Boycott...Target?

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by Alex

BP branded stations don't necessarily sell BP gas and non-BP stations may very well be selling BP gas (ARCO stations generally, but not always, are selling BP gasoline; Costco gas is frequently BP).

Yeah, I've been avoiding Arco. But, then again, Arco has usually been last on my list of gas choices anyway, because I don't like their stations.

I am starting to relax more on the issue though, since the well's finally been capped. But, I do hope I see drastic changes to BP's maintenance and emergency practices in the future. Companies screw up, because they're run by human beings which do make mistakes. It's when those mistakes are repeated that I really start to form opinions.

Like you pointed out the list of numerous companies who have supported "bad" candidates - we seriously need to sustain ourselves if we want to truly uphold our own beliefs and morals.

All along, the Amish have had it figured out.

[€uroMeinke]

I kinda think Target has more influence giving $ to a bad guy to get a seat at the table with the bad guy to tell their story (e.g. we offer benefits to partners of gay employees what's the big deal?) vs. not giving $ to a bad guy and having no influence to make him/her change.

[flippyshark]

Yes, I think the driving goal is to get that other 5%. (If that other 5% can be understood as not supporting candidates who oppose gay marriage - I don't really know how percentages can be figured on such things) It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to want Target to avoid supporting candidates as outspokenly anti-gay as Emmer. (As opposed to, say, asking Target to be completely politically progressive. Demanding ideological purity would indeed be stupid, and I don't think anyone proposing a boycott is asking for that.)

I'm not feeling any outrage - more of an eye-rolling sense of "Well, of course they aren't as cool as I was hoping. *sigh*"

Actually, I hadn't considered the negative attention to Emmer angle, but, yeah, I'm totally on board with that!

Edited to add - Yes, getting better from the other less enlightened companies would be a really good goal too.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Visible mojo to Marla since Le iPhone is making it difficult to give her Mojo mojo.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In the end, it's all of course so much kabuki.

I think the outrage is understandable in this case. As Alex points out, it's the fact that Target HAS put itself out there as being particularly supportive of the gay community, in turn benefiting from the economic support of those who've appreciated that, which makes it seem like a worse offense than those many corporations for whom being neutral or anti is par for the course. And Emmer is not just one of the many Republicans who just take the default anti-gay marriage position out of popularism. He's an active opponent, aligned with ministry groups with such lovely opinions as, "Of course we don't support the middle eastern countries that execute gays...but boy you gotta admire their commitment to their ideals!" It's a central theme to his politics and his campaign, it's not just a check box on his conservative resume.

Combine those to elements and people are going to make some noise. It's perhaps out of scale, melodramatic, and not 100% logical. But it highlights one of the problems within our system that is presenting a road block for equality, so whether it's perfectly logical or not is kinda irrelevant. The emmotional response to Target's actions is an effective means to an end.

I'm not going to join an ineffective mostly meaningless boycott. But I'll add my voice to those telling Target that they'd prefer they do what they can to put their influence and money behind a better selection of candidates.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm not going to join an ineffective mostly meaningless boycott. But I'll add my voice to those telling Target that they'd prefer they do what they can to put their influence and money behind a better selection of candidates.

Complete agreement with this. I have no problem with expressing dissatisfaction. And if dissatisfied I have no problem with a personal decision to take business elsewhere.

I just view organized boycotts as not just ineffective but, in this and similar cases, potentially counterproductive in that it discourages companies from putting themselves at the forefront of social issues if all that will do is mark you for getting most beat up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

I just view organized boycotts as not just ineffective but, in this and similar cases, potentially counterproductive in that it discourages companies from putting themselves at the forefront of social issues if all that will do is mark you for getting most beat up.

Agreed, however I also completely understand the impetus to turn to boycott. Afterall, why are they making these political contributions to candidates that otherwise disagree with issues they, as a company, have stated they are in sympathy with? Because they feel like those candidates are better for their bottom line. So if their bottom line what they're being guided by, it's the most obvious target if you want to get their attention.

[flippyshark]

I'll be boycotting in the sense that, at present, I won't be giving my money to anybody at all, for strictly practical reasons.

[Alex]

Perhaps, but it's probably hard to run a viable graphics and video editing business in Amish communities.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by Alex

Perhaps, but it's probably hard to run a viable graphics and video editing business in Amish communities.

And, thus my point about catering to one's own personal morals and ethics to remain happy.