Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 27, 2017
2,855
Columbus, OH
Don't necessarily think going for the throat of anyone not boycotting something is the way, but using the problems of one minority as a means to dissuade or 'gotcha' people protesting the problems of another - instead of using your voice to be critical of both - always felt off. The intent becomes muddied when you're pulling them out like top trumps cards the instant someone is irritated by another concern in the world.
It's also MUCH easier to simply go to the next drive-thru than it is to completely avoid using technology altogether. There are so many other lunch options out there.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,298
Don't necessarily think going for the throat of anyone not boycotting something is the way, but using the problems of one minority as a means to dissuade or 'gotcha' people protesting the problems of another - instead of using your voice to be critical of both - always felt off. The intent becomes muddied when you're pulling them out like top trumps cards the instant someone is irritated by another concern in the world.
Except I only brought up that example in response to people saying "fuck anyone that doesn't partake in my boycott" and not as an attempt to dissuade anyone from partaking in said boycott?

For instance, being Puerto Rican, I wouldn't call anyone who still buys Goya products "lacking in moral fibre," even though issues affecting Hispanics are obviously near and dear to me, especially as someone who personally suffered from Trump's handling of hurricane Maria.
 
Last edited:

ChrisD

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,645
Can anywhere near me start doing this? I could use some free lunches. Got a few quarter, nickel, and dime rolls, and a lot of penny rolls.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,298
The whole "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" argument is better served as an argument against capitalism rather than as an advert for your favorite fast food chain and giving the middle finger to a minority group. Yes, "ethical consumption" is ultimately sisyphean unless the societal powers that enable widespread corporate greed are dismantled or reformed, but how do movements begin? By eating your chik-fil-a sandwiches like an asshole? By finger wagging anyone who argues otherwise when an issue is actually being spotlighted in the mainstream? Again, this reads as morally-deficient to me. Cmon' dude.

"please formulate a substantial response" - A bit of a tangent but I keep reading this and chuckling, you sound like a robot. PLEASE. FORMULATE. A. RESPONSE.
I was only finger wagging at the hypocrites saying anyone who doesn't partake in their boycott is morally deficient.

$4 on a chicken sandwich every now than then go a hell of a lot less further toward subsidizing homophobia than do the thousands of dollars in tech and clothing everyone spends every year go toward subsidizing slavery. Try to argue otherwise.
 

Tobor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
29,067
Richmond, VA
How is anyone supposed to put air in their tires during a national coin shortage. Honest question.

You should really have a portable tire inflator in your trunk. I always have one with me. Great for emergencies and you never have to use the coin operated ones again.

They aren't super expensive, either. I think I got my current one for under $50.
 

Ketkat

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,727
I was only finger wagging at the hypocrites saying anyone who doesn't partake in their boycott is morally deficient.

$4 on a chicken sandwich every now than then go a hell of a lot less further toward subsidizing homophobia than do the thousands of dollars in tech and clothing everyone spends every year go toward subsidizing slavery. Try to argue otherwise.

It's easy for people to find other options for a chicken sandwich, while it can be more difficult to find more ethical clothing or tech. You used an example of iPhone's earlier in this thread when you aren't aware of what phones people are using in this thread. And you would be right to point out that all phones are made in unethical conditions, but for a lot of us, we use our phones to look for jobs or in our work and require them in order to make a living. This is part of the reason that we have programs for providing homeless people with cell phones.

And again with clothes, those are a necessity for most people. We can't just go without and income can limit people's options from where they are able to pick from ethical and unethical clothing. None of these are really comparable to a fast food restaurant when there are countless other options for food that are cheaper and more accessible.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,298
It's easy for people to find other options for a chicken sandwich, while it can be more difficult to find more ethical clothing or tech. You used an example of iPhone's earlier in this thread when you aren't aware of what phones people are using in this thread. And you would be right to point out that all phones are made in unethical conditions, but for a lot of us, we use our phones to look for jobs or in our work and require them in order to make a living. This is part of the reason that we have programs for providing homeless people with cell phones.

And again with clothes, those are a necessity for most people. We can't just go without and income can limit people's options from where they are able to pick from ethical and unethical clothing. None of these are really comparable to a fast food restaurant when there are countless other options for food that are cheaper and more accessible.
It's effortless not to buy new tech or new videogames every year--literally effortless.

Everyone can be making an attempt at reducing their own consumption of tech, especially if they're aware that they're subsidizing literal slavery to the tune of thousands of dollars every year. But they probably won't. I'm not going to call them morally deficient for it, though.
 
Last edited:

Ketkat

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,727
It's effortless not to buy new tech or new videogames every year--literally effortless.

Everyone can be making an attempt at reducing their own consumption of tech, especially if they're aware that they're subsidizing literal slavery to the tune of thousands of dollars every year. But they probably won't. I'm not going to call them morally deficient for it, though.

I work in IT, and I work from home. How do you expect me to avoid buying any new tech at all? Again, you can not compare tech, clothes, or before you even suggest it, gasoline to something as easy to replace and avoid as a chicken sandwich.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,668
Please formulate a substantial response for why one is more morally reprehensible than the other. If anything, $4 dollars go a lot less further in subsidizing homophobia than do the thousands of dollars everyone spends on tech go toward subsidizing slavery.
People eat lunch every day.
People do not buy shoes, iphones and computers every day.

An honest dollars-for-dollars comparison would have included that math.
You just want to deflect.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,298
I work in IT, and I work from home. How do you expect me to avoid buying any new tech at all? Again, you can not compare tech, clothes, or before you even suggest it, gasoline to something as easy to replace and avoid as a chicken sandwich.
The point I'm trying to make is that boycotts are an individual choice and that nobody is morally deficient for the boycotts that they choose to partake in.

If spending $4 on a chicken sandwich every now and then is morally deficient, then so is not even making an effort to attempt to reduce (and note that I'm saying *reduce*--not eliminate) one's consumption of tech and videogames. (Don't get hung up on that example, though.)

An example I brought up earlier: boycotting Goya. As a Puerto Rican, I wouldn't personally begrudge anyone or think they're morally deficient for not boycotting Goya, even though buying a different food brand is also relatively easy to do.
 

Ketkat

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,727
The point I'm trying to make is that boycotts are an individual choice and that nobody is morally deficient for the boycotts that they choose to partake in.

If spending $4 on a chicken sandwich every now and then is morally deficient, then so is not even making an effort to attempt to reduce (and note that I'm saying *reduce*--not eliminate) one's consumption of tech and videogames. (Don't get hung up on that example, though.)

An example I brought up earlier: boycotting Goya. As a Puerto Rican, I wouldn't personally begrudge anyone or think they're morally deficient for not boycotting Goya, even though buying a different food brand is also relatively easy to do.

My dude, you don't know the first thing about the people in this thread. You don't know our spending habits, our careers, what's required for living in our area, or anything about us but you're seriously upset that people would judge you for supporting a homophobic company that makes sandwiches. Stop assuming that everyone cares as little as you about these issues
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,298
My dude, you don't know the first thing about the people in this thread. You don't know our spending habits, our careers, what's required for living in our area, or anything about us but you're seriously upset that people would judge you for supporting a homophobic company that makes sandwiches. Stop assuming that everyone cares as little as you about these issues
I'm fairly certain most of the people in this thread will keep on buying videogames and keep on not trying to somewhat limit their tech consumption even while being perfectly cognizant of how their money is subsidizing literal slavery. I won't think they're morally deficient for it, though.
 

-Peabody-

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,612
The point I'm trying to make is that boycotts are an individual choice and that nobody is morally deficient for the boycotts that they choose to partake in.

If spending $4 on a chicken sandwich every now and then is morally deficient, then so is not even making an effort to attempt to reduce (and note that I'm saying *reduce*--not eliminate) one's consumption of tech and videogames. (Don't get hung up on that example, though.)

An example I brought up earlier: boycotting Goya. As a Puerto Rican, I wouldn't personally begrudge anyone or think they're morally deficient for not boycotting Goya, even though buying a different food brand is also relatively easy to do.

The difference is I wouldn't go into thread about Goya Foods when someone brings up an injustice and make a post insinuating other people eat chicken sandwiches at Chik Fil-A so it's all okay. It takes zero effort to not make a whataboutism post.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,298
The difference is I wouldn't go into thread about Goya Foods when someone brings up an injustice and make a post insinuating other people eat chicken sandwiches at Chik Fil-A so it's all okay. It takes zero effort to not make a whataboutism post.
I only posted in response to people saying things like "fuck you if you eat at Chick-fil-A" and "people who eat at Chick-fil-A lack moral fiber."

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from boycotting them, which is what you're implying I'm doing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,405
A fast food chain being short on coins doesn't give us much to talk about.

I don't know what purpose a thread about this can serve except to promote Chik-Fil-A.
 

Windrunner

Sly
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,635
That's neat and all but screw Chick-fil-A and their rampant homophobia.

LGBT rights matter more than chicken sandwiches so this thread is now locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.