Would you buy products made by a company that relies on forced labor? Just trying to figure out where you draw the line, if any.
Boycotting businesses = people voting with their wallet.
2 Likes
+1.
True. It’s so easy to just stop arguing something you know you were wrong about, or didn’t explain properly before. But no, some folks can’t do that. They just keep digging a deeper hole.
1 Like
I’m generally against virtue-signaling. When I buy a product I need from Walmart, I’m buying a product from Walmart. There is no more background involved in the transaction.
If there is a manufacturer using forced labor, the remedy is to get that manufacturer shut down. Then the products disappear and are no longer available to be purchased. Personal boycots at the retail level are…gasp!..mostly symbolic. They make you feel good about yourself without really accomplishing much of anything beside depriving you of a product you would otherwise find useful.
Dont get started about the occasional boycott that catches on and has legs, they are few and far between. And even those rarely accomplish what people think it will accomplish.
1 Like
I’m neither in a hole nor in a corner.
1 Like
Agreed. And for lack of actual law enforcement due to, for example, lack of jurisdiction or it simply being “legal” in another country of origin, the surest way to do that is to make sure the manufacturer loses their shirt. And the surest way to do that is to not buy their products (and tell your friends).
The same logic extends to fried chicken, because the profit from its sales supports infringement of another kind of human rights.
It’s not about “feeling good about yourself”, it’s about living without a guilty conscience. At least for those of us with a conscience.
2 Likes
What guilt? When I buy rare art, I investigate the provenance. When I buy a widget from Walmart or a chicken sandwich, not so much.
1 Like
The guilt on my conscience from knowing that my money (and therefore my hard work) is paying for something unethical (or worse).
I don’t expect you to investigate it yourself, I’m talking about someone else doing the investigation and then letting you know. Would you still not care?
But this is slightly off-topic, since we were talking about well-known, previously investigated historical symbols. You veered off from that into fried chicken, and I tried to draw an analogy.
That guilt only exists if you buy into symbolism. I dont care what you think your money is paying for, my money is paying for food to fill me up. Period.
Actually, I think it’s pretty twisted that anyone tries to insist that buying a chicken sandwich is signaling my support for anything other than my right to fill my stomach (same with buying a widget, or drawing a picture). People find the weirdest ways to beat themselves up.
1 Like
Part of your money is paying for the food and the rest of the business, and part is going directly into the owners’ pockets.
You keep going back to the chicken. Would you change your mind if you knew that the chicken was raised and processed by forced laborers in China (but was still delicious and “USDA approved”, whatever that means)?
1 Like
So I can judge your every decision? Because I’m positive that we could trace my money through the economy to where it goes into your employer’s pocket and used to fund your paycheck. So should I stop buying my chicken sandwich because I dont want to fund your unreasonable obsessive to symbolism? I’m pretty sure that boycott wouldnt make a bit of difference.
I would change my mind if the restaurant had a reputation for causing food poisoning. Or if they changed recipies and the food started tasting like crap. Because those are the factors that go into the purchase decision, not some personal symbolism I’ve attached to a product multiple arms-lengths away from the transaction.
You keep asking what if questions like you’re trying to make some sort of point. But none of it matters, none of it is even relevant. I’ve been very clear, your the one overthinking it all.
1 Like
It may not signal anything for you. You’re totally free to not care about how a product is offered to you, only its intrinsic qualities and its price point. It could be stolen goods, made via slave labor, built using stolen US intellectual property, made cheaply through foreign government subsidies intended to corner an industry, etc. this does not seem to influence your decision and that’s fine.
But it’s also someone else’s right to care about these things. For them, deliberately choosing to purchase essentially the same product from a more ethical company definitely is signaling their values, regardless of actual impact.
Not sure how this is beating yourself up though. Most of the times you’re not paying more or getting a lesser product by boycotting a product. Look at the bud lite boycott, people were not exactly missing out (I assume since I don’t drink alcohol) or paying more for choosing another light beer brand. It’s just a form of protest and when other options are limited, it may actually make some people feel better.
I’d disagree. It may not matter to you but look at the companies rolling back DEI policies because of backlash, occasionally it matters very much to some.
Yes, I am trying to get to a point, and I think I’m getting there with your answer here. I disagree that the product in my example is multiple arms-legnths away from the transaction – you’re buying cooked chicken, and in the example the chicken itself was raised using forced labor. It’s not that far removed.
However, my point is: you say that you only care about the quality of the final product, not about how it was made, even if it was made using illegal or unethical means. If you don’t care about legality or ethics in business, I have to question whether you care about them in other aspects of your life. I find this position immoral and would probably not want to do business with you. I care about legality and ethics and I do not want to knowingly do business with entities that do not. There’s no symbolism involved in the fried chicken, it’s morality.
Further, I think there’s a theory in economics that proves that businesses thrive and people prosper when they’re based on legal and ethical frameworks, when graft (and grift) and bribes are punished by law. So my position isn’t only moral, it’s also financially advantageous even if it doesn’t immediately benefit me personally.
Right. And what was the original comment?
Rather than reinforcing and validating it, perhaps the most empathetic thing to do is removing the power such symbols hold over people
Maybe it is best to help you work on detaching the painful meaning of a stupid symbol, rather than repeatedly validate the power it has over you. I’m not the one arguing that it’s wrong that I dont allow it to have power over me as well.
1 Like
It’s not wrong that you don’t allow it to have power over you. It’s wrong of you to suggest that the most empathetic thing to do is remove the power such symbols hold over people. It’s such a ridiculous suggestion I’m not sure I have any more ways to explain why it’s so ridiculous.
Also you replied almost at the same time as me, please make sure to read my reply just above yours. I think I made the point I was trying to make.
Yet it is. When those vegan nutjobs (not all vegans, just the nutjob ones) stand outside screaming about how meat is murder, the next bite of my sandwich is just as delicious as the last. If I’m holding a live chicken, I’m pretty sure I couldnt bring myself to slaughter it, even knowing it would be turned into one of the sandwiches I love. They’re two distinct, unrelated choices; one does not symbolize the other.
Once you decide to consider a chain of transactions, there’s literally nowhere that chain cant get to if you keep going far enough.
This seems like a completely different issue. Or at least way way too broad. A company with questionable legal compliance produces products you may have trouble trusting are what they’re being sold as being. Not the same question; that is entirely about judging the product you are receiving, not some arbitrary moral or ethical symbolism separate from the product itself.
No, you changed it into a different question. My question was not different: your delicious and safe to eat fried chicken was produced using forced labor in another country. I think most people would consider using forced labor immoral and unethical, even though it’s not illegal in that country. The only question is whether you will still buy and eat the chicken, knowing how it was made.
I’ve already answered that question, regarding the angry vegans crying murder. And no, there’s either ethical/moral concerns or there arent, you cant judge that some concerns take the highest precedent while others can simply be ignored. That’s too convenient. (and you are still trying to tell me it’s wrong if I’m not beholden to the subjective symbolism)
1 Like
Of course you can judge some concerns more than others. First degree murder is much more concerning than second degree murder. You’ve already established that you eat chicken, so for the sake of this argument I am ignoring the chicken murder.
It has nothing to do with convenience – morals and ethics are neither absolute nor constant. Is it wrong to kill an animal? For pure fun, yes. To feed your family, no. Is it wrong to steal a sandwich? For fun and profit, sure. To feed a starving baby, not so much.
Speaking of delicious chicken sandwiches, do the symbol sensitive people here approve of this offer despite the food chain’s Kentucky Colonel a symbol of the old Confederacy?
The fried chicken chain on Monday unveiled a limited-time offer of a “Free Bucket on Us” to U.S. customers that purchase $15 worth of food through its website or app.
1 Like