There's a lot of activism awareness groups I watch online, but I do usually try to minimize what I let bleed into this space since I know it's not what most people are here for. X3
But gay rights (like internet censorship) are more likely to be something of interest to most of my audience, so I'll share something like this now and then.
Recently, Starbucks stood up for marriage equality in Washington, and NOM didn't like it.
Short Version: NOM decided to launch a campaign to raise signatures pledging a boycott of Starbucks to show Corporate America how damaging it would be to take a stance supporting marriage equality.
SumOfUs.org, the Human Rights Campaign, and other pro-equality groups raised twenty-five times as many signatures, and presented them and a Thank You card to starbucks. The results of NOM's attempt to get people to 'dump Starbucks' has resulted in showing corporate america that there's really no contest between which side of that issue consumers REALLY want companies to be on.
So now, they want to keep that momentum going and make the message even more clear than it already is. You can go here to print out their Thank You card, which they want people to take to their local Starbucks, and get pics as you present it to them, to post on Facebook, Twitter (hashtag #equaLatte), etc, and continue to magnify the backlash against NOM's idiocy.
Corporations are bound by law to act in the best interests of their shareholders. They need to see how clearly and overwhelmingly it is in their best interests to support marriage equality.
Spread this around. Especially if you're on teh freindface and the spacebook and the tweeter. :B
heh XD im a strong advocate of coorperations remaining entirely nutral on political and most social issues as well as most religious issues. That being said the idea that somebody would boycot them to try and fight gay marrage is just retarted so more power to the free rights activists.
heh XD im a strong advocate of coorperations remaining entirely nutral on political and most social
The neutral man is the man who stands and watches something wrong happen and does nothing because "it doesn't involve him."
There are some issues with no right or wrong answer, just different opinions. Neutrality in those cases is fine. But some things are wrong, no ifs ands or buts, and remaining neutral in those cases is not some noble or appropriate course of action.
The people who push the idea that it's best to stay neutral on complicated or controversial topics are usually the people who know that they'd lose the battle if most people didn't simply stay out of it.
The neutral man is the man who stands and watches something wrong happen and does nothing because "i
A true neutral person would take into consideration the issues being that --- if one group gets to do this -- why does another not get to do this? They'd be for neutrality -- being that all sides should be equal or neutral.
Perhaps the word is wrong in the concept of alignment of political ideologies and civil liberties on the topic --- maybe we really mean apathetic.
A true neutral person would take into consideration the issues being that --- if one group gets to d
I do hope there is an ongoing trend of companies casting off extremist religious groups. I would like to see the day when homosexuality is normalized and not feared as one of the churches manufactured crisis.
I do hope there is an ongoing trend of companies casting off extremist religious groups. I would lik
I always thought Starbucks was just another company who followed the mentalists. I'm glad they've proved me wrong. I'm going to be going there a lot more now :P
I always thought Starbucks was just another company who followed the mentalists. I'm glad they've pr
As much as I want marriage equality, I'm gonna side with NOM on this one. Starbucks just sucks, imo.
So I'm boycotting Starbucks for no reason, really. Meanwhile, everyone who has a position on this should not sit idly, but should work to promote their position.
As much as I want marriage equality, I'm gonna side with NOM on this one. Starbucks just sucks, imo
Staying out of Starbucks because you don't like their product (which is your prerogative of course) doesn't mean you're siding with NOM. That's a very poor choice of words.
Staying out of Starbucks because you don't like their product (which is your prerogative of course)
I'd love to participate in this, but that means I'd have to go buy something at Starbucks and, through no fault of their own, I don't like anything they sell. It'd feel weird saying, "Thank you! I'll be going now!"
I'd love to participate in this, but that means I'd have to go buy something at Starbucks and, throu
It'd be funny though. "Oh no, I hate your coffee, but appreciate your stance on this social issue." XD
I do think this is mostly meant for people who ARE Starbucks customers, or who do decide to give them a try, not so much people who simply aren't interested in their product either way.
It'd be funny though. "Oh no, I hate your coffee, but appreciate your stance on this social issue."
>It'd be funny though. "Oh no, I hate your coffee, but appreciate your stance on this social issue." XD
That might be poignant if phrased in the right way. "I don't like coffee, so I've never had a reason to come in here until now. Thank you for doing the right thing."
Also, WHERE THE FUCK DID YOUR AVATAR COME FROM!? IT FRIGHTENS ME!
>It'd be funny though. "Oh no, I hate your coffee, but appreciate your stance on this social issue."
I was doing my part by buying their Doubleshot Energy drinks, but I've been cutting back on my caffeine to try to eliminate the pounding headaches I get on the weekends when I don't drink nearly so much caffeine as I do on work days. So maybe I'll head in for a muffin or something now and then.
I was doing my part by buying their Doubleshot Energy drinks, but I've been cutting back on my caffe
Funny Point #1: The name and purpose of NOM. It's a testament as to how frightened these professionally-offended chuch ladies are, to all the great wide world that lies beyond themselves. Funny Point #2: Apparently, NOM didn't do quite enough target research when they tried to harass Starbucks who, we can all agree, isn't exactly hugging buddies with Chic-Fil-A on the socio-political spectrum. KnowutImean, Vern?
Funny Point #1: The name and purpose of NOM. It's a testament as to how frightened these professiona
Sad thing is that I don't drink coffee but do enjoy what Cracker Barrel offers. All my life "a trip down south" meant a trip down to NYC so eating at the Cracker Barrel for me and my friends feels like as close as we'll ever get to a place like South Carolina.
There are likely people who think I should not eat there given their backward social policies. I'd rather pressure legislatures to mandate things like equality. The idea that corporations should back one side or the other for any social issue simply because of money is really flawed. Economic pressure may work but it equates "right" with "wealthy". I'd rather equate "right" with "elected representational majority votes".
People can vote for whats right or wrong and then mandate that companies comply because certain things should NOT be left to the whim of a boardroom. Companies should not be allowed the choice to discriminate regardless of what the executives OR client base think.
I think the role of money and consumer-power should simply be in dictating the goods and services companies offer. When it comes to civil liberties I want executives to think "fines, lawsuits and jail time" not "lose a few customers".
So I don't feel bad eating at Cracker Barrel because my dollar supports their product. I mentally separate the money-for-product transaction from the social issues boiling behind the scenes. The social issues should be dealt with via ballots and courts.
If Starbucks if an example of a corporation engaging in positive social politics then Cracker Barrel
Fascinating example of doublethink: opposition should be against the policies, not against the organizations who hold them. Legal constraints on religion, speech, and choice are hence the only moral way to tackle the policies. Market pressures are immoral. Supporting such organizations is therefore moral. So it's OK to eat here.
You've smoothed over your cognitive dissonance very smoothly, but twisted one heck of moral pretzel to get there. It's really quite inspiring.
Fascinating example of doublethink: opposition should be against the policies, not against the organ
"opposition should be against the policies, not against the organizations who hold them" Well put; I think that is exactly what I was trying to say. It isn't the product, the buildings or the average employee who're bad...it is just the policy that is bad and maybe a certain number of employees who are championing the policy.
All the problems with Cracker Barrel can be solved by simply ending the policies of discrimination and replacing them with policies of protection. The moment that happens there's nothing to protest. At that moment it is no different from any other company.
The only question is what should motivate the change? Individual consumers or the legislature?
Do we want discrimination to be perfectly legal and to just expect consumers to forgo using certain services or buying certain goods based on the social policies and HR practices of every company? That is way too much for the average consumer to process every single time they want to do business with any company. When I'm at the snack machine at work I don't spend 5 hours researching EVERY brand in the machine AND the company that made the machine itself just to make sure there are no skeletons in their closets. Who the hell has the time?
I'm sure that somewhere/somehow at least one company represented in that snack machine has a scandal or practice that violates my idea of what's right when it comes to environmental, human rights, labor rights or some other issue.
You can economically protest against companies that make the headlines if you care enough and have the time but I bet you still give money to any number of companies and organizations that could easily find themselves on a headline someday.
True, we need to "make an example" of those companies that make the headlines as having done something particularly egregious. Protests, boycotts, writing campaigns and so forth have a positive role in keeping people engaged and for holding violators accountable.
I was just saying that really we should use the energy and passion for advocacy on shaping public policy.
"You've smoothed over your cognitive dissonance very smoothly, but twisted one heck of moral pretzel to get there. It's really quite inspiring." There's no need to be negative or sarcastic, I expressed my opinion and you went George Orwell on me.
One employee resigned in protest while I was having him sign the Privacy Act statement, another insisted I get legal proof the program didn't violate HIPAA and one employee handed me a copy of 1984 by George Orwell. I didn't read the book but I got her point.
Anyway, I don't feel like it is unconscious hypocrisy to say that you should feel OK eating at a chain restaurant that discriminates while simultaneously condemning the company's policy.
I won't stop eating vegetables just to spite the companies who hire the illegal immigrants who likely picked them. I'd rather pressure Congress to pass tougher sanctions on employers who employ illegal immigrants. For that matter, I'd also like to see it become much easier to get legal status so they can be legally employed. So I happily give money to indirectly support companies with illegal workers. I don't think I'm in the wrong when I buy a tomato at the market. We need the government to handle things like that because its just not the place for a consumer.
If you are a fan of Orwell then you probably don't see the government as an ally. Personally I do see the government as an ally. A bureaucratic, inefficient organization but nevertheless a potential force for good on a society-wide scale. Government is what happens when a community sets priorities and tasks a few citizens with carrying out those priorities. Not perfect but absolutely necessary.
"opposition should be against the policies, not against the organizations who hold them" Well put; I
+1 to Starbucks, will buy there tomorrow and give the card.
In Europe, Starbucks is often seen as an evil multinational that's crushing mom-n-pop coffee stores, with a poor record on GMO and Fair Trade issues. But they are at least TRYING to improve their image. And at least part of that improvement is backed by real action.
That definitely deserves at least one drink in support, I feel.
+1 to Starbucks, will buy there tomorrow and give the card. In Europe, Starbucks is often seen as a
