amanda said...

If derailment doesn't work, then negation: "Well, your point was stupid."

It was about the right of people to boycott an org that supports a candidate who in their POV, promotes hatred and intolerance through legislation.

Then I wondered how things would even out, as per Mr. D's argument. It's a blog comment, not a master's thesis.

I'm at a loss to determine whether you are being blinded by defensiveness, and didn't really read what I said, but either way, I am not interested in commenting in this thread any longer.

Bike Bubba said...

For reference, we are being forced to support a union; specifically the UAW through the bailout of GM and Chrysler.

And unions exist to help the workers? Um, Amanda, you DO realize that unions have been known for basic thuggery and connections with the Mob (e.g. Hoffa) for over a century now, right? Look up the SEIU's antics over the past year or so, and even though you're a liberal, you're going to want to put some of those guys out of a job.

Put another way, don't confuse the "we're helping the common man" rhetoric with the actual results; crime, bullying, and....

...lost jobs for union workers as well.

Personally, I avoid doing business with union shops whenever possible, and so does my company. I'd like to avoid doing business with union government shops, too.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

If your point is that people should have the freedom to boycott whom they will, then great! It's a wonderful point to make. It respects people's dignity and their differences without blindly slandering anyone.

Swiftee said...

Allow me.

1. Male homosexual behavior accounts for 77% of HIV cases in America, and most industrialized countries. (In case you'd forgotten, AIDS is still a terminal disease although we're spending untold billions to keep sufferers ready for action for longer periods of time these days.)

2. It also accounts for the overwhelming percentage of every other STD with the exception of chlamydia, which since it primarily affects women isn't surprising.

3. Homosexuality is a aberration that may have biological roots, but is also clearly, since it is a behavior when acted upon, something that can be learned. Why would we want to support a behavior that is clearly a health hazard?

4. The most generous (to homosexuals) estimates put active homosexuals at 5% of the population. Why should we create a new paradigm that offends the vast majority of people, some right to the core of their being, to satisfy the sexual urges of 5%?

5. Homosexuality is linked with more anti-social and health related problems than I can count; drug abuse, alcohol abuse, mental instability, suicide...why would we want to accommodate such a dysfunctional lifestyle?

Oh, and before you jump in to say that pressure is the cause, not so much...Scandinavian homosexuals exhibit the same predilection despite the fact that those governments all but mandate gay sex.

Shall I continue? Thought not.

my name is Amanda said...

Uh... Coming out of this blog thread retirement to say: Holy Crap.

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on those "stats."

In other news I'm thrilled to discover that I can learn to be physically attracted to people I'm not physically attracted to, for the pure pleasure of participating in deviant, socially stigmatizing behavior. Really opens up the playing field.

Finally, is there a master list of behaviors that our society shouldn't support, since they are health hazards? I imagine it would include drinking alcohol, smoking, driving cars, and heterosexual monogamy of course, since it happens to be a huge cause of domestic violence.

Swiftee said...

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on those "stats."

How about the CDC?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

In other news I'm thrilled to discover that I can learn to be physically attracted to people I'm not physically attracted to, for the pure pleasure of participating in deviant, socially stigmatizing behavior. Really opens up the playing field.

That's 2.

..and heterosexual monogamy of course, since it happens to be a huge cause of domestic violence.

And that's 3...you're out.

Amanda, you said "What about replying to my point instead of analyzing my character?", and despite the fact that you subscribe to a socio-political ideology crafted by, and for dim-wits, I responded positively.

And you returned with your second and third dim-witted pap-spew in response.

You are an idiot, Amanda. I'm sorry, but it's a fact.

In future, when you run from the brutal mockery that is the leftist dim-wit's reward, remember, you had a chance to sit at the big people's table, but you wanted to throw mashed potatoes instead.

Best you go sit by your dish now.

my name is Amanda said...

I DID read the CDC site. And NOTHING that you wrote here matches what is on that site (ex. 53% is male to male, nit 77%.) My original reply was going to list the contradictions, but percentages (even wrong ones) are not the point in human rights issues. Aside from that, not everything you said was statistically verifiable on the CDC.

These are all poor arguments for why homosexuals shouldn't have rights, but when I pair them with other social ills and dangers, showing how hypocritical they are, you can't do anything but insult my intelligence. Again.

Plus, you basically said that we should let the gay people die from their gay disease.

You're an awful person (and not in the way that I disagree with you just because you're a conservative). I can't be hurt by what you think of me.

Mr. D said...

Swiftee's not awful, Amanda. But he doesn't play around. He's a very well known guy in the Twin Cities blogosphere and enjoys the debate. I'm glad he's here. And I'm glad you are, too. It makes things more interesting.

Meanwhile, I'd offer the following words of wisdom from Mitch Berg:

The (social) right supports a traditional marriage amendment at campaign time, but does nothing to pass it.

The left supports gay marriage (and bags on the “bigotry” of its opponents) at campaign time, but does nothing to pass it.

Swiftee said...

These are all poor arguments for why homosexuals shouldn't have rights

Now you’re dragging out your red herrings…please spare us.

Homosexuals have exactly and precisely the same rights as heterosexuals. They want new rights that accommodate their lifestyle and behavioral choices. I bet you don’t want to try and opine they aren't defending behavioral choices, do you?

Hmong men want to marry 12 year old girls, but we're not going to allow that either, and no one with an ounce of common sense is willing to entertain a discussion about it.

But, homosexuals propose their argument based upon a mind numbing concept I like to call the "sand is food" theory:

"I'll believe that two men buggering each other is as natural as normal relations between a man and woman when the FDA adds sand as a food group and publishes a recommended daily allowance...until then, I'll not deign to give the issue serious consideration"

...and you think it makes great sense; because you’re not very bright.

when I pair them with other social ills and dangers, showing how hypocritical they are

You try to smoke a cigarette in a public building lately? Does the government publish magazines to explain how to mix a proper sloe gin fizz? Do public schools have a curriculum in place to teach the kids that drinking alcohol is a swell thing to do?

And your asinine comment re: a monogamous heterosexual relationship was, well, asinine.

I said you're a dim-wit, and you continue to trip over your own feet in the rush to prove it.

you can't do anything but insult my intelligence. Again.

Not a bit. First I laid out the facts that exposed you for a leftist dolt, and then I named it.

As I said, I don't think there’s much in the way of intelligence between your ears, Amanda, so I won't waste much time insulting it.

my name is Amanda said...

Mr. D - Thank you for reminding me that I am welcome here.

I don't feel that Swiftee is exhibiting a preference for "not playing around." I'm not playing around; I'm not holding back any opinions, yet I'm able to do this without repeatedly writing paragraphs about how other people are dimwits.

And I agree that Dems have not made as much progress as they purport to aspire to.

Swiftee - A red herring is an intended distraction. To say "These are all poor arguments for why homosexuals shouldn't have rights" is not a distraction from the topic. It IS the topic.

Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love. Hetersexuals do have that right. There are others, but I only need one to disprove your comment about how they have "precisely" the same points.

"Hmong men want to marry 12 year old girls." Homosexuals do not argue that they should be allowed to marry 12-year olds.

"But, homosexuals propose their argument based upon a mind numbing concept I like to call the "sand is food" theory." A theory is an explanation. But tell me again about how bright I'm not.

"You try to smoke a cigarette in a public building lately? Does the government publish magazines to explain how to mix a proper sloe gin fizz? Do public schools have a curriculum in place to teach the kids that drinking alcohol is a swell thing to do?"

From what my feeble mind understands, the sale of cigarettes is legal and sanctioned by the government, as is the sale of alcohol.

"And your asinine comment re: a monogamous heterosexual relationship was, well, asinine."

Ah, the "you're dumb because you're dumb" statement. Sorry kid, that's still not an argument.

It should be noted again that your "statistics" were soundly wrong and that you think gay people should die of their gay disease.

Finally, despite your insistence that you don't suffer leftist idiots lightly, you've spent about four or five long comments lamely attempting a dressing down. Since you are apparently unable to either defend your position or refrain from commenting "Idiot! Idiot!" over and over again, why don't you do us a both a favor and stop responding to me? If doing so is SO BENEATH YOU and such a waste of your time.

I will not miss the interaction.

my name is Amanda said...

*Whoops, correction - "the same rights" not "the same points"

Bike Bubba said...

Regarding the "deny rights" canard, the fact of the matter is that the whole deal is simply a group of people with inherently sterile relationships (homosexuals) trying to insert themselves into the privileges of family law, which of course is written to protect....

.....mothers and their children from what happens when a generally fertile relationship ends.

So the refusal to mis-define marriage to include homosexuals is not about bigotry, but rather reality. It's not predicated on the unhealthfulness of homosexual lifestyles, but rather on the fact that, without some serious medical/adoption intervention, homosexuals cannot become parents.

(and yes, not all heterosexual couples can, either, but sometimes the law ought to have a convenient deliniation rather than a cumbersome, but slightly more accurate, one)

Swiftee said...

"Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love. Heter[o]sexuals do have that right."

There are limits to those rights.

You cannot marry your brother (the fact that your cousins may have gotten away with it is irrelevant, so leave it alone). Your Dad can't marry your sister (they may be playing "house" while Mom's at work, but that doesn't count).

The restrictions are based upon science and traditional morality...just like the prohibition against same sex "marriages".

You lose; again. Get used to it.

Swiftee said...

Oh, and allow me to set you straight on another moronic point you've insisted on repeating.

I don't think gays should die of their disease, but if I've got $1 billion to spend and the choice to spend it on either a disease that is preventable in the overwhelming majority of cases, or say, cystic fibrosis; yup, teh gay is going to die.