Unethical Website Of The Month: #GrabYour Wallet

trump-boycott

Boycotts are almost always unethical, but the vicious partisan tactic of boycotting businesses because they or their owners  support or contributed to the duly elected President of the United States make usual boycotts seem saintly in comparison. Spite, vengeance, an attack on political speech and individual autonomy, call it what you will, there is no other side to this tactic. It is wrong. It undermines democracy. It punishes speech. It is the heating oil seller who tells Trump voters to freeze, and the yarn shop owner who tells Democrats to feed their knitting elsewhere, but on a grand, self-righteous, societally destructive scale.

#GrabYourWallet is a website whose operators  aim to hurt, injure and punish not only business owners who dare to have a different political view than they, but also their businesses employees, families and customers. This is the invidious outfit that bullied Nordstrom into dropping Ivanka Trump’s fashion line, because we must punish a young woman for supporting her father, who half the country chose to be President. This in turn led Kelly Ann Conway, the President’s spokesperson who is as much in over her head as a he is, to fall into the trap of violating the law by using her position to promote a product, because she chose an inartful way of telling decent Americans to reject the boycott.

Let me be as clear as Ethics Alarms can be.

#GrabYourWallet is an unethical website, devoted to bullying and harming the innocent for exercising their rights as citizens.

#GrabYourWallet is operated by bad people, who are bad citizens. They want to prevail by coercion and economic war, not be virtue of their ideas and position.

Anyone that follows the guidance of #GrabYourWallet is an unethical person, a bad citizen, and a nascent totalitarian who seeks to achieve political goals by threats and by inflicting tangible injury rather than by the legitimacy of ideas.

This is signature significance. Ethical people do not say, “Believe as we  do, or we will destroy you.” Fair and responsible people do not say, “Oppose the nation’s elected leader, or we will make you beg for mercy and bend to our will.” Respectful and civic-minded people do not say, “I don’t agree with you, and thus you must be punished.”

Everyone connected with #GrabYourWallet and similar ventures, anyone who supports them, follows them, cheers them on, is a bad American, a bad neighbor, and an ethically warped, diseased human being. Not for what they think or say, for I may disagree with what they say, but will defend to the death for their right to say it. No, they are unfit for our society because of what they are doing: setting out to make dissent  impossible, and indeed dangerous.

Even if I agreed with the political views of these awful people, I would not want to associate with them. They pose a threat to the United States,  its values, its culture, and, should their methods by some doomsday mass ethics plague and brain rot be accepted, me, my family, and my business.

#GrabYourWallet and everyone who endorses their miserable methods and values must be called out, opposed, derided and shunned, as should any company without the guts, integrity and principles to sand up for this blazing threat to democracy.

And yes, damn it, Democrats and progressives, this crawled out of the stinking ooze on your side of the spectrum, and you are complicit and collaborators unless you reject such tactics expressly and unambiguously. Your unhinged and irresponsible rhetoric made #GrabYourWallet  seem reasonable to the unreasonable and vile individuals who spawned it. I’m waiting to hear your condemnation.

Fix this.

48 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Character, Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Family, Government & Politics, Rights, The Internet, This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President, U.S. Society, Unethical Websites

48 responses to “Unethical Website Of The Month: #GrabYour Wallet

  1. Jack

    Perhaps Kurt Schlicter was correct after all. I don’t see this kind of thing coming from Republicans or conservatives. This is coming from the Hard Left which seeks to destroy anything that stands in its way.

    For instance, Betsy DeVos is the Secretary of Education (I have no earthly idea if she is going to be any good at the position because, well, she’s been secretary for about 48 hours. Incidentally, though, public schools haven’t imploded yet.) She went to inspect a DC under-perfoming public school and was harassed to the point where it was unfair for her to remain. Facebookers gushed with glee, declaring it awesome and GOOD!!! When asked why it was good, the resulting answers were: Well, because she’s horrible.

    Here is what I mean, if the link works:

    (By the way, I am not sure who the ‘unqualified bitch from the Amway scammers association’ is. O, how I long for the time when the Internet was all about cat videos and dancing babies.)

    jvb

    • The responses didn’t get copied:

      14 likes.
      Comments

      Joe D’Andrea: Did she not bring her own pencils? Teachers are supposed to buy and bring enough for everyone, y’know.

      Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

      Cyndee Lee Rule replied · 1 Reply

      John V. Burger: How is that good? She was criticized for “never having been to a public school” and when she goes to observe an under-performing school in DC, she gets blocked from entering. That is asinine, stupid, and destructive.
      Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs · Edited

      Anthony Ferraro: So was appointing the unqualified bitch from the Amway scammers association!!
      Like · Reply · 11 mins

      View more replies
      John V. Burger: Who?

      • That would be Betsy: her father was a co-founder of Amway, which is not a scam, but a very long-lasting pyramid scheme, no more of a scam in that respect than Social Secrurity.

        So Anthony Ferraro is an idiot, I gather?

        • Oh. That makes sense.

          As for Anthony, I am not sure – I don’t know him. He replied to my comment questioning the virtue and propriety of protesting the education secretary. He likes prog rock, Frank Zappa and Jean-Luc Ponty, so he can’t be too bad.

          jvb

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Jack, this is simply an extension of the bully-and-boycott tactics that grew out of the last few fights over major social issues. I know you remember gay marriage, and I know you remember the bathroom laws, because we talked about them here, at some length. For better or for worse, those tactics were used, and used to at least some effect in those fights, from Dan Savage saying that those opposed to gay marriage need to be treated like flat-earthers and simply denied a place in the discussion to Brendan Eich being pushed out of his job because – gasp- he had the temerity to donate his own money to the wrong side of that political fight and was found out long after the fact.

    I think to some degree those tactics are responsible for the election of Donald Trump, because the blue-collar and rank and file conservatives saw the business leader conservatives wet their pants and cave the minute someone whispered “boycott,” showing they were all about their bottom line, and willing to completely abandon the rest of the conservative side and any principle to preserve it. The rank and file turned out n droves where it counted, and a few places you thought they might not, and you know the rest.

    However, the left still has this powerful tactic, they know how to use it, and it’s relatively easy to use it on a larger scale. A large portion of them are completely intolerant of those who don’t agree with them, even if the disagreeing figure is the President of the United States or any of his supporters, and many of those are perfectly ok with turning to violence or rioting.

    It’s that noisy, difficult, merciless sector that the rest need to worry about, because they won’t hesitate to turn on their own if they thing they are betraying the strict ideology they want to impose. That’s why they are targeting all these businesses to try to put them into bankruptcy, and may well bring a couple of them down. That’s why all of the Senate’s Democrats are voting in almost lockstep, and they are already talking about targeting Joe Manchin of West Virginia in the primaries next year, who dared to cast a “yes” vote for the evil Jeff Sessions. That’s why Jackie Evancho, all of sixteen years old, is going to have a VERY tough time selling her next album when it hits next month and doesn’t dare meet and greet fans at her concerts, because she dared sing the national anthem at the inauguration of the Orange Darth Vader. That’s why I daresay that Independence Day in Philadelphia and Veterans’ Day in New York are going to be decidedly dialed back from welcoming the Vice President and the Secretary of the Navy respectively, because the local officials won’t share the stage with the men occupying those positions now and there’s a very real danger the local police couldn’t guarantee their safety.

    The fact is the left came pretty damn close to having it all: one country, thinking one set of thoughts, doing things one way, speaking with one voice, their thoughts, their way, their voice. Suddenly they find that crowning achievement snatched away from them by the side that elevated this… this buffoon to the highest office in the land and didn’t win the popular vote? Something’s gone very wrong. It wasn’t supposed to play this way, and they’ll be damned if they will allow it to play this way without fighting every part of this at every step of the way. And if it means destroying friendships, bankrupting companies, putting people out of work, smashing windows, beating people, or turning cities into smoking craters, so be it.

  3. Chase Davidson

    I think this is particularly problematic because it’s difficult to say whether the fashion line is failing due to a boycott or sue to other factors, such as high price and low quality. It’s entirely possible that the boycott is killing Ivanka Trump’s brand. It’s also possible that the brand was already dying and GrabYourWallet is merely claiming credit. In either case, the angry Left gets to claim victory.

    My personal point of view is that because we’re so polarized, political boycotts don’t have much effect; any loss of revenue is offset by people who then buy the product to spite the boycotters. See: Chik-Fil-A. Sites like GrabYourWallet are, to coin a phrase that I hope this site’s standards of civility will allow me to say, ‘social justice masturbation’. The people claiming to boycott Trump products would never have bought them to begin with. They are claiming moral superiority without any personal sacrifice or actual effect. It’s just a great big feedback loop and/or circle-jerk inside the social media bubble, as with so much ‘slacktivism’.

  4. This may be the kind of thing that reveals they don’t have as much influence as they think, like the AFA boycotts of bookstores and their newsstands in the 90s. This list is for businesses that usually have a higher price point than I can afford and/or don’t have a convenient location. Why no targeting True Value, Dollar Store, or Burger King? It’s like they’re only trying to convince businesses that cater to their echo chamber. It’s a smaller target to saturate, and even if they win, the majority of the market will just point at them and wonder at the shouting. I didn’t even hear about it before.

    (as a side note, ARE there any boycots that are a valid tactic in your book? I think there are a few, but this one is too much)

  5. Jeff H.

    I’ve probably told this story before on a comment, but there’s a website called Good Old Games, now shortened to GOG. They were in ‘beta,’ and they said they were closing, and got some press. As it turns out, it was a lie. They actually pretended they were closing to drum up buzz for the newly launched ‘out of beta’ version of GOG.

    Since that moment, I decided I would not give them so much as one cent of my lucre. I just don’t trust that they’re not going to pull some other fast one.

    Whenever GOG comes up in conversation as a video game retailer alternative, I always mention this story so that they can’t just bury their misdeeds. If someone else wants to spend money there… well, I tried.

    So… is my not patronizing GOG… unethical? What about the fact that I intend never to visit a Chick-Fil-A because of the attitudes about homosexuality by the owners, even though there is now one in Rhode Island?

    I would hardly call these a ‘boycott’ in the sense of anything organized. It’s more a “I won’t patronize you, but everyone else can do whatever they want. Free country and all.”

  6. Other Bill

    Thanks for posting on this Jack. This boycott is just plain cruel. Destroy a young woman’s business. Nice work. Let’s hear it for the sisterhood.

    • Other Bill

      I also think Nordstrom’s conduct is pretty lame. They say they’re dropping her line because it hasn’t been selling. Gee, I wonder when that decline began and what it’s attributable to? I suppose it’s too much to ask for a retailer to stand up for decency and one of it’s suppliers, but they could have done the right thing and just kept her on. Of course, it’s a Minnesota based outfit. Does Senator Al Franken ring a bell? Minnesota nice? Garrison Keilor? Really hard core, self-righteous lefties.

  7. Wayne

    Well I have no problem with shopping at Macy’s. On Fridays they have some great deals and coupons so I will excise my right to shop where I want to. If any nutcase protester tries to stop me from entering the store, they will get the high sign and a curt remark.

  8. carcarwhite

    Wow… I never believed that boycotting was right.

    When people call for everyone to boycott Walmart for low pay for employees I always wonder, “why not boycott then every product who sells in Walmart too?”

    Wouldn’t that be the consistent thing to do? If the customers are wrong to shop there, then aren’t merchants who make things wrong to associate with them too?

    That led me to think…

    We then must boycott EVERYONE who sells a product at Walmart and every other store which sells their product, because if by association they are evil, (for doing business with Walmart, the Satan of retail) then we should never buy their things anywhere.

    So basically, after thinking about it, to boycott Walmart, would mean to boycott every grocery store, and drug store, etc.

    And when I shared this on facebook with my liberal friends who were calling to boycott Walmart… I was told I was not compassionate and did not care for the workers there at all.

    I tried to argue using what I said above… “if they are bad… then… shouldn’t manufacturers also NOT do business with them, and if they do… should we NOT also boycott their products?”

    Seems logical to me, but since you on this blog are much smarter than I am, was my logic wrong?

    I’d love input on this… because I do have a lot of friends now calling for a lot of boycotts…

  9. Spartan

    Assuming people have X amount of dollars they are going to spend, those X dollars will just go to other companies. Every time I buy a GM car (I only buy GM cars), am I hurting someone from Ford, Nissan, BMW, etc.? What about people who only buy American? Are they boycotting and harming workers in other countries? I have a Mormon colleague who will only stay at Marriott hotels because it is a Mormon-owned chain. Is he boycotting other hotels? In turn, am I also boycotting other hotels because I book the same hotel as him to make our travel logistics easier? (Plus, I like the shampoo in Marriotts — it’s awesome.)

    I don’t participate in publicized boycotts because I think they are unseemly and champion group think, but damn right I decide where to spend my money. Some have to do with quality, other personal boycotts have to do with political reasons. Sometimes I am just lazy and haven’t gotten around to it — for e.g., I really want to dump my shady bank for a credit union, but that really seems like a hassle, so I will wait a little longer.

    I draw the line at businesses boycotting patrons. I can’t decide who my clients are — I treat them all fairly and provide identical service. But I do not always get hired by them — and sometimes they have a good reason for not retaining me, and other times they don’t. But that’s how the system works.

    • Are you really arguing that there’s no ethical difference between an individual decision not to patronize a company you don’t like for whatever reason, and an organized boycott like the one against companies to put Ivanka out of business because of her father? I can’t believe that, so I have to believe your comment is unfortunately composed. Refusing to deal with a company that is crooked, or dishonest,, is materially different from punishing a company through guilt by association, or to make people afraid to express their political opinion, as is their right.

      As an aside, I am very disappointed in many rational progressives, who seem to be trying to minimize or rationalize the despicable and anti0democratic conduct we are seeing from their ideological brethren. It’s a failure of integrity and character, and by enabling the vicious hysterics, they are doing terrible and perhaps irreversible damage.to the nation, but probably most of all to their own party, which is degenerating into a mob.

      • “Are you really arguing that there’s no ethical difference between an individual decision not to patronize a company you don’t like for whatever reason, and an organized boycott like the one against companies to put Ivanka out of business because of her father?”

        That would be the consistent thing to argue. If it’s okay for Spartan to make the individual decision not to patronize a company for whatever reason, then simple consistency makes it okay for me to make the same individual decision not to patronize that company for the same reason. Therefore it’s okay for both of us to decide not to patronize the company. And given that it’s ethical for the two of us to do that, surely it’s ethical for the two of us to talk about doing that? But if you follow this far, the rest is a matter of scale. #grabyourwallet is just adding a lot more people to the discussion.

        For the record, I think these boycotts are silly. If I don’t care enough to ask my waitress who she voted for before letting her serve my dinner, then I sure don’t care about the politics of the Macy’s boardroom.

        • Scale makes it materially different. One person throwing a rock at a building is a disturbance; a hundred doing it is a riot. One homeowner defaulting on a loan is just business; a million is a crisis. One person’s harassing phone call is an annoyance; coordinating thousands to do it is harassment. Coordinating a national boycott is a separate act from a personal decision to withhold patronage. When I tell a restaurant that I’m never coming back because of poor food and service, I’m doing so for my own self-respect, not to destroy the place. gathering all my friends and associates and their families to boycott the place is vindictive and designed to harm. The acts are different in kind, intent and effect, and suggesting otherwise, as I said to Spartan, suggests an effort to rationalize wrongful and anti-social conduct. So does trivializing a boycott as “silly.” Silly is wearing a duck on your head. Trying to ruin lives and businesses isn’t silly.

          • I guess I approach these things more as policy issues than ethics questions. Since it would be a bad idea to punish individual people for refusing to patronize businesses whose owners’ politics they disagree with, I think it’s also bad policy to punish people for organized boycotts. But just because it’s hard to stop doesn’t make it ethical, which is what you’re concerned about.

            As for “silly,” I’ll stand by that, although perhaps “unserious” is a clearer term. People who say they’re boycotting Macy’s or Hobby Lobby because of politics, but who never inquire into the politics of their waitress or their auto mechanic, aren’t being intellectually serious.

          • Spartan

            You have a blog with an ever-growing audience. You frequently write about why you don’t watch Polanski or Woody Allen movies, college basketball, football, and I assume there a few others that I missed. Are you suggesting that you are NOT encouraging people to look at these issues with the same eyes as you and decide to withhold their patronage?

        • Other Bill

          What did Ivanka Trump do that justifies not patronizing her company. Unbeknownst to me, my wife has been wearing a pair of her flats for years. They’re really nice, comfortable, stylish shoes. He company is impeccable. To ruin it because of her father is just awful.

    • Glenn Logan

      This is how I see boycotts, and I’ll explain by responding to parts of your comment:

      Assuming people have X amount of dollars they are going to spend, those X dollars will just go to other companies. Every time I buy a GM car (I only buy GM cars), am I hurting someone from Ford, Nissan, BMW, etc.?

      Are you buying the car for its value, or in order to hurt other companies? Presumably, most people buy cars for their perceived value, or their styling, or some other characteristic that pushes the correct buttons of their personal taste in cars.

      But if the only button GM presses is related to politics/religion/etc. then yes, it would be unethical.

      I have a Mormon colleague who will only stay at Marriott hotels because it is a Mormon-owned chain. Is he boycotting other hotels?

      Let me answer this question with another question: Is it ethical for a white person to patronize white-only restaurants because of the race of their ownership? Is it ethical for a gay person to patronize only gay-owned establishments? How about Catholics using a religious test for their patronage?

      This can be a closer call, because the motivation is not hurting, technically, but helping, particularly in the minority context. However, I still think it’s unethical in the main. I don’t think an ethical company would want their politics or beliefs, let alone race or sexual orientation, used as the only reason people patronize them over others. Hence, I deem your friends actions to be unethical, if not as bad as other boycotts.

      … am I also boycotting other hotels because I book the same hotel as him to make our travel logistics easier?

      Absolutely not. Apparently, you are motivated by a reason other than the politics/religion/belief/association of the hotel, at least in part. You want to be in the same hotel, and your decision is therefore driven by a more important motivation than hurting the business of other worthy companies.

      In my view of the matter, beliefs etc. are not an invalid consideration unless they are the overarching or singular factor in a buying decision. That’s no less true for patriotic-only decisions to buy Ford or Chevy over Japanese or European brands. If we are to be a free and ethical people, we must think and act like free and ethical people, not slaves to our ideological yokes.

      When I refused to buy French wines for a short while during the Iraq war, I was acting unethically because I was trying to punish the French for their position, not because I preferred wine from other regions. Fortunately, I quickly came to my senses and realized I was an idiot, and don’t intend to repeat that mistake. Besides, I like French wine, and I was mostly hurting me. 🙂

      I wouldn’t think of boycotting Google by not using the more useful Chrome just because of their politics, or Starbucks just because of their stupid nonsense. Now, if there is a Starbucks competitor nearby who offers quality coffee, I may use Starbucks’ politics as one factor in my coffee purchase, but not the main or only one. If I know Starbucks tastes better and the value relationship is not too far out of whack, Starbucks gets the nod.

      Speaking only for me, politics/religion/beliefs/etc. are ethical as a comparatively minor factor in a buying decision, but when it becomes the only or most important factor, we have veered into the land of an unethical boycott, even in a personal decision and without group action.

      The simple ethical analysis boils down to the Golden Rule: Would you be okay with people boycotting your company because of your political/religious etc. beliefs, or those of your relatives? Of course not. Therefore, you shouldn’t do so to others.

      • Glenn, I find your comment insightful and articulate. You have given your position thought and backed it with persuasive argument. It has made me clarify my own thoughts, which agree with you and Jack for the most part. In one parts where I did/do not agree are where I am rethinking.

        I nominate this as Comment of the Day

      • Nice job, Glenn. Thanks for taking the time; I clearly wasn’t getting through. Comment of the Day.

      • Spartan

        I can easily answer your question about GM. I buy GM cars because I have many family members that work for that company, and I want to lend my support (however small) to keeping my family members employed.

        Ethical or unethical?

        • Glenn Logan

          Is that the only reason, or is it just the difference between GM and the others you consider? My suspicion is that you’d consider GM even if your family didn’t work for them. That may be the factor that weighs heaviest significantly, but it isn’t the only one.

          But in any event, my analysis above had to do with beliefs, religion, race, and politics. Family is family, and even if that’s the only reason, I’d have difficulty deeming that unethical.

          Let’s apply the golden rule: If you owned GM, would you want family to buy from you because of that fact? I think most of us would say yes, although I think we’d also hope that our products were worthy on their own merits, and GM products certainly pass that test.

          Analysis: Ethical

          • Glenn Logan

            By the way, when my mother worked for a dealership, I patronized them because of her. Same for one of my best friends, who used to work at another dealership. So I am hardly in a position to say friends and family don’t matter in a purchasing decision.

        • Neither: a non-ethical consideration. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  10. Andrew Wakeling

    Jack, you say : ” GrabYourWallet and everyone who endorses their miserable methods and values must be called out, opposed, derided and shunned, as should any company without the guts, integrity and principles to sand up for this blazing threat to democracy.”

    Sounds like a call to boycott and in your terms ‘unethical’?

    I do think Jack you might withhold your purchasing dollar from those who might seriously offend you ….. eg. for those seeking immediate destruction of all Jack Russells so as to keep America safe. I wouldn’t be with you as a Jack Russell bit my wife (I admit to bias) but I’d certainly stand up for corgis.

    • Look up boycott. I’m not organizing anything, nor seeking to bully or coerce anyone’s position. I am pointing out societally destructive conduct that has to be condemned and rejected by calling it what it is. Conduct and word/opinions are distinct.

      One of the reasons these people are so despicable is that they virtually force everyone into the same tactics. The best solution is backlash: buy more from the boycotted companies. Kelly Ann was right; she just isn’t the one who can say it.

      • Andrew Wakeling

        ‘everyone who ……. must be derided and shunned’ is for me at least a call for action against a group with whom you disagree. Pretty close to a boycott in my book, and more ‘conduct’ than mere ‘words’. ‘Shunning’ in our world involves being cut off and isolated, defriended, sitting on your own and being unable to book a table or slot at the golf club. It might also involve not being able to get your child into pre-school and finding it hard to get work. I don’t think that is what you intend …… or rather I hope it isn’t.

        • I’m an ethicist, and setting societal standards is everyone’s job. My job is to help the process of figuring out the standards. I’m not facilitating, coordinating or leading. I am not saying “Do this, or else.” It’s a position, that I assert as the correct one.

          It isn’t “pretty close” at all. It is materially different in scope, execution and intent.

      • carcarwhite

        Yes!!! That makes sense!!!

        Damn… this pisses me off! In the name of tolerance and acceptance for others, they are shunning and trying to hurt others for having an opinion that is different!

        I can see how they come to that though, thru the little “names” they assign like “homophobe”, “xenophobe”, you are no longer a person with a view you are now because of maybe one view, an EVIL entity which must be stopped. The whole of your life is now reduced to ONE area (maybe more) where you don’t think like the group.

        The arrogance I see around this stuff is sicker than normal because it’s mask is “look how loving and good we are.”

        Ick.

  11. Isaac

    #GrabYourWallet has helpfully created a spreadsheet, complete with all the corporate office numbers of the companies to boycott, and a script so that boycotters can go down the list, call each company, and read the script word-for-word, pretending to be regular customers who are no longer bringing their business. But progressives aren’t some sheeplike, amoral hive mind or anything.

    Also, they include Breitbart news in the list, not because they are a company that actually sells any Trump products or anything, but just because, and I quote, “hate speech site, propogates fake news.” Maybe they’re boycotting spellcheck.

  12. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    For some time I have tried not to buy products “Made in China” because of my understanding that many of their products were made by slave labor in that totalitarian state. This is getting harder and harder to do, but it was my personal choice, and yes, it was a political one.

    #GrabYourWallet requests and requires knee-jerk, group-think decision-making. It is frightening. Soon these deplorables (don’t you think Hillary’s term applies well here?) may be asking that giant “T” signs be placed in store windows, a la Third Reich Germany and the requirement that Jewish stars and “Juden” so notify citizens of who owned a business.

    This is not the country I know. And I blame the Democratic Party — not just for being sore losers but for systematically over the years dividing the nation and making “left think” the single story that can be heard.

    • Chris

      #GrabYourWallet requests and requires knee-jerk, group-think decision-making. It is frightening. Soon these deplorables (don’t you think Hillary’s term applies well here?) may be asking that giant “T” signs be placed in store windows, a la Third Reich Germany and the requirement that Jewish stars and “Juden” so notify citizens of who owned a business.

      Conservatives: Nazi comparisons are ridiculous!

      Also conservatives: Liberals are a lot like Nazis!

      • I can fix that for you:

        Conservatives: “Nazi comparisons with Trump are ridiculous!”

        Conservatives: “Ironic, since it is the Left that is embracing the tactics of totalitarians.”

        Both true.

    • E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

      Excellent article. Will be read only by those with open minds, however — and having just had a look at what’s going on on Facebook — these are increasingly hard to find. The single story (the Big Lie) has taken over, so who’s the totalitarian now?

  13. So is it unethical to seek out the targets of the boycotts (like many did with Chick-fil-a) to support them? I am going to spend X dollars on lunch, and use the boycott to influence my buying decision, for instance.

    • No. Again, that’s what Conway was suggesting, but the law says she can’t suggest it on TV.

      • Glenn Logan

        That’s really the only way to actively oppose a boycott, isn’t it?

        So if opposing a boycott is the ethical thing to do, seeking out boycotted companies for business (although I would object to doing that to the exclusion of others) seems the right thing to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s