The Ethics of Voting With Your Wallet Re: Political/Religious/Etc. Values

This has all given me a lot of food for thought, starting with what a lot of people have said after I gave it some consideration last night. Orson Scott Card himself is a brand. My comparison with Tom Cruise might have, therefore, been a bit inaccurate. Technically Tom Cruise is also a brand, but his religion as Scientology is different than Orson Scott Card putting money into anti-gay efforts.

More so, what I hadn't considered is that we're essentially talking more about an employee being very vocal about working for a company on their blog and then being fired because, on that same blog, they spewed a bunch of prejudiced thoughts towards homosexuals. Now the employee's beliefs and the company are linked. That employee is a representative of the company. Thus he generates bad PR.

It also brings to mind the whole Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky fiasco, which I was too young to have an opinion beyond the influence of my parents at the time. Yet a lot of people felt Bill Clinton's actions called into question his credibility as a President.

I think Jonman was right in my oversimplifying this issue. That, and my ignorance over the Chick-Fil-A situation has truly shined through, and my personal stance has shifted on that. In terms of Shadow Complex, though, I do not regret purchasing the game. I feel like Chair did an excellent job and should be rewarded for those efforts. That they worked with Orson Scott Card is unfortunate, but I'd rather show my dislike of those views in some other way that isn't like throwing an alchemist's fire into a taven to kill one guy, so to speak.

CheezePavilion wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

[size=18]How To Argue With Infidels 101[/size]

"Please, Won't You Think Of The Negroes?"
Reframe the discussion to show the potential harm to groups with whom liberals sympathize.

ccesarano wrote:

A boycott wouldn't keep money out of Card's hands, but would instead keep it from a game development company employing a large number of people that put a lot of work into the code, art, audio, and levels of a good game. What if they lost their jobs?

"The Monster Was Us All Along!"
Show nonbelievers how taking a stand against intolerance is a show of intolerance on their part.

ccesarano wrote:

Now imagine someone walks up and says "I'm sorry, but it turns out your political beliefs are different than what we're looking for, so we're going to have to let you go."

Wouldn't that be discrimination?

Is it possible to have a P&C discussion where it's about the ideas as opposed to trying to show how those you disagree with are using logic that marks them as a Very Bad Person and therefore You Win!!!

While I prefer how Bloo Driver pointed out my logical fallacies, considering I did roughly the same thing to Fedaykin recently, I can't complain.

ccesarano wrote:

While I prefer how Bloo Driver pointed out my logical fallacies, considering I did roughly the same thing to Fedaykin recently, I can't complain.

... someone found me to be the least grating response?

...

Bloo Driver wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

While I prefer how Bloo Driver pointed out my logical fallacies, considering I did roughly the same thing to Fedaykin recently, I can't complain.

... someone found me to be the least grating response?

...

HP out-Bloo'ed you! Yoo?

Well, Hitler.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Well, Hitler. :|

Hehe, I was amused by your response HP, but I can also see how that might have rubbed cess in the wrong way too.

To be fair I wasn't offended, insulted, hurt, or what have you, but it was very "Lookit what you done wrong" and left it at nothing else. I liked the larger explanation of what was wrong with my argument.

ccesarano wrote:

To be fair I wasn't offended, insulted, hurt, or what have you, but it was very "Lookit what you done wrong" and left it at nothing else. I liked the larger explanation of what was wrong with my argument. :P

Your big dumb face!

Edit because literacy is hard.

Interesting comments all, and I'm glad there was a clarification between holding the beliefs of public figures and private workers. it's the one area that I worry about more and more - being expected to conform to corporate culture at all times, including whatever the dominant political view your boss holds.

The gay marriage debate is a tough one for me - I personally see it as a civil issue and support it, but I also have conservative friends who don't. I think you can take a stance against gay marriage for religious reasons but still stay principled by recognizing the human dignity of everyone in the LGBT community. That being said, it sounds like Card and the Chik Fil A support organizations that cross the line into bigotry. So I'm not going to go out on a limb to support their products in the future.

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him. I don't believe in his views and I believe there's a lot of selective choices going on with what Old Testament rules count and which ones do not (as the many smarmy snarky Facebook photos I've been seeing all week suggest), but he's got a right to have those views and do with his money what he will. Me, I'd rather try and have an actual discussion on the context those laws were written in, and being a Christian I tend to get a bit unpopular when I vocally question whether the majority of those rules actually have anything to do with God at all (though that debate is for another time).

But when you use your corporate money to fund something like that? No thank you. I'm paying Chick-Fil-A for a service, and my money should go to those providing the service. It should not go to a political fund (though as I stated earlier, if I kept up with what every company was putting their money towards I'd probably find living in an empty apartment).

As for "religious reasons", even if I believed God really did hold homosexuality as such a bad thing despite it not being part of the 10 Commandments or one of the things Jesus spoke about, I can't buy that as an excuse in a country where one of the freedoms is to follow any religion you want, even if that means having no religion. I understand the fear of folks wanting to "wipe out religion" or whatnot, but there are times to fight that battle and times to concede that it has no place in the discussion.

I must say, OP is actually a very interesting thought, I don't know what to make of it yet. It sounds like one of my principles applied logically to a situation.

ccesarano wrote:

I have issues of taking someone to task with what they do with their personal funds.

Ah, but here's the rub. If you give money to Card or Chik-Fil-A knowing that then they use that money for causes you don't believe in. You are effectively giving money to a cause you don't believe in.
You certainly have the right to not support causes you don't believe in, correct?
(Yes, I'm completely ignoring taxes and would love to choose what my tax dollars go towards, that's just how a representational government works, sometimes you don't get your way.)

ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him. I don't believe in his views and I believe there's a lot of selective choices going on with what Old Testament rules count and which ones do not (as the many smarmy snarky Facebook photos I've been seeing all week suggest), but he's got a right to have those views and do with his money what he will. Me, I'd rather try and have an actual discussion on the context those laws were written in, and being a Christian I tend to get a bit unpopular when I vocally question whether the majority of those rules actually have anything to do with God at all (though that debate is for another time).

But when you use your corporate money to fund something like that? No thank you. I'm paying Chick-Fil-A for a service, and my money should go to those providing the service. It should not go to a political fund (though as I stated earlier, if I kept up with what every company was putting their money towards I'd probably find living in an empty apartment).

As for "religious reasons", even if I believed God really did hold homosexuality as such a bad thing despite it not being part of the 10 Commandments or one of the things Jesus spoke about, I can't buy that as an excuse in a country where one of the freedoms is to follow any religion you want, even if that means having no religion. I understand the fear of folks wanting to "wipe out religion" or whatnot, but there are times to fight that battle and times to concede that it has no place in the discussion.

Definitely worth a debate in the Bible/theology thread. Personally, I can see a moral argument against exclusive gay partnerships in ancient times, in the same way I understand why there's a major taboo about eating cows in parts of Asia. In the case of cows, a big reason behind the taboo was cows were too valuable as work animals to be seen as a major food source. In the case of homosexuality, ancient tribes or nations relied on as high a birth rate as possible to survive. It's one of the reasons ancient Greeks could take male lovers but were still expected to have a wife and sire children. But there's really no reason for it nowadays, in the same way there's no logical reason to not eat pork or shellfish.

But the main point is I agree it's a civil liberties issue. I want less government interference all around, and this is certainly an issue where interference is not justified.

ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him.

I know I asked you this before but, why shouldn't we hold that against people? When you participate in denying people rights you are doing them real harm.

NathanialG wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him.

I know I asked you this before but, why shouldn't we hold that against people? When you participate in denying people rights you are doing them real harm.

That begs a very good question: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was giving his personal money to the Klu Klux Klan would it be wrong to hold that against him?

Phoenix Rev wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him.

I know I asked you this before but, why shouldn't we hold that against people? When you participate in denying people rights you are doing them real harm.

That begs a very good question: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was giving his personal money to the Klu Klux Klan would it be wrong to hold that against him?

Are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we deem him to be a bigot, or are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we try to boycott his economic activity so he can't keep a job so he can't earn money so he can't donate to bigoted causes until he changes his views?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him.

I know I asked you this before but, why shouldn't we hold that against people? When you participate in denying people rights you are doing them real harm.

That begs a very good question: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was giving his personal money to the Klu Klux Klan would it be wrong to hold that against him?

Are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we deem him to be a bigot, or are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we try to boycott his economic activity so he can't keep a job so he can't earn money so he can't donate to bigoted causes until he changes his views?

Unless the CEO of Chick-fil-A was independently wealthy, all his "personal money" was once the money of millions of individual consumers. That means you can trace a direct line from people buying a chicken sandwich, to Chick-fil-A paying the CEO, to the CEO using that money to fund a KKK rally or some such. It's the same money.

In any case, no, it wouldn't be wrong to hold his support of the KKK against him. He's certainly allowed to hold those beliefs and even openly promote them. That also means that everyone else is allowed to dislike him and even openly say he's a racist sumbitch who should be removed from civilization.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him.

I know I asked you this before but, why shouldn't we hold that against people? When you participate in denying people rights you are doing them real harm.

That begs a very good question: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was giving his personal money to the Klu Klux Klan would it be wrong to hold that against him?

Are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we deem him to be a bigot, or are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we try to boycott his economic activity so he can't keep a job so he can't earn money so he can't donate to bigoted causes until he changes his views?

Unless the CEO of Chick-fil-A was independently wealthy, all his "personal money" was once the money of millions of individual consumers. That means you can trace a direct line from people buying a chicken sandwich, to Chick-fil-A paying the CEO, to the CEO using that money to fund a KKK rally or some such. It's the same money.

Right, that's what I said.

In any case, no, it wouldn't be wrong to hold his support of the KKK against him. He's certainly allowed to hold those beliefs and even openly promote them. That also means that everyone else is allowed to dislike him and even openly say he's a racist sumbitch who should be removed from civilization.

That's what I'm asking: we're allowed to dislike him and say he's a bigoted sumbitch. We're allowed in the legal sense to spend or not spend our money because it'll eventually wind up in his pot of money he funds bigoted causes out of. I agree with something you said earlier that we're under no obligation spend money on things that we won't enjoy because they've been tainted by their association with bigots. What I'm asking (and I think the OP was asking) whether it's a good idea regardless of whether or not it's a legal idea to boycott his economic activity.

CheezePavilion wrote:

What I'm asking (and I think the OP was asking) whether it's a good idea regardless of whether or not it's a legal idea to boycott his economic activity.

Of course it's a good idea. It's no different than me not buying a product because I heard something bad about it or I thought one of its commercials was in poor taste. It's just another thing I may--or may not--consider before plunking down my money to buy something.

And, like I pointed out before, the door swings both ways. Some people boycott Chick-fil-A because they're against gay marriage and some people support Chick-fil-A for exactly the same reasons. At the end of the day, individuals are deciding how to spend their own money.

ccesarano wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

[size=18]How To Argue With Infidels 101[/size]

"Please, Won't You Think Of The Negroes?"
Reframe the discussion to show the potential harm to groups with whom liberals sympathize.

ccesarano wrote:

A boycott wouldn't keep money out of Card's hands, but would instead keep it from a game development company employing a large number of people that put a lot of work into the code, art, audio, and levels of a good game. What if they lost their jobs?

"The Monster Was Us All Along!"
Show nonbelievers how taking a stand against intolerance is a show of intolerance on their part.

ccesarano wrote:

Now imagine someone walks up and says "I'm sorry, but it turns out your political beliefs are different than what we're looking for, so we're going to have to let you go."

Wouldn't that be discrimination?

Is it possible to have a P&C discussion where it's about the ideas as opposed to trying to show how those you disagree with are using logic that marks them as a Very Bad Person and therefore You Win!!!

While I prefer how Bloo Driver pointed out my logical fallacies, considering I did roughly the same thing to Fedaykin recently, I can't complain.

Actually you can complain: these are not logical fallacies. They *can* be rhetorical tactics, but whether they are or not depends on the intent of the person using them. If you're going to accuse someone of using tactics out of How to Argue with Infidels for Fun and Profit, then make sure they're a Crusader in the first place.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

If it was just the CEO's personal funds I wouldn't hold it against him.

I know I asked you this before but, why shouldn't we hold that against people? When you participate in denying people rights you are doing them real harm.

That begs a very good question: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was giving his personal money to the Klu Klux Klan would it be wrong to hold that against him?

Are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we deem him to be a bigot, or are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we try to boycott his economic activity so he can't keep a job so he can't earn money so he can't donate to bigoted causes until he changes his views?

Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. What's the probably butchered but famous quote? "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to defend it" or some such?

I think one of the biggest problems in the current social and political climate is the inability to try and argue with each other on everyone's terms. For example, the recent news of some guys at PAX making bad jokes and then having horrible justifications always brings about a bunch of white knights who want to do nothing more than call the perpetrators of the crime chauvanistic pigs, bigots, sexists, etc.

Does anyone in this world think they are a bad person? Do they go out of their way to do evil things? No. People are going to believe they are justified most of the time. They need to be made to understand why those comments are negative. A friend of mine tried to play Devil's Advocate, and it turned into one large discussion on how our society does a horrible job programming traits and ideas into us as children that effect our behavior and how we see the world.

But I think that discussion does a lot more than simply saying "You're a bigot, you get no money from me". Chances are, that person is going to just feel like America's values are being ruined and yatta yatta. I know these people. I've listened to them. The problem is no one is trying to understand why the feel such a way and discuss it from that angle.

That is why I don't hold it against someone what they do with their personal money. The CEO did his job and earned his paycheck. With that, he can do with as he pleases, just as I should be allowed to do what I want with mine. I can boycott, and I can claim the guy is a bigot all I want, but I will never convince him of my perspective, especially in such a non-personal manner, that I think his views are incorrect or mislead or what have you.

But, that said, I can boycott Chick-Fil-A because I do not want Chick-Fil-A using Chick-Fil-A funds on projects I disagree with.

I've gotta say, and it may not be germane directly to the topic of this thread, but I find it incredibly insulting that showing empathy for other humans is often dismissed as "white knighting" by people who choose not to show empathy in those situations.

Tanglebones wrote:

I've gotta say, and it may not be germane directly to the topic of this thread, but I find it incredibly insulting that showing empathy for other humans is often dismissed as "white knighting" by people who choose not to show empathy in those situations.

I am usually meaning a very specific sort of guy, though. I don't know how to describe them or their arguments, but there's always a sort of smugness. Like a "look at how much more chivalrous I am than these bastards, how can any guy be like this?"

We all have our moments of inconsideration. I tend to speak of the Call of Duty crowd and e-athletes with a level of distaste or, on occasion, disdain. But I try to make sure I don't because everyone is human and, as I said, no one thinks they're doing wrong. So when there are these "white knights" acting like they're better just because they don't commit those specific acts of bigotry, it pisses me off.

ccesarano wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

I've gotta say, and it may not be germane directly to the topic of this thread, but I find it incredibly insulting that showing empathy for other humans is often dismissed as "white knighting" by people who choose not to show empathy in those situations.

I am usually meaning a very specific sort of guy, though. I don't know how to describe them or their arguments, but there's always a sort of smugness. Like a "look at how much more chivalrous I am than these bastards, how can any guy be like this?"

We all have our moments of inconsideration. I tend to speak of the Call of Duty crowd and e-athletes with a level of distaste or, on occasion, disdain. But I try to make sure I don't because everyone is human and, as I said, no one thinks they're doing wrong. So when there are these "white knights" acting like they're better just because they don't commit those specific acts of bigotry, it pisses me off.

Sorry, I don't buy that one bit. You're getting angry at people expressing empathy here, and that's shameful. If you ran a chicken stand, I would not give you my money.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

What I'm asking (and I think the OP was asking) whether it's a good idea regardless of whether or not it's a legal idea to boycott his economic activity.

Of course it's a good idea. It's no different than me not buying a product because I heard something bad about it or I thought one of its commercials was in poor taste. It's just another thing I may--or may not--consider before plunking down my money to buy something.

I disagree that it's not different from not buying a product because you heard something bad about it. Not buying a defective product is simply a case of not wasting your money.

And like I said: I agree with you that if stuff like commercials or CEO statements means you're turned off by the company to the point where you don't enjoy the product, you have no reason not to reject the product. Of course, really what happened there is the product was also rendered defective, just due to emotional as opposed to mechanical reasons.

And, like I pointed out before, the door swings both ways. Some people boycott Chick-fil-A because they're against gay marriage and some people support Chick-fil-A for exactly the same reasons. At the end of the day, individuals are deciding how to spend their own money.

That's the point: that door *does* swing both ways. The question is whether whatever harm comes from however many dollars are removed from the chain of commerce that leads to the funds of bigots, is there even *more* harm being done by letting that door swing.

If I have expectations of those I disagree with, I have even higher expectations of those that I do agree with. If I'm going to hold fellow Christians accountable for misunderstood or poorly researched interpretations of the Bible, then why shouldn't I do the same of those claiming to support women's rights? It's very easy to label yourself as something positive or negative on paper. Very different to believe it down in your very core.

ccesarano wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

I've gotta say, and it may not be germane directly to the topic of this thread, but I find it incredibly insulting that showing empathy for other humans is often dismissed as "white knighting" by people who choose not to show empathy in those situations.

I am usually meaning a very specific sort of guy, though. I don't know how to describe them or their arguments, but there's always a sort of smugness. Like a "look at how much more chivalrous I am than these bastards, how can any guy be like this?"

We all have our moments of inconsideration. I tend to speak of the Call of Duty crowd and e-athletes with a level of distaste or, on occasion, disdain. But I try to make sure I don't because everyone is human and, as I said, no one thinks they're doing wrong. So when there are these "white knights" acting like they're better just because they don't commit those specific acts of bigotry, it pisses me off.

And how often do these so-called "white knights" direct this kind of criticism at you?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That begs a very good question: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was giving his personal money to the Klu Klux Klan would it be wrong to hold that against him?

Are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we deem him to be a bigot, or are we talking about holding it against him in the sense that we try to boycott his economic activity so he can't keep a job so he can't earn money so he can't donate to bigoted causes until he changes his views?

I probably should have been more precise in my question.

However, in response to what you ask, I would say both. Perhaps it is my failure, but I cannot separate the abhorrent personal beliefs of a person from his or her economic endeavors. If I knew of someone who was an advocate of returning to the days when a husband could rape his wife with impunity, but that person never spent a dime supporting his beliefs by funding a group or cause that would repeal rape equity laws, I would be hard pressed to give that person even the time of day, much less part of my income so that he could have a business that flourishes.

As for whether or not that is a good idea, I believe that each individual has to make that determination for himself or herself.

NSMike wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

I've gotta say, and it may not be germane directly to the topic of this thread, but I find it incredibly insulting that showing empathy for other humans is often dismissed as "white knighting" by people who choose not to show empathy in those situations.

I am usually meaning a very specific sort of guy, though. I don't know how to describe them or their arguments, but there's always a sort of smugness. Like a "look at how much more chivalrous I am than these bastards, how can any guy be like this?"

We all have our moments of inconsideration. I tend to speak of the Call of Duty crowd and e-athletes with a level of distaste or, on occasion, disdain. But I try to make sure I don't because everyone is human and, as I said, no one thinks they're doing wrong. So when there are these "white knights" acting like they're better just because they don't commit those specific acts of bigotry, it pisses me off.

And how often do these so-called "white knights" direct this kind of criticism at you?

Eh, he's got a point in there, and that's coming from someone who got the dating advice thread closed down for arguing with ccesarano about his attitudes towards feminism.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/FRT_zpsa1bcc979.jpg)

And, interestingly enough, we have the opposite side of the story here where a customer decided to stop visiting a local coffee house because they support marriage equality:

HARLEM — As the U.S. Supreme Court hashes out the legality of gay marriage in Washington, D.C., another debate over the issue is bubbling up at The Chipped Cup, a hip new Hamilton Heights coffee shop.

After The Chipped Cup drew the gay-marriage symbol — a square with a pink equal sign — on the sandwich board outside its shop on Broadway between 148th and 149th streets, a patron accused the shop of "trying to cram their political agenda" down people's throats.

"You just lost two local customers with your political sandwich board," a person listed as Leesa Dahl wrote on the coffee shop's Facebook page. "We were so happy when you joined the neighborhood and were faithful, but alienating the majority of the population is a really irritating and dumb move. We will encourage others not to patronize your business."