Those examples are companies taking a stand via advertising or direct support via donations. Not the same thing as a company in the widget business with an employee going online and having an unpopular viewpoint on something unrelated to widgets. You’re comparing two different things. Plus - YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION IF YOU ASSUME THE WIDGET COMPANY SUPPORTS WHAT THEIR EMPLOYEE SAID JUST BECAUSE THEY LET HIM WORK THERE. Most people DON’T jump to that assumption.
And you’re ignoring the fact that 1. Boycotts are rarely successful for the boycotters and more often than not, the boycott backfires. 2. Boycotts aren’t even usually launched on companies based on an unknown (non-famous) person working there exhibiting wrongthink. I reiterate… depending on the labor laws in your state, you would be on the hook for more money defending yourself in a wrongful termination lawsuit if you fired someone for something that turned out to be false than you would ever lose if you just waited for the news cycle to move on.
I mean, sure, if you personally think that your employee actually registered TheHolocaustIsn’tReal.net and have reason not to believe his denial, no one here would say you firing him is a terrible idea. But that’s not what you originally said. You originally said:
I guess it all hinges on what you mean by “significant chance.” I have a feeling that chance would be a lot lower for you than it would for me.
You keep saying this, but history tells us that it just isn’t true and often the opposite is true.
Oh man, such perfect satire for this exact discussion. Unfortunately, according to some posters here, it’s an accurate article describing their management style, not satire.
I gave an extreme example to illustrate the point that doing stupid / repugnant / socially unacceptable things is bad for business. This guy could have been a fine realtor as long as his personal life was private. But once it became public and the public finds it repugnant (in much the same way as a swastika tattoo on one’s forehead makes one’s personal life public), he became bad for business.
There’s nuance to a hijab. For example, there’s a difference between a business owner wearing a hijab and running the joint (I’d eat there), or a man running things and barking commands at the covered female staff (I might reconsider).
There’s no nuance to a visible swastika tattoo on one’s forehead.
I meant that as a group they only oppress themselves, not anyone outside their group. What dissonance?
You’re generalizing. There are plenty of Muslims who do not even wear hijabs, and I’ve known a few of them. You may similarly be generalizing about Hasidic Jews, but I don’t know any. If a fundamentalist Christian business owner made it obvious, by, for example, putting some kind of a specific to them political sign right on the door that I disagreed with, then yeah, I wouldn’t patronize it. If I knew a business was oppressing women, I wouldn’t patronize it. My stance is not inconsistent, it’s nuanced.
So, if you lived in Boston in the 70’s, you would put blacks back on the plantation? Yikes!
You mean, cancelling and destroying the Betsy Ross shoes? All because someone “felt” the “experience” of seeing a flag from 1776 was hurtful to them … someone who might not be able to spell Betsy Ross, or flag? Someone who knows as much about the War for Independence as, well, as hmm, you get the idea.
So you empathize and agree with the Bostonian parents and business owners throwing rocks, and screaming at poor black children during integration in Boston in the 1970’s?
But when I give examples of behavior that, if you were consistent, would also be considered repugnant, you waffle and say there’s nuance.
I agree with you that there is nuance to a hijab and not nearly as much nuance to a face tattoo. But spending $1 on an antisemitic domain name that wasn’t actually turned into a website is much more nuanced than than a swastika face tattoo, isn’t it? But my point was that you aren’t considering the nuance when it comes to people in the wedding services industry that don’t want to participate in gay weddings, or any number of professions that have issues with males/females claiming they are the opposite sex in the same way you are considering nuance when it comes to followers of Islam.
Yeah, the young children they oppress are choosing it themselves. I’m sure you would say the same thing about the Christian families that send their same-sex-attracted or gender-dysphoric children to Christian counselors, right?
Are you seeing the cognitive dissonance yet? Are you seeing your anti-Christian bias yet?
Of course I am generalizing. When you go based off symbols, that’s what you do. Without asking a person with a swastika tattoo how they actually feel about jews, you’re generalizing as well. Maybe they were forced to get the tattoo while they were in jail for drug use just so they could join the aryan brotherhood so they wouldn’t get beat up by the other gangs and don’t actually espouse any of those viewpoints now that they are out. We don’t have time to ask every stranger on the street how they feel about all issues, so since you are talking about symbols that represent views, I chose symbols where you can generally guess how people feel about certain things.
The point of a hijab is modesty - that is a fact. It is not worn for style. Women are required to be modest because of their subservience to men. Some women that wear hijabs are doing it of their own accord and some knew nothing else in their life and feel they have no other option and just tell themselves its their choice. But even if they choose to wear it voluntarily, they are agreeing with the belief that it is a woman’s job not to entice men into sinful arousal with their exposed skin - that is subservience. Just because the woman is the one being oppressed (or as you say, self-oppressing) doesn’t mean that they can’t be guilty of oppressing other women.
If you can consider the nuance in the Muslim’s viewpoint, why can’t you consider the nuance in the Christian’s viewpoint? Keep in mind, most muslim business owners would have the same objection to serving a same sex marriage as some Christian business owners. We just aren’t seeing those cases because the intolerant and authoritarian left knows there is much more sympathy to their causes when the “white Christian majority” is the bad guy rather than the “POC Muslim minority.”
I suppose there’s a scale to how stupid / repugnant / socially unacceptable something is. A swastika tattoo is on the very edge of the scale (in my mind) and leaves no room for nuance, while the other issues are not at the edge.
I considered this before posting – tattoos can be removed or covered up. That is why I feel there’s no nuance.
You’re right, some Hasidic traditions are repugnant, and my previous response about “self-opression” was inadequate. My answer is I wouldn’t do business with those who follow such traditions.
Am I consistent now?
Because the things I am considering are not the same. In one case it’s an item of clothing that could have various meanings. In the other case it’s oppression of gender-diverse people – I treat the religious viewpoint the same way regardless of the source religion.
All people that wear hijabs may not believe the same exact thing. But the PURPOSE of a hijab is modesty and the Islamic religion only forces head coverings for modest on one sex. It is the definition of sexism. You are NOT being consistent if you continue to bend over backwards to make excuses for one religion (that also generally opposes “gender diverse people” and homosexuality MORE than Christians) while condemning it in another religion.
.com registration was never $1, it’s at least $8 (per year). And it’s a variety of names on the same subject. Perhaps there’d be nuance if he was a spy, journalist, or a tech / security researcher, but he’s a real estate agent. For the business this looks as bad as a face tattoo.
Jewish men are required to cover their heads too. Saudi men wear the whole big dress garb covering everything but the face.
Either way I lost your train of thought in this last post. I don’t know what you mean by “you continue to bend over backwards to make excuses for one religion … while condemning it in another religion.” I’m condemning all religions for their oppressive traditions and beliefs.
Hacked documents showing details from nearly a million Epik invoices over the last several years underscore the high-volume, low-dollar nature of the domain registry business. While there are dozens of domains worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, most are worth far less: Only about 2% of the invoices since 2019 were for more than $10; nearly half were for less than a dollar.
Among the more expensive ones was the domain Patriots.win… A man listing an address in Louisville, Kentucky, paid $413 for the Patriots.win domain
I don’t know why he bought the domain names. He’s probably a bad guy and I would probably have fired him too. But I would have never even hired a dude with a swastika face tattoo. They are not the same level. Also, not sure what your problem is with ChristiansAgainstIsrael(dot)com. Isn’t a huge chunk of up-and-comers in your party against Israel too?
As an aside: His agency has every right to fire him since this ended up in the news, but I question why, when WaPo had over 100,000 people to choose from, he was the only offensive domain owner they decided to name in their article - just because a real estate site decided to inform on him to his boss - just because a doxxer on twitter decided to mention that he’s a realtor. Seems kinda arbitrary for a paper like WaPo, no?
Incorrect. The level of modesty that Islam requires of men does not equal that of women. The vast majority of married women that wear hijabs are not married to men that wear the thobe. It is more of a national dress in Saudi Arabia and the UAE and not an Islamic tradition. The point of a Keffiyeh is also not modesty and was not traditionally worn by all men (unlike the hijab) until more recently. Nice try though.
You specifically said “some Hasidic traditions are repugnant,” yet didn’t mention Islamic traditions even though I’ve been using both as examples for several posts now. Was that a mistake? Did you mean to say both religions have repugnant traditions?
This is the point I was trying to make – you can’t see or judge someone’s bad behavior until it is made public / visible! But once it is public / visible (as visible as a forehead tattoo, for example), whether they’re the same or not the same level is arguable and doesn’t really matter – both are bad for business!
Of course they both do. I didn’t mean to exclude anything. I did not disagree with your prior statement on Islam (see the bolded part):
but I did provide what I now realize sounded like an excuse for Hacidism, so I was only responding about one later on to clarify that it also has repugnant traditions.
I dunno, is it? Like against the country’s existence, or against their occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians? “ChristiansAgainstIsrael” combined with the other domains he registered implies the first, not the second. Big difference.
Are you saying Rashida Talib and Illhan Omar are not up-and-comers? I know you’re not saying they aren’t anti-Israel.
Since Israel doesn’t occupy palestinians/palestine, the first one.
I never called the hijab a hate symbol. I said its purpose is modesty (even though you erroneously claim there are other reasons for it) and it is required clothing for women because Islam puts the onus on women (unequally) for the sins that often come from seeing too much skin on a member of the opposite sex. I’m glad you’re at least now being consistent in your displeasure with religions and people you disagree with instead of reserving that displeasure only for evangelical Christians.
Now back to the original question: Why do you feel you must not patronize establishments run by or employing orthodox jews, muslims, and Christians when their religious beliefs, however much you may detest them, have no effect whatsoever on the service you receive from that establishment? If you accidentally patronize one of those places and later find out how deplorable the employees are that work there, do you feel guilty for not doing your homework and finding out sooner that their religious beliefs are harming so many people? What should your role be in making sure other people that think like you know what sort of people work there before they patronize the place?
Excuse me? “the whole big dress garb”? For someone who words things in such a way as to not be commit to something, your lack of tact here seems odd … or at odds.
Really? Nice choice of words, but I’ll take the implied meaning.
Where have you condemned any of the following? (I’ll be back in a month, so take your time)
Islam
Alphabetism
Global Warmingism
Global Coolingism
PITAism
Electric_transportationism
Anything_but_oil_ism
Openbordersism
Anythingbutworkism
Communism
Socialism
Heck, almost anything but Judaism, Christianity, or Nazism.
So it was just accidental, right? Here’s your chance to atone (we’re a week plus past Yom Kippur, but you’re free to catch up ).
).