This is what I mean by my #3. Doubling down on idiocy is a surefire way to lose my business.

A local bookstore had "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" on display as a Staff Pick, and I explained to the manager that I had, up until that point, considered her staff to be generally helpful and knowledgeable, and that pick had changed my opinion. She said it was a joke, and actually took it down while I was still in the store.

I sometimes boycott a company, but won't tell others to do the same. If I don't agree with the stance a company takes on certain issues, I won't buy from them if other options are available. If I don't have the option to go elsewhere, I will make it known if I find their stance truly offensive.

If you're being serious, a great example is a guy who literally spends aaaalllllllll day posting, sharing, and commenting on anti-religion, mainly Christian (who he refers to as Christ-insanes), Jewish, and Muslim. He also does the same for anti-GOP and refers to them as "Republitards" or "Republiscum". In his clinically-insane little heart he really, truly believes he is fighting the good fight and being a voice for the voiceless. Of course, he also lives in his car and sings on the streetcorner for a living, so, there's that. I'm sure the local McD's is sick of him buying one $1 tea and spending all day there on their WiFi.


Oh, and in case you're wondering he's only still on my list because we have mutual connections and he's been known to slander me to those people and I like to be able to know about it and report it.

For those who say they will not tell others that they are boycotting a company and/or will not expect ("hope"--you cannot force anyone to do anything) others to boycott a company:

Are there ever exceptions to this?

Is there ever a time when someone is patronizing a company and you think they are being a foolish consumer?

Is there ever a time when you feel you cannot avoid telling people that they are being foolish consumers?

Okay, thanks. I was definitely serious because I do not know what people do on faceboook. LOL.

So, when is someone truly being a voice for the voiceless? When are people not being over the top and annoying? Is it only when people agree with their stance?

If I am TRULY against a company, I may mention it to my friends in passing, but k_s not agreeing =/= k_s' friends not agreeing. Generally, I will just take my business elsewhere. My friends are grown and can shop where they want.

If you frequent Nike (for example) and I'm against it, I won't berate you for wearing the shoes. I will mention it if we're having a relevant discussion about child labor laws or something, though.

I understand.

If you told a friend or family member that Nike employs 5 year old children in poorer countries and the friend or family member says "those damn ghetto foreigner kids better get back to work then" and keeps wearing Nike, would that shape your opinion of (Nike and) that friend or family member?

Would it shape my opinion of Nike? No.

My friends and family members who would respond with something like that are doing it to prompt a discussion or bitchfest, so I'd "know" it was coming and would engage that person. It wouldn't be an "OMG WE CAN'T BE FRIENDS NOW" thing, though.

Well, I think it has more to do with them (and not just my example, but "them") thinking that they are actually contributing to society with their Facebook page. Also, when I see the same person post more than about three memes in the same day on the same subject I want to roll my eyes regardless of what the subject is. There are Fan pages for EVERYTHING, and if I wanted to see fuzzy puppies all day, I'd subscribe to the Fuzzie Puppies fan page.

This.

I may say something if the subject comes up, or if a friend asks why I won't buy there, but no Facebook-posting sprees here.

For me, it's none of the above. The answer is sometimes, but it doesn't depend on how badly I need the service, but the nexus between the company's profits and the action it is taking that I oppose.

The fact that a CEO is donating his own money or endorsing candidates I don't like will not usually cause me to boycott. But the company's discriminatory hiring practices or donations to hateful causes will make me boycott.

I don't go to Chik-fil-A often, but there is one near my workplace, and I might have gone there for an occasional treat if I hadn't learned about the boycott on Facebook. So I don't mind that at all.

How dare you! :p Rock the vote!

Is this how you determine the nexus between profits and actions? Determining the nexus should require research on the profit and how the actions impact the profit.

This is a good distinction.

An example I always think of is Whole Foods, because I support much of their work toward sustainability and such, but I do not support many of the owner's political opinions and his treatment of labor.

Profit wasn't the right word -- I meant revenue. If the company is using its revenue to operate, or donate to, things I don't like, I don't want to add to that revenue stream.

I don't claim to apply this perfectly. When I shop at a grocery or department store, I generally don't know the story behind individual products. It's a lot easier to track in a case like Chik-fil-A where the retailer and the products come from the same company.