Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Who says that avoiding Chinese tomato paste doesn’t accomplish anything? It funnels money to other brands and keeps them going rather than rewarding forced labour and driving other forms of production out of the market. That in itself is an actual, practical effect in a capitalist system.

And doing so certainly wouldn’t make me less likely to vote for a party promising to address the issue.

And I mean, isn’t this just how capitalism works? Buy stuff you want to see more of? Don’t buy things you don’t like. I try to buy local when I can, because I like local produce and I want the local economy to thrive. It’s just taking an active role in the feedback mechanisms that exist around us and deciding where you want to put your very small level of personal influence.

> can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal?

The Bud Light Boycott of 2023 springs immediately to mind. Not that I agree with the people doing the boycotting, or would drink bud light anyway, but it certainly made the company backpedal.

> Boycotts are, as I understand it, only a way for you to feel that you still are morally pure

Then I guess you don’t understand very much, and you certainly don’t understand my posts higher up if you think I’m demanding moral purity of myself or anyone else.

To me, this all just sounds like a justification for your own lack of conscientiousness.



> Who says that avoiding Chinese tomato paste doesn’t accomplish anything? It funnels money to other brands and keeps them going rather than rewarding forced labour and driving other forms of production out of the market. That in itself is an actual, practical effect in a capitalist system.

Your individual boycott accomplishes absolutely nothing. Even the total number of people participating in this boycott will not change a single thing.

> The Bud Light Boycott of 2023 springs to mind. Not that I agree with the people doing the boycotting, but it certainly made the company backpedal.

Unlikely, since, from what I hear, the brand everyone switched to was owned by the same company. The most a boycott can accomplish is a public statement, no actual change. Also, this statement was a result of the publicity, not the boycott itself. The company fought publicity with publicity by making a public statement of their own.

> you certainly don’t understand my posts higher up if you think I’m demanding moral purity of myself or anyone else.

You did say that those not participating in boycotts should be held “accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world”.

> To me, this all just sounds like a justification for your own lack of conscientiousness.

No personal attacks, please.


> Your individual boycott accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Incorrect. I've already explained why. The simple act of making choices in capitalism has an effect on the markets you participate in.

> Unlikely

But a factually true and well documented answer to your demand, which itself was little to do with my arguments, but I produced one anyway like some sort of performing seal.

> You did say that those not participating in boycotts should be held “accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world”.

Nope, certainly did not. And you're the one obsessed with boycotts, purity, "condemned" people and other such hyperbolic statements.

> No personal attacks, please.

You first eh?

At this point I'm done with this conversation and your persistent misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Have a nice life.


Then what did you mean by “I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally.”? I though you meant that people who do not participate in boycotts should be held accountable. If that is wrong, then my replies to you were irrelevant. But in that case, what did you mean?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: