Boycott due to opposing view

Links234 · 08-03-2013 12:36PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's no better than homophobes boycotting a company because one worker happens to be gay.

or those pesky do-gooders who organized boycotts of south african goods in opposition to apartheid.

Anti-Apartheid Movement
Academic boycott of South Africa
Sporting boycott of South Africa during the Apartheid era

Like the tactics or not, boycotts have been successful in effecting change, and they're not going away.

people have the right to vote with their wallets

starlings · 08-03-2013 12:49PM

psinno wrote: »

So you can have an opinion as long as it has zero impact on your life and you do nothing about it.

No, you are entitled to have an opinion and to act upon it, but then you can't be surprised if people disagree and if this disagreement has an impact on your life. Nobody has to read this man's writing; likewise no one has to boycott it, even if they disagree with his opinions.

starlings · 08-03-2013 12:51PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's no better than homophobes boycotting a company because one worker happens to be gay.

has that ever happened?

Links234 · 08-03-2013 12:52PM

starlings wrote: »

has that ever happened?

the group "One Million Moms" called for a boycott of JC Penny for hiring Ellen DeGeneres as a spokewoman, does that count?

starlings · 08-03-2013 12:54PM

Links234 wrote: »

the group "One Million Moms" called for a boycott of JC Penny for hiring Ellen DeGeneres as a spokewoman, does that count?

:eek: yes

my question wasn't rhetorical - thanks!

Links234 · 08-03-2013 01:18PM

starlings wrote: »

:eek: yes

my question wasn't rhetorical - thanks!

In that case, anti-gay and right wing groups do that kind of thing all the time, they call for boycotts of TV shows if they feature a gay character, and there's even been boycotts of DC and Marvel comics for featuring gay characters too. So if you want to complain about this action against a superman comic, well the folks on the other side have been at it for ages.

oh and also archie comics

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 01:34PM

Links234 wrote: »

or those pesky do-gooders who organized boycotts of south african goods in opposition to apartheid.

Anti-Apartheid Movement
Academic boycott of South Africa
Sporting boycott of South Africa during the Apartheid era

Like the tactics or not, boycotts have been successful in effecting change, and they're not going away.

people have the right to vote with their wallets

You're missing the point entirely though. Apartheid (ridiculous comparison in the first place) was government policy. This is just one guy who happens to hold these opinions and happens to be working on this product. This is not company policy.

I don't know why you're waffling about boycotts, I never said anything about boycotts themselves, they're a great form of protest, it's just that protest is utterly inappropriate and unwarranted in this case.

Put it this way. I'm a republican through and through. I have no qualms about making my beliefs known and go to no lengths to hide them. I also work for a newspaper however and am part of a news team. I am scrupulously fair in my reporting, never include personal comments and show no favour to one side or the other in my work. This is a point of principle for me and one that has brought me into confrontation with other republicans before.
So, would loyalists be justified in boycotting the paper just because I work here?

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 01:34PM

starlings wrote: »

has that ever happened?

No idea. It was a hypothetical example

Links234 · 08-03-2013 01:41PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is just one guy who happens to hold these opinions and happens to be working on this product.

No, it's nothing to do with his opinions which he's entitled to have, it's the fact he's a big player in the anti-gay rights movement.

starlings · 08-03-2013 02:01PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Put it this way. I'm a republican through and through. I have no qualms about making my beliefs known and go to no lengths to hide them. I also work for a newspaper however and am part of a news team. I am scrupulously fair in my reporting, never include personal comments and show no favour to one side or the other in my work. This is a point of principle for me and one that has brought me into confrontation with other republicans before.
So, would loyalists be justified in boycotting the paper just because I work here?

With consumer boycotts, the justification is up to each consumer as a matter of personal conscience. You may find it ridiculous that a loyalist wouldn't buy your paper because of one reporter's views, which are not implicit in his writing, and I'd agree with you -but there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't buy goods from a certain country. I don't think this is going to make a blind bit of difference to that country's policies, but it's me saying (to myself) that I don't like them and I don't want to contribute to that country's trade economy- more of a walk away than a confrontation. When it comes to artists and writers from that country - yes I will look at, read and listen to their work because it's not an inert product but thoughts and I think it's foolish to ignore those.

Unless it is a boycott of a regime (and in the case you mentioned the retailer and consumer boycott of apartheid era SA often took the place of state sanctions) or if this Superman turns out to be a hate-ridden piece of homophobia, consumer boycotts can be misdirected noise. Your loyalist boycott isn't going to have much of an effect with all your non-loyalist-boycott readers.

Ray Palmer · 08-03-2013 02:55PM

What has to be understood is the tactic is a low method. One of the problems is it effects others. In this case the artist who was to work on the project had to leave due to the pressure he recieved.
Claiming a moral high ground using a method that is low just irritates me.

Wondering if people will boycott the Ender's Game film when it comes out which sounds like it will be a huge film becasue they oppose the same writer?

1ZRed · 08-03-2013 03:04PM

Meh, I don't care as long as all those specific views are kept out of the film, there's actually no reason why they'd be in there in the first place anyway.

As for his views and how loud he is against gay marriage and rights, it's just the classic case of those who speak loudest are the ones trying to convince themselves. Complete overcompensation.

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 03:17PM

Links234 wrote: »

No, it's nothing to do with his opinions which he's entitled to have, it's the fact he's a big player in the anti-gay rights movement.

Which has exactly what to do with a superman comic he happens to be working on?

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 03:19PM

Links234 wrote: »

the group "One Million Moms" called for a boycott of JC Penny for hiring Ellen DeGeneres as a spokewoman, does that count?

And was that, in your view, justified. because it's pretty much the same thing, just in reverse, except this guy isnt even a spokesman for the company, he's just working on a product

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 03:21PM

Links234 wrote: »

In that case, anti-gay and right wing groups do that kind of thing all the time, they call for boycotts of TV shows if they feature a gay character, and there's even been boycotts of DC and Marvel comics for featuring gay characters too. So if you want to complain about this action against a superman comic, well the folks on the other side have been at it for ages.

oh and also archie comics

So your solution is to just be as bad as them. That kind of makes a mockery out of the whole pride movement which I had always been led to believe was about inclusivity, equality and tolerance

hooradiation · 08-03-2013 03:27PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So your solution is to just be as bad as them. That kind of makes a mockery out of the whole pride movement which I had always been led to believe was about inclusivity, equality and tolerance

Gosh, i didn't realise that there was absolutely no difference between objecting to people who seek to deny others basic rights and objecting to the existence of people who's sexual orientation you find icky.

How illuminating.

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 03:32PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Gosh, i didn't realise that there was absolutely no difference between objecting to people who seek to deny others basic rights and objecting to the existence of people who's sexual orientation you find icky.

How illuminating.

Well if you had bothered reading the thread instead of just jumping in half blind with your misdirected sanctimonious pontificating you'd know I was talking about the tactic being used and not the causes or groups using them.
Do feel free to join the conversation when you understand what we're talking about and have something of merit to contribute.

RUSTEDCORE · 08-03-2013 03:40PM

the gays cant boycott superman... a strong guy in tights.. it,ll be prada at dawn just to get tickets

hooradiation · 08-03-2013 03:43PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well if you had bothered reading the thread instead

I did, you're still wrong.

The fact that people use the protest of boycotting something because of a disagreement doesn't create any kind of equivalence between groups that use it.
Or, if you prefer in simpler terms it does not make you "as bad as them" - it's the the reasoning behind the boycott that matters.

Are you done being all butthurt or do you want to whine some more?

Crooked Jack · 08-03-2013 03:48PM

hooradiation wrote: »

I did, you're still wrong.

The fact that people use the protest of boycotting something because of a disagreement doesn't create any kind of equivalence between groups that use it.
Or, if you prefer in simpler terms it does not make you "as bad as them" - it's the the reasoning behind the boycott that matters.

Are you done being all butthurt or do you want to whine some more?

If gay rights groups are advocating boycotting a company because one member of that company happens to hold anti-gay marriage views or be part of an anti-gay marriage group, that does indeed make them as bad as a homophobic group boycotting a company because one member of that company happens to be gay.
The situations and actions are equivalent, the causes are not.

Nodin · 08-03-2013 05:02PM

psinno wrote: »

So you can have an opinion as long as it has zero impact on your life and you do nothing about it.

Presumabily its "you can be a bigot as long as it has zero impact on the life of others and you do nothing about it".

Duggys Housemate · 08-03-2013 06:42PM

The problem with demanding whiter than white politically correct opinions in artists and writers is:

1) you're going to exclude the past writers who are not liberal by modern standards.
2) you are going to exclude many non-Western writers.

Other than that, it's grand.

starlings · 08-03-2013 08:22PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The problem with demanding whiter than white politically correct opinions in artists and writers is:

1) you're going to exclude the past writers who are not liberal by modern standards.
2) you are going to exclude many non-Western writers.

Other than that, it's grand.

3) you're going to exclude a wealth of great art.

but then if you insist on squeaky clean politics, you probably wouldn't enjoy it anyway.

Paramite Pie · 08-03-2013 08:45PM

I don't read any comics anymore but even though I'm a gay man I wouldn't necessarily boycott something unless the company at an official level is anti-gay (like Chick-a-fil, would never eat there).

As long as the individual writer keeps quiet on his views in future and keeps it outta his work then frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately since in most parts of the U.S gay marriage is not legally recognised so from a legal perspective he cannot be fired for 'discrimination' until the US Government officially recognises gay marriage at a Federal level.

As for boycotting, I wasn't gonna buy it anywayz...

starlings · 08-03-2013 08:58PM

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't read any comics anymore but even though I'm a gay man I wouldn't necessarily boycott something unless the company at an official level is anti-gay (like Chick-a-fil, would never eat there).

As long as the individual writer keeps quiet on his views in future and keeps it outta his work then frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately since in most parts of the U.S gay marriage is not legally recognised so from a legal perspective he cannot be fired for 'discrimination' until the US Government officially recognises gay marriage at a Federal level.

As for boycotting, I wasn't gonna buy it anywayz...

this is way more fun than a boycott:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

Boycott due to opposing view

Comments