LOL, for some, it's always and forever - - even after they HAVE grown a pair.
How about this one? Will boys be boys?
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
LOL, for some, it's always and forever - - even after they HAVE grown a pair.
Well done!
Haha.. I wouldn't say 'fun'...
personally, it is my view that women are inherently more social and like having the numbers in any sitch....
j/k
It's such a funny poster.. they couldn't have done it better even if they'd actually tried.
Boycotts of merchandise is anti-capitalism. Political speech intended to suppress capitalism. Communalism in action.
If it is consumers, and not government, then it's not political.
It's so amusing to see people rushing to claim that the freely chosen actions of corporations responding to customer input is somehow not capitalism. It makes one think that they don't really like capitalism at all.
ah.... once again.... I hardly know when it's splitting hairs or some fundamentally significant fulcrum of philosophy.
do you really think people are not politically-motivated when.... oh.... boycotting a corporation has come down on the wrong side of some political issue? Is a "bad actor" environmentally? Is supplying the slaves to the West Indies (a la "no sugar in my tea")?
I'll agree with you if the people are motivated by price or other economic considerations.
But if it's AGW, globalism, or LGBT, say, I think it's political.
Lessee, what was it here?
overt sexism/Political correctness.
Politics is about government. If the government is not involved, not even indirectly, it's not politics. So, consumers choosing to boycott a company for donating to the American Nazi party would be politically motivated, but boycotting over the message on pajamas is not.
You do realize no one boycotts over 'political correctness', because that is a slur term (otherwise meaningless) used against protests, not something people actually are in favor of?
Of course, you are allowed to think of anything as political if you so choose. Humpty Dumpty is always your friend.
It might be a bit different in the fear / litigious society we seem to be right now, where it's like piranha's jumping on the next big offender, to destroy. Nobody wants to draw attention to themselves in any way because it means death to their income and a huge spotlight and change to their lives... whether deserved or not. It goes beyond accountability right now imo, it's more like "search and destroy" and apologize... maybe... later if we were wrong to do that.
That's a bit beyond the simple boycott it used to be, it's fear.
I get that it can be good and needs to happen in many cases where some super messed up stuff is going on and there needs to be accountability and destruction. I'm just saying that in the frenzy, there may be innocents that get wrecked along the way and nobody wants to be that person. It's not just the guilty running from sharknado. I'd pull something off the shelves immediately too.
I guess my point, if there is one, is that's it's not the straight up capitalism of yesteryear.
I also don't think it's that simple either. Just because the government is not directly involved, they do have a hand in many things indirectly. Policy and platforms affect what people do in their personal lives, especially if they have strong feelings about it. If you took politics out of Thriller's life, what would be left? I honestly can't give an answer to that, even though I know there must be something. You can't bake a cake where salt is "politics", and pull the salt out because then you get a completely different cake. You can't pull the political leanings from what people do and say, see... the government didn't make a law about this or get involved, so clearly they have zero ties to what is going on here. I rambled in an imperfect attempt to say what I'm thinking, but I hope you get the point.
It sounds nice, but impossible to separate.
I am glad to hear though that you know the reasons why every single person who has or will boycott something. Staggering how well you know all people to their cores, possibly better than even they know themselves. -- Clearly I don't think it possible for you to know why every single person who has boycotted something did so, nor what all people are actually in favor of. Maybe some, a stretch but most possibly, but all is not possible.
I find it odd you think this represents a change. Since we have had merchants, we have had merchants who did not want to become unpopular, lest it affect their business. Sometimes the social pressure was brought to bear implicitly, sometimes explicitly, sometimes legally, but it was always there.
No litigation was threatened here. A customer complained, other people joined in, a merchant responded. I have no doubt there are other merchants who will be happy to sell "Boys will be boys" PJs. Capitalism.
For the other post, perhaps you were comparing/contrasting political pressure with social pressure. Maybe you meant that if government leads in a specific direction, people tend to take it even further. I'm not sure.
While I don't claim to read minds, I do tend to take people at their word when I have nothing to gain or lose by it, and no other reason to distrust them.
A change can be as simple as an increase of something that is already going on to be something bigger with some morphing. Do I think it didn't exist before, no. There is a different feel right now.
After all that's gone on in society lately, the threat of litigation is latent but palpable. You don't need a vocal threat of litigation to feel threatened. I figured you would understand this thought with some of your other nuanced arguments in other areas of discussion.
I don't care for the message. It's not my favorite, but I am not the type of person to be offended and boycott it. Maybe I should change and try to bring down all of the offensive products out there I see. There are about a million things sold out there I find more offensive than the "Boys will be boys", despite the fact I don't like the message.
My thought is more that it is impossible to pull the political pressure out of the mix of pressures and state it has no part of it. It is part of the recipe one way or another. You could probably make an argument that it is a small ingredient to specific situations, but removing it completely would change everything imo, and impossible. Maybe what you see is the social pressure aspect, as the head, but the political pressure is a driving force on an individual level with many decisions made regardless of if the government makes a statement.
Any President, any Congress, that get involved to the point of adding tarriffs, that change laws that affect business even if the aim is to protect. These things change what business owners, and to a certain extent consumers see and do daily.
As to taking people for their word, I believe you try to. I've had enough interactions though to see that while you use that argument, many posters here you do not take at their word, but in a way tell them what they are really experiencing or feeling or doing. Maybe it is unintended, subconscious, but it happens. Picking and choosing what messages that we take at their word, might have more to do with the message and what agrees with our line of thinking than what is really happening. I probably tend to take people at their word when we agree, but find ways to punch holes in what they say when I don't.
Mo, you weren’t supposed to tell anyone that I showed them to you! That’s the LAST time I play Truth or Dare with YOU, young lady!
This was fun.
Agreed.
As for the people sobbing over Mr. Pederast, don’t worry, he’ll be back shortly — Assuming you believe he actually left.
I believe you when you say it feels different to you. The notions of what is acceptable are changing, probably faster now than they were 20-30 years ago. The types of change that occur make people uncomfortable, and when they see people dragged into agreeing, the discomfort colors everything.
I appreciate that people do feel threatened. Perhaps that fears spills over into worry about litigation, even when there is no reason for it to. Some people speak as though they have a lot to lose.
I quietly boycott a couple of businesses I don't agree with. I fully respect and support any decision you make to exercise your speech and your dollar in this area, even if I disagree with the cause and might exercise my speech/dollar in that opposition.
Agreed.
While I try to avoid telling people what they are feeling or experiencing internally, I am not shy about telling them what the effects are, how they play out in terms our culture, and the what are perhaps unrealized consequences. I suffer from the same self-blindness as anyone else, though, and I try to acknowledge that as well.
I guess "politics" can be whatever anyone wants it to be, maybe the same with "capitalism", considering the extent and magnitude of corporate influence today.
When I see something that follows from the revolutionary directives of progressivism or Marxism or socialism based on concepts like inevitable, inexorable processes tangled with ideals of societal or governmental "transformations", as I would observe "sexism" is..... complete nonsense in my view.... I just have to label it "anti-religious" or "anti-capitalist" or anti-human rights.
Hegel went to great pains to call the American Revolution the wrong way to go, and he was supported by the German monarchy. Marx followed suit, and he was supported by the English nobility. It was purposed to put a stop to the John Locke sort of issue about "innate" or "absolute" individual human rights.
People who hop in the political correctness bandwagon are denying the validity of individual innate or absolute human rights or "God-given" human rights. They typically use hateful terms to drive compliance to their ideas.
In that context, the OP issue derives absolutely from politics. The "political deniers" in here, I would suppose, might be actual believers in the "progressive" counter-revolution to the American Revolution.
I say Long Live the American Revolution, and the privilege to think and say whatever you have on your mind, without some societal juggernaut bearing down on you to make you conform to someone else's stupid ideas.
When I see something that follows from the revolutionary directives of progressivism or Marxism or socialism based on concepts like inevitable, inexorable processes tangled with ideals of societal or governmental "transformations", as I would observe "sexism" is..... complete nonsense in my view.... I just have to label it "anti-religious" or "anti-capitalist" or anti-human rights.
Hegel went to great pains to call the American Revolution the wrong way to go, and he was supported by the German monarchy. Marx followed suit, and he was supported by the English nobility. It was purposed to put a stop to the John Locke sort of issue about "innate" or "absolute" individual human rights.
People who hop in the political correctness bandwagon are denying the validity of individual innate or absolute human rights or "God-given" human rights. They typically use hateful terms to drive compliance to their ideas.
In that context, the OP issue derives absolutely from politics. The "political deniers" in here, I would suppose, might be actual believers in the "progressive" counter-revolution to the American Revolution.
I say Long Live the American Revolution, and the privilege to think and say whatever you have on your mind, without some societal juggernaut bearing down on you to make you conform to someone else's stupid ideas.
How curious you equate simple politeness with denying the validity of human rights, and equate a request to stop using hateful terms with actually using hateful terms.
Red
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, selling pro Trump merchandise at Walmart is OK. But selling "Impeach 45" T-Shirt is not OK. Walmart caves, after a twitter frenzy threatens boycotting Walmart:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-boycott-trump-social-media-outcry/754000002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-boycott-trump-social-media-outcry/754000002/