![]() |
Quote:
I think people showed up yesterday because they had the perception that a company they have positive feelings about was under attack. Many of the folks who showed up share Dan Cathy's attitude about marriage, no doubt, but I think some others did respond to the bluster in the media about stores not being welcome in certain areas and their concern that people were no longer going to be feel able to express support for traditional marriage. I don't actually think Dan Cathy's freedom of speech was ever in question. You're not guaranteed freedom from the social or economic consequences your speech. I think pulling out a boycott from 1996-1997 and suggesting that a failure to act a certain way then demonstrates the simplest explanation for behavior this week is weird. Particularly when you think about that era producing the Defense of Marriage act, etc. I'm not sure the attitudes then indicate that much about people's present positions and attitudes. I already recognize what follows is unusually stupid. I have clarified a little a couple of posts down ETA: I'm asking this sincerely because I'm trying to think of one, can you think of any other publicized boycotts since the invention and widespread use of social media? Can you think of one when anyone attempted to play the Huckabee role of naming a date for a counter protest? I also think that Chick-fil-a customers may identify with the brand more that the companies involved with other boycotts. No doubt their perception of the company as having Christian values probably feeds that. |
Quote:
Look up One Million Moms and check out the long list of companies they have boycotted including, most recently, Amazon for supporting same sex marriage. |
Quote:
No, I guess what I'm really asking is have their been any boycotts that anybody cared about? [ETA: okay, I expressed that really badly. I know the people involved in the boycotts care, but I can't think of any that clogged up my facebook feed.] What seems different about this to me is that it was a facebook sensation and that someone gave people two distinct protests with dates. If the issue is all about religion, then those other boycotts should have blown up as well, but they didn't. [EATA: I'm just trying to think about why this was different. Is it that everyone loves a culture war in an election year?] |
There have been many boycotts since the invention of social media.
Quote:
;) I'm assuming you have lost your mind. Your post was horrible. The wording was horrible and what seemed to be embedded in your post was questionable. Do you and other people really gauge concern and importance based on what clogs your faceboook feed? This world is definitely coming to an end. |
Quote:
Embedded? Yeah, I agree that I didn't ask what I was actually thinking about very well. Why has the present Chick-fil-a issue blown up? I can't really say if there is more concern or importance to it, but people seem to be talking about it a lot more. It seemed to me that the social media role was slightly different with this one, and that seemed significant. Maybe it's not. There was no real change in Chick-fil-a's position. There was already a Chick-fil-a boycott because of Chick-fil-a's position. Religion was always a factor. Maybe it's just that the folks involved managed the issue in a way that prolonged its coverage. Huckabee named a date which produced scenes that could be shown on the news. The Kiss-In is likely to produce news worthy footage as well. It's an election year. It's not bad economic news. Or maybe interest in the issue will just dry up soon and it won't be any more significant, in attention paid, than other boycotts in the age of social media. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
#2. Yeah, social media helped this go crazy because the people who were targeted for the boycott are the same group who make things go viral on the Internet. One Million Moms will never go viral except with the flu passed from one of their kids to a million of their other kids. #3. It is an election year, so both sides do see an opportunity to rev up the base. It's a problem from both sides. Huckabee wasn't supporting Chik-Fil-A for fear that anyone was really going to go out of business but for a chance to flex some political muscle. at the same time, Human Rights Campaign is sending out emails and writing articles and making new Chik-Fil-A logos with the catch phrase "We didn't invent discrimination. We just support it." People actually believed it was Chik-Fil-A's new logo. :rolleyes: #4. None of this changes the fact that this is a real issue to a large number of Americans. |
Quote:
And again - if this one is so different ... why? Is it really because a mayor blustered, or because it's [perceived as] an attack on traditional Christian values that took major root (particularly in social media), leading to a backlash from traditional sources (Huckabee)? Which one really makes more sense? Clearly the latter, right? This thread leads you to the answer - even those trying to couch their reasons for going to "CFA Day" in anything but Christian values can't help but come back to those values! Quote:
Sometimes a pipe is indeed just a pipe - even if your Facebook feed claims otherwise. |
Quote:
No doubt it's a real issue. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't. I just started thinking about kSig's question about the Disney boycott back in the day and was trying to think of contemporary parallels and couldn't think of anything that got this big. |
Quote:
I just don't think it's particularly relevant to the comparison, since (theoretically) we're comparing motivations and intent. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's how I understand it. 1. Dan Cathy spouts off to a Baptist website. 2. Same-sex marriage advocates expose Cathy's remarks and use them to remind people of Chick-fil-a continued relationship with groups opposed to same-sex marriage rights and renew calls for boycott. 3. A couple of politicians make perhaps ill considered statements about blocking Chick-fil-a expansion in new markets based on the corporations beliefs about same-sex marriage. 4. Chick-fil-a fans don't like the reaction. 5. Huckabee suggests Chick-fil-a appreciation day. 6. Same sex marriage advocates suggest the Kiss In in addition to the boycott as a public response to August 1st. 7. 8/1 Chick-fil-a customers come out in droves to support CFA because they feel it's under attack. 8. We'll see what happens tomorrow |
Quote:
I think Chick-fil-a has a lot of perhaps weirdly loyal customers. The loyalty is probably tied to the Christian identity, but not, in my opinion, especially tied to opposition to same-sex marriage. So when they felt like Chick-fil-a and I'll go along with the idea that traditional/Christian values also were under attack, they were incredibly receptive to Huckabee's idea of a particular day to support CFA. |
Quote:
Starbucks was the subject of controversy again when they announced that customers in our state (and in other states where it's legal) are welcome to open carry firearms in their stores. Some people freaked out and told Starbucks they wouldn't go into their stores as long as they allowed guns, but gun activists organized a day for people to go to Starbucks with their guns. And since then, the gun rights lobby has produced t-shirts, patches, stickers, etc. with the Starbucks mermaid logo and statements like "I love guns & coffee." My husband has one. For what it's worth, I only heard about the CFA stuff on news sites. We don't have any CFA in Washington, in fact there are only a handful on the whole west coast. So I do kinda wonder if the people at the CFA Day were basically just preaching to the choir. It doesn't surprise me that people in the south and midwest rallied for what they feel is a conservative, religious cause. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Did you see a lot of people linking or posting Starbucks stuff during those events or mainly just see it on the corporate page? I read blog stuff about open carry, but not specifically about boycotts, etc. And while you don't have Chick-fil-a, we have a ton of Starbucks and gun-lovers and Christian conservatives. It would be sort of interesting to know if or how much geography relative to the corporate office plays with boycotts or brand support. I think 95% or more of the people who went to CFA Wednesday are people who routinely go to CFA. There were a few people mentioned in articles that I read from states where Chick-fil-a is uncommon or non-existent who drove a couple of hours to go to one, but not only do I agree with your preaching to the choir assessment, I think it was generally the local choir. One of the little blubs that I thought was interesting was a detail from the brand approval reports in the wake of Dan Cathy's comments. For the week after the comments or something like that, brand approval actually went up in the midwest but not in the south. I thought it was kind of odd, not that I expected it to be up in the south but that it went up anyplace. |
Quote:
Certainly, you could generate more participation for a one day splash like either of the events at CFA this week deals than asking people to be in for the long haul. |
Quote:
I wish that my "boycott" meant something, but I never ate there to begin with, so I won't really be hurting them to continue not to eat there. |
Quote:
I think the religious aspect is part of attendance for sure, and I'm sorry that I muddied that up. I think that I previously wanted to tease out, as least locally where I am, that I think there are fans of CFA who participated that aren't necessarily driven by opposing same sex marriage. But yeah, these people are probably Christian. |
Sorry I'm late to the parade, but I'm fired up. Bear with me.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, don't be ignorant because it's convenient. At least check Google before you talk out of your ass again. |
I love it when pshsx1 gets fired up.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
:)
|
Quote:
To the blue:I never did say gays have not been oppressed. My issue is when White gays want to act like they've been oppressed to the same extent as AfAm in the US. To the rest, I'll stick to my guns.;) |
Quote:
Religious text is about interpretation and understanding. Some people claim to take text literally and some people claim that there is an underlying meaning or things that can be inferred. Not everything that people of certain religions believe are explicitly stated in the religious text. Many people claim that their deity (deities) has specifically shown them that their interpretation of religious text (and their opinion/way they are living) is the true word of the deity (deities). If you get into a discussion of what religious text means or disagree with these people, these people will say they will pray (for the religions that call it prayer) that you get saved...or that you are the devil (for the religions that believe in a devil) incarnate. With that said (no quotation marks).... Quote:
|
^^^^^ And anyone quoting or referring to any of those passages will simply say "The Bible says . . . ."
Late for the attaboys to pshsx1, but here it is anyway. |
Quote:
You're right. I agree with what you said above, because in my church we have never approached (and currently don't) those Scriptures to mean or imply the meaning that that is the justification as to why Whites and Blacks can not marry. Now, I've heard other reason given, just not these passages as the reasons. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hell, if we really want to play in the Oppression Olympics, let's talk about Native Americans, shall we? So, for the last time, stop bringing up the "fact" that the LGBTQ community hasn't had it as hard as the African-American community. ;);););) (since you love this face so much) Anyway, the ultimate point of this conversation is that if you went to Chick-Fil-A for food, especially on Huckabee Appreciation Day, you are supporting homophobia, heterosexism, and heterocentrism. Congrats. Saving you a Google trip: Heterocentrism - the societal ideology that heterosexuality is normal, better, and expected. Heterosexism - a system of oppression that assumes all people are heterosexual Homophobia - the fear, hatred, or discomfort with individuals who do not identify as heterosexual |
Oh yeah, and can we also talk about the conservative party (at the moment, the Republicans) in America are always on the wrong side of social rights issues? Yeah. Okay.
|
Quote:
|
A very interesting take on the controversy
http://www.perrynoble.com/2012/08/01...46965925417366
"It simply needs to be pointed out that people on both sides of this argument have been way less than civil with each other…which does nothing more than proves the insecurity in us if we feel like we have to “lower the boom” on people who do not see exactly as we see. Honestly, it is my prayer that people on both sides of the argument would stop yelling at each other and talking about one another and actually sit down and talk to one another understanding that just because two people do not agree on an issue does not mean they have the right to hate one another for it." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry to be a grammar bitch here, but I've seen this word misused several times lately, and it is making me nuts. The correct word for your context is tenet. From Webster: Tenet: noun meaning: "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession " Tenant: noun meaning: "one who holds or possesses real estate or sometimes personal property (as a security) by any kind of right" end hijack// |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.