Well, this is a tough one. On one hand, just as you say, this idea of a “counter-boycott” only contributes to the “cancelation” problem (only one “l” where I live) instead of countering it. We who oppose cancel culture should practice what we preach.
On the other hand, if the corporations are only feeling pressure from one direction, the…
Well, this is a tough one. On one hand, just as you say, this idea of a “counter-boycott” only contributes to the “cancelation” problem (only one “l” where I live) instead of countering it. We who oppose cancel culture should practice what we preach.
On the other hand, if the corporations are only feeling pressure from one direction, they will continue yielding to it. The idea is to create pushback in the other direction, to make them pay a price for that choice as well. Sometimes you have to fight back instead of turning the other cheek. The Ukrainians may deplore war, but they’re sure as hell going to fire back at the Russian guns. Without some kind of resistance, the “woke” cancel culture wins by default.
I honestly do not know what is the right answer here, but it’s not just an open-and-shut case either way.
"Sometimes you have to fight back instead of turning the other cheek. "
Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not advocating turning the other cheek. But the hypocrisy of these companies can be highlighted without making it a "do as we want or we'll boycott you" thing.
Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but I actually think making it explicit that that *wasn't* the message would strengthen our argument. It makes it clear who the bullies are.
With respect, I do think this is—not “too” idealistic, perhaps, but naïvely so. These corporations only understand one thing, $$$. It’s not so much “do as we want” as “don‘t do as *they* want or we’ll boycott you.” Not to bully or coerce but to counterbalance the bullying and coercion on the other side. Understand, I feel pulled toward your position, too; as I said, I’m truly ambivalent about it.
Well, this is a tough one. On one hand, just as you say, this idea of a “counter-boycott” only contributes to the “cancelation” problem (only one “l” where I live) instead of countering it. We who oppose cancel culture should practice what we preach.
On the other hand, if the corporations are only feeling pressure from one direction, they will continue yielding to it. The idea is to create pushback in the other direction, to make them pay a price for that choice as well. Sometimes you have to fight back instead of turning the other cheek. The Ukrainians may deplore war, but they’re sure as hell going to fire back at the Russian guns. Without some kind of resistance, the “woke” cancel culture wins by default.
I honestly do not know what is the right answer here, but it’s not just an open-and-shut case either way.
"Sometimes you have to fight back instead of turning the other cheek. "
Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not advocating turning the other cheek. But the hypocrisy of these companies can be highlighted without making it a "do as we want or we'll boycott you" thing.
Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but I actually think making it explicit that that *wasn't* the message would strengthen our argument. It makes it clear who the bullies are.
With respect, I do think this is—not “too” idealistic, perhaps, but naïvely so. These corporations only understand one thing, $$$. It’s not so much “do as we want” as “don‘t do as *they* want or we’ll boycott you.” Not to bully or coerce but to counterbalance the bullying and coercion on the other side. Understand, I feel pulled toward your position, too; as I said, I’m truly ambivalent about it.