Boycotts, Social Media & Gun Control

First you start by giving up the pompous attitude that those that don't share your views are non-thinkers and realize that your characterizations apply to many folks who do share your views but that are just as involved in this "groupthink/herd mentality."

Unfortunately, that's the state of our society now. I really don't see how we roll it back. If you voted for Candidate A, you're a commie pinko who wants to inflict gay Sharia law. If you voted for Candidate B, you're a knuckle dragging Nazi fascist.

#youareHitlerifyoudisagreewithme

Social media allows us to vent the basest of ideas to a wide audience and it encourages us to do so without stopping to think of the consequences. I'm often shocked at the things people say online and wonder if they'd actually say those things in face-to-face conversation.

Et cui bono? Advertising companies and marketing executives. If anything, the hysterical reactions to pretty much everything these days show that we're just as amenable to emotional manipulation as a 13th century peasant mob. Somebody's making money on this. The rest of us can do nothing but bemoan the death of civility and reasoned discourse.
 
In the midst of the last election a company I did business with started making social media post bashing supporters of specific candidate for president.
I wrote a polite letter to them about how I felt that their actions were inappropriate for the business they were in. I wrote them in a neutral tone and explained that it may put off a portion of their customers. I didn’t support any party, I just thought it was generally an inappropriate setting.

They sent me a blistering response stating that they didn’t give a (common cuss word) if they lost 75% of their customer base. They also added that members of The (_________) Party should not be living in the US anymore. They also stated that if it meant that they only sold to international customers and lost all US business, they would at least sleep at night.
 
They sent me a blistering response stating that they didn’t give a (common cuss word) if they lost 75% of their customer base. They also added that members of The (_________) Party should not be living in the US anymore. They also stated that if it meant that they only sold to international customers and lost all US business, they would at least sleep at night.

See I do personally believe one political party has a greater percentage of extreme members who would respond in this way, but I cede it may be a personal perception and/or bias of mine. I could see extremes of either party saying this exact same thing. So without more context I can't tell which party/candidate the company advocated for. Which proves Tom Servos point.
 
You’re right. That’s the political climate.

In the big picture there’s two sides in American politics. One side is virtuous the other side is not. In the big picture, gun ownership is not on the virtuous side.
 
In the big picture, gun ownership is not on the virtuous side.

That's the line they are selling, and all too many people buy into it.

I think one thing that is being missed, by both political parties and by businesses and activists who think Social media rules the world of opinion.

And that is something that in earlier times was known as the "silent majority".

It still exists, despite the current concept that everyone who matters is talking in tweets and posts. They seldom make comments, but when they feel their interests are actually threatened, they do vote.

It takes time, and something drastic to arouse their ire, but once it happens, they have the numbers to make a huge impact.

Consider this, while that frightened high schooler is being encouraged to plead for the banning of assault weapons, ask them what their grandfather thinks about that idea. Some will agree, of course, but a lot of them won't.

And not because they are all gun fanatics (many aren't) but because many of them have the wisdom to know what things just won't work.

I'm not trying to say everyone older is wiser, after all, there's no fool like an old fool. But there are a LOT of people in this country who don't post on social media of any kind. They aren't the ones being counted in online polls.

They often aren't counted in ANY polls, except the official ones every couple years in November.

I know a number of people who have strongly held convictions, and do vote, and refuse to take part in any kind of poll or survey, period. I know others who deliberately lie to poll takers and surveys, just to screw with them.

One fellow I knew somehow got on a list to be polled, during the early Clinton years. He got a call every 2-3 months, asking his opinion about the job the President was doing. This guy was about as political as a stump, didn't care one way, or the other, so he told them he was ok with what the President was doing. After a few years of this, he decided to tell them something else. He told the caller he was very upset with the bad job the President was doing. They never called him again....

The US has over 330 MILLION people if the last census is even remotely accurate. WE are NOT a homogenous mixture, spread evenly across the nation. Poll people from a metro area and from a rural area and you can get widely different responses on some issues and similar responses on others.

Personally I just don't see how you can survey 1,000 people and with confidence claim its a true representation of over 300 million people, about anything.
 
On one hand, I'm interested to see how Delta reacts and whether they consider political correctness to be worth it when it affects their bottom line.

On the other, I have a real problem with the government trying to dictate who someone does business with.

Delta just doesn't want to be involved in politics. I don't blame them. Unfortunately they are now because of this GA mess. The GA gov should not be involved in this matter at all and honestly I wouldn't blame delta and other companies if they took their business elsewhere...I would if I had a company in GA because who knows what nonsense they will come up with next. Gov should stay out of it.

Unfortunately, that's the state of our society now. I really don't see how we roll it back. If you voted for Candidate A, you're a commie pinko who wants to inflict gay Sharia law. If you voted for Candidate B, you're a knuckle dragging Nazi fascist.

Pretty much this. If I disagree with a democrat they think I am a crazy redneck. If I disagree with a republican they think I am Obama's boyfriend. I don't get it. Some people actually belong to neither party and just try to look at each issue and come up with plausible solutions based on available data.
 
That Delta thing is a mess. Making tax-breaks and incentives, which effectively amount to giving away the money that is the states, contingent on particular political stances or non-stances seems would seem to me, on the face of it, to be a major concern. We end up effectively funneling money from the common trust of the state to public companies so they can make political stances.
 
Any decision I might make, one way or the other regarding the NRA will be based solely on what the NRA does. Symantec, Delta, or any other entity can do what they like. They are free to choose (as I am). I have already chosen NOT to use any Symantec product. I chose that many years ago and I did so based on technological reasons....NOT politics. I don't fly. So I have no need for Delta. I also have no desire for anything on Facebook or Twitter. My decisions are mine and if someone wishes to boycott the NRA, then fine. Whatever. But they should NEVER think that their decision to do so will persuade me to follow. Particularly when that organization has already proven its uselessness to me.

Boycotts really don't work anyway. Even though I've decided to boycott certain companies myself, that is a personal decision and I am under no illusion that anyone else should or will follow. Each person can choose for themselves. It's just that so many people choose to let someone else choose for them. But that is still a choice.
 
So the Delta thing is just becoming more of a mess...

- Apparently only 13 people ever used the discount.
- GA Senator goes on CNN and said its because Delta also gives discounts to planned parenthood. This was proven to be false. Delta doesn't and never gave a discount to planned parenthood.
- GA Senator then turns around and says its because they give discounts to groups that support planned parenthood - this again was proven to be false. Not sure what GA will try to lie about next.

No clue what's going on here in GA but its messed up. I am against states giving tax breaks to corporations...BUT GA is on a slippery slope. Now when a dem is in office they will take away tax breaks to any organization that supports conservatives? I mean that is the message they are sending. This is really ridiculous. This is just a losing battle. I think it also just took Atlanta out of the Amazon Headquarters running.
 
I agree GA is playing a stupid game. Rescinding tax incentives for a business based on political views expressed by that business is... Well bad business. Tax incentives are already controversial to some (not really to me, I understand competing for industry and jobs), so why make it even more so?

In the end Delta is pretty well established in Atlanta. They won't go anywhere. That's the gamble GA is taking. Just like Delta is taking a gamble on NRA customers not caring so much, or being so small a portion of their revenue that it'll be a blip on their radar. There's a difference between a private company making a political statement and government, however.
 
Back
Top