Boycott...Target?

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Alex

I get what you're saying. But if you go to #2 to incent #1, why not go to #3 to incent #1 and #2. And so on. Those who get punished most are those who do the best, it seems backward to me.

Another way of saying I have a problem with the logic is a parent with two kids. One has always been well behaved and responsible. The other one is always getting in trouble and being a general pain in the ass. They both get caught stealing a car together. So you punish the good kid more because he's always been a good and you do nothing to the bad kid because he behaved as you'd expect. I know some parents for whom that logic will make sense, but it doesn't to me.

I doubt that going to #3 would incent #2, especially if I have not been a loyal customer of either. (And going to #5 would probably not even register with #'s 2 through 4 at all.) The goal is to get Target's attention. An endless regress of supporting ever more vile businesses wouldn't serve that goal, or any.

Corporations aren't individuals, so I can't quite see an applicable logic to the parenting example. (I would try to punish both kids equally - in reaction to that one incident - but would certainly be more shocked by the actions of the usually good one - at least, that's what I tell my childless self.) However, underlying a lot of the public anger is, I'm sure, a sense that Target has been and ought to be better. (Whether or not they ever have been, I just don't know) So, what is the best way to get their attention? The only leverage we've got is our dollars. I have some sympathy with those who want to take action now rather than see a store they have felt good about slowly become just like the others. (Again, it may already be, and may always have been.)

Absolutely, those we care about most can drive us the buggiest!

[Alex]

We're just saying the same thing over and over. But one more try.

Originally Posted by flippyshark

The goal is to get Target's attention.

Why is this the goal? Target is a company that has given 95% of what is wanted on the gay rights issues.

If the driving goal is to get the other 5% then I agree that the PR of a boycott may make sense.

What I question is why getting that 5% would be the driving goal when there are 50 companies out there that only give 5% of what is wanted. That said, I recognize that the real political game here is not targeting Target but getting press attention on Emmer's anti-gay positions. Fine, I'm ok with that political game. I just can't work up any actual outrage for Target and I suspect neither can most of the organizations presenting otherwise.

Demanding absolute ideological purity may bring personal comfort, but it can also put you on the fringes and negate any effectiveness for seeming completely unreasonable. If all being at the forefront of gay rights gets you is prominent denunciations for for any remaining lapse then why bother?


PETA ends up looking unreasonable as a whole even when making reasonable demands about animal treatment because equate as equally bad killing cockroaches in the home and shooting roman candles out the asses of cats.