posted
The other day my wife said I'm really getting to the point where I want to limit Hollywood's money. I do not agree with their politics and I do not like where they are sending their money. So, no more going to movies, no more buying new DVD's. We'll only buy used DVD's and watch movies on TV.
So, she wants to boycott Hollywood. The question is not do you want to join her in this action, but rather what do you think of boycotts in general? What would it take for you to not buy something that you had been consuming frequently (for example, your favorite breakfast food)?
(BTW, yes she knows watching a movie on TV still generates some money for Hollywood.)
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think of a boycott as an organized effort rather than one person not buying something, but I see your point. There are stores I don't go to because of the way they treat their employees. I don't go to a certain pizza takeout because several years ago they closed all their stores without warning and without telling their employees they were going to do it. I don't tell others not to do so because it would have no effect. It's just a personal preference that I feel good about. If a company advertises on certain radio shows I don't do business there, but then I would usually have to listen to the show to find out who they are and I don't want to do that.
Posts: 556 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm boycotting Target because I don't like them openly supporting (financially) those who oppose Proposition 8 and other laws designed to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman. But generally I don't think boycotts really work unless they're on a large scale. Still, I agree, if I don't like some business for the things they stand for, I avoid them. On the other hand, I also look at it this way--Winston Churchill wasn't perfect, but he did some great things---so maybe I don't have to avoid all of Hollywood, but instead support the rare good and avoid the bad.
Posts: 3194 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A boycott is a tool used to invoke a change. I think organization, specific targeting, and motivation and influence of those involved are key. If a boycott can invoke actual change, then go for it. Otherwise it is only hurting local workers.
As to where my money goes and whom it supports, I do not directly purchase alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, or support terrorist or pro-abortion groups, etc.
And which issue is most important to you? The Sabbath day is one of the 10 commandments, so pretty high up there. If I boycotted stores that were open on Sundays, then I would not be able to purchase anything, including gasoline. Would I stop shopping at stores because they sell R rated movies, even if I don't buy them? Would I stop using Wells Fargo because they withdrew their support of Boy Scouts for its stance on homosexuality? 7-11 sells alcohol. There are a host of reasons I could claim for not supporting something, but that might take out most of the other businesses in the area. So I limit my personal protests to direct purchases of the proscribed product.
I went to another southern church's website and read about a conversation some of their members were having with their pastor. They had reasoned among themselves that none of them should hire a certain contractor to work on their homes because he was Mormon. They all acknowledged that he was completely honest and did great work, but they felt that they would be supporting the devil's work by paying this man money to work on their homes. I thought that this was completely absurd and a horrible abuse. To take away a man's livelihood because of his religion. But in their minds, they would have been supporting the devil. I don't remember the specific answer from the pastor, but I think he did give sympathy to their views and didn't tell them that they were wrong.
Boycotts can be abused for purposes like this. Look what was happening to the supporters of proposition 8 in California. Boycotts against restaurants, and cases of people losing their jobs and livelihoods. I don't think that is right.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boycotts are perfectly fine. A person or group of people are perfectly, and uncontroversially, able to withhold their business from others for any and all reasons they care to.
That's liberty, folks: people determine what they shall, and shall not do, with their resources. No man has a higher claim to the fruits of my labor, neither my property, than myself.
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that whenever I want to boycott some organization because I learn that they have taken some outrageous position, I discover I was never patronizing them to begin with.
posted
Boycott to me means making a statement and letting the business know you are making the statement.
I may technically boycott, but not in heart. Now days with everything so divided I find when one side boycotts the other side jumps in and spends more. Gets kind of pointless in my mind.
Instead, if I don't want my money going to some action I just don't spend money there. No fanfare. If enough people do it then the business dies a slow death. If not then at least I'm not supporting them.
As far as Hollywood is concerned - there are a number of companies that don't have Hollywood standards. It might be worth it to seek them out and support them. Watching the movie on TV only generates money for Hollywood if they know it - so if you are one of the lucky ones that can still watch with an antenna it shouldn't be a problem.
Posts: 4947 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ideal of a boycott is one where like-minded citizens come together to withhold their business from something of which they disapprove. That is fine, just so long as they don't whine about it when there is a boycott from other people against something that the first group approves of. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Boycotts can definitely be like that ideal model, but not always. Boycotts can also be called by a small group that enforces a boycott through fear either of physical violence or of social sanctions. The majority of those participating in the boycott do so not because of conviction but because of pressure; it happened in Germany against Jewish businesses for an example. That doesn't seem such a good thing to me.
Boycotts can be a fine form of non-violent direct action, but they are still a form of coercion, and that needs to be considered before starting one. If the decision is that the coercion is acceptable, fine, but it should at least be taken into consideration first.
Posts: 1461 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scruffy, you've hit on my msigiving: Boycotts smack too much of the mob mentality for my taste.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't seen a Tom Cruise movie or bought new DVD of his movies since his rant concerning Brooke Shields. Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone ever read the Little House series of books? There's a threatened boycott in one of them.
It's winter and everyone is starving. The train can't get through, and the new town is stuck until spring. The new shopkeeper finances a risky endeavor to obtain supplies, and it works, and he has food to sell. He's going to sell food at a premium. Everyone is very unhappy at paying $3 for stuff that usually costs $1.
So Pa Ingalls gets up and wobbily moves his starving body up to the head of the forming mob. He lets the shopkeeper know that yeah, he can charge his premium, and everyone will pay it. He also reminds everyone that there are two shops in town, and asks everyone to think about who they will be buying from next spring.
The new shopkeeper gets scared, swallows hard, and lowers his prices to what they usually are. Townspeople then say that's too low - they can understand a bit higher premium. But the shopkeeper knows he must buy back his good will from his customers if he wants to stay viable next year.
Posts: 2111 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be The Long Winter. It's my favorite of the series.
I threatened to boycott supermarkets back after the first OJ Simpson trial. He sold the photographic rights to his reunion with his children to some supermarket tabloid. I let them know that if they placed that particular week's tabloid within view of the shopping public, I would not patronize their stores any more. Notice I didn't tell them not to sell it, just not put it in plain view. Apparently there were enough of us doing this, because it worked. The next week, the mag was back in its prominent position. I boycotted the ABC Network for years after they showed a particularly raunchy episode of Whose line is it Anyway? during Family Time, causing CrowSon and myself much discomfort. I let them know, and they didn't care.
I have my personal boycotts, like never purchasing a particular brand of chicken, but I don't make a big deal of that with others. I fear someday I will have to be more proactive.
Posts: 3862 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my facebook associates alerted me to this, web page
I tend to find that many boycotts are knee jerk and dangerous as they rarely explain both sides of the story or give a biased view of another.
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal boycotts would be cosmetics that test on animals and the apple pie Ben And Jerry flavor because it supports gay marriage.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's what I did back in the late 90's when I bought Harry Potter Books just to spite folks who said they were eeeevil! That was some worthwhile spite.
Posts: 2067 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. I did the same thing, but with Pullman's His Dark Materials / Golden Compass books and movie. And I still maintain both sets of books are completely bereft of God.
Isn't that the source of the complaint, the author being an atheist was creating a story in the genre of Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe, but using godless motifs?
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary - Pullman's universe does indeed have a Kingdom of Heaven, complete with someone calling himself god, and an army of angels. The deal though, is there is no deity - no ultimate source of morality - no supreme being. Just a race of powerful critters who instituted religions and demanded worship and whatnot.
The complaints were more along the lines of the mean athiest intentinonally making a children's book where they killed god.
Folks also complained that young teens under 18 had sex, which is a complaint I can certainly understand. But mostly, the beef was how Pullman was trying to spread athiesm. And my take on it involved pointing out there's exactly as much God in Pullman as there is in Rowling - zero.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
