Posted: 5/8/25 at 6:26am
binau said: "TheQuibbler said: "I don’t see how this is any different than choosing not to patronize Chik-Fil-A because of their LGBTQ+ stances. The only power we really have is our spending power. Perhaps it won’t move the needle, at least you’ll know you didn’t contribute to something that goes against your fundamental beliefs. It’s not always easy, or even clear, but I’d say it’s worthwhile."
I think the difference is if it's a corporation vs putting an individual on a name and shame list. In a free democracy everyone has the right (and is encouraged) to express their democratic right to vote.But while everyone has the right to vote, there is no 'right' of organisations to pool their resources together and send it to political movements. That is called political activism.
If you start to identify individual names and go after them and believe they should essentially be out of work or cancelled what you are saying is that you think they should be persecuted for expressing their democratic right to vote in a free society. An easy test I think if this is a good idea or not is think about if the person who controls the power is different and is doing exactly the same actions that you are normalising and saying is ok right now, but instead the persecution is not based on whether you vote for Trump or not but whether you vote for Democrats or not.Would you still think this is a good idea? I don't think you would.
One reason to not go down this path is to take amoral high ground position but it's not just that - it's also trying to avoid the obvious dangerous implications that if you normalise this kind of behaviour we can easily become a victim of this very same thing should the power suddenly change (which can and has proven it does). The same can be said about when people try to control and censor speech.
Every individual has the right to express their democratic right in a free society and if you are persecuting people who do this then we don't REALLY live in a democracy, do we?
One of the things I loved about the progressive movement 10 years ago is we used to always take the moral high ground, but over the last few years we have betrayed some of these principles to try and win a dirty game. I don't think it's right or strategic - to give another example it used to be easy for the progressive movement to justify itself simply because of its aim to tell the truth. Unfortunately, in the last few years the progressive movement has even being willing to betray this principle (e.g. I have now lost count how many times I have seen 'misinformation' spread from intentional misquotes of opponents or disingenuous takes). This is easily exposed and creating a situation where the progressive movement is also now dismissed for misinformation. Meanwhile, the level of conspiracy that the right is now starting to preach is getting crazzzzzyyyyy.....for example holocaust denial is actually starting to become less fringe now it seems. That is crazy! But all a naive individual has to do is go is take a look at the 'fine people' misinformation first hand and then can be led down this crazy path because they lose trust completely.
What happened to"When they go low we go high?". It seems to me that US politics has now descended to something like the Israel-Palestine conflict where each side hate each other and are willing to do awful things to each other with a complete lack of empathy and callousness.......someone needs to take the moral high ground or the spiral will never end.
Ahh, yes. More of that worthless “when they go low, we go high” crap. Just a way for liberals to feel morally superior while their rights and freedoms are eliminated. You’re dealing with a side that has no use for, nor understanding of, norms and rules. This is a war. A war for America’s future. But hey, while Republicans are destroying this country, you can feel better knowing you didn’t stoop to their level.
"