No introduction here – let’s just jump into a list of boycotts against companies grouped according to the political leaning of the group(s) leading the call:
Here is a partial list of boycotts called for or enacted to some degree by supporters of liberal causes:
Company: Best Buy and Target
Why: Contributions to Tom Emmer, US Representative from Minnesota opposed to gay marriage
Why: Company executives stated position against the LGBTQ community
Company: Companies advertising on Laura Ingraham’s show
Why: Laura’s attacks against the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Company: Multiple, several film and television studios
Why: State of Georgia’s legislative opposition to abortion access
Why: Company’s financial contributions to detention centres at the southern border
Here are some example of boycotts called for or enacted to some degree by conservatives:
Why: Colin Kaepernick as spokesperson despite kneeling during national anthem to protest police aggression against minorities
Why: A select line of packaging raising trans awareness, encouraging people to share their pronouns
Why: An ad campaign that highlights the ways society harms men with expectations of what men should be and how those expectations can turn men into people who harm others
Company: Nike again
Why: Removal of sneakers with the Betsy Ross flag because of associations with slavery
Why: Because the animated fictional mythological character from the Caribbean wasn’t a red-haired Danish girl in the one version of the film
Why: Trump doesn’t like CNN (seriously, he called for this)
Why Mention This?
Conservatives have this notion in the United States today that everyone has equal claim to their opinion, as though the mere act of having the opinion gives it equal standing to all others. When the libs and SJWs get all bent out of shape about “stupid crap” like gay people not having the same legal rights as straight people, that’s just as valid as their annoyance with companies who stand against what they believe.
I want everyone to observe a key difference about the nature of these debates and boycotts though.
Liberal calls for boycott are because companies are tied in some way to active harm towards a group of people, generally in the form of denying basic human rights.
Conservative calls for boycott are because they do not like how the perceived slight affects them and their belief.
Let’s pick on one example from each.
On the one hand, we might have a conservative who “doesn’t hate gay people, but believes marriage is between one man and one woman.” Except, our society revolves around the institution of marriage, so we attach certain legal rights to the marital status of individuals. Legislation against gay marriage actively denies those rights for an entire group of people for one specific reason: who they love (which is not a “choice” – when the hell has anyone chosen to whom they felt attracted?).
On the other hand, we have a conservative who is upset that Colin Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem because they find it disrespectful to the country/flag/anthem/veterans/whatever. Here’s the thing though, whether Kaepernick stands, kneels, or plays a one-man band like Bert at the beginning of Mary Poppins during the national anthem, none of those things are affected. We could discontinue the practice of performing the national anthem before sporting events and it wouldn’t change anything.
Seriously, review the lists again.
Nabisco doesn’t do the special trans Oreos packaging? Trans people still exist and still deserve rights. Gillette doesn’t run that ad? Society is still left dealing with the harmful effects of gender expectations.
On the other side? If abortion is made completely illegal, women die and abortions still happen. Financing the current detention centres maintains the living conditions those individuals face. The LGBT+ community loses basic human rights.
Yes, if you are on the side of these things, you are racist/sexist/etc. That’s the whole point. These are practices specifically targeting individuals because they are (perceived) members of said group. Even if you conclude, “I’m not opposed to them, but that practice is fine,” then you are in fact opposed to them.
You think people should stand during the national anthem? Then you stand during the national anthem.
You think people should keep marriage between one man and one woman? Then if you‘re a man, marry a woman. If you‘re a woman, marry a man.
You think people should “keep Christ in Christmas”? Then you keep Christ in Christmas.
That’s supposed to the beauty of the United States: personal liberty and freedom. We specifically do not get the right to control what other people do. The mistake in thinking here, the false equivalence, is that liberals are attempting to control what conservatives do. That’s simply not the case.
When one supports the right of an individual to kneel during the national anthem, it’s also support for the right of an individual to stand.
When one supports the right of a gay couple to get married, it’s also support for the right of a straight couple to marry.
No one is demanding that others do anything particular – the argument is 100% that one cannot stop someone else from doing it. The whole of society does not pivot around the opinion of an individual, and one’s belief that others should not do something is itself inadequate reason to legislate that others not do it. With the matters in question, the rights in question are so basic that we do not have adequate reason to withhold them.