I think you are mistaking my position considerably.

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.

Are you really asking if there have been any boycotts since the invention of social media?

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.

Thanks for asking instead of just assuming that I'd lost my mind. ;)

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.


;) 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.

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.

Whose level of concern and importance are facebook feeds supposed to gauge?

LOL. I just have to pick on you because you ETA and it still sucked.


Lasting oppressions that have become a a big topic over the years + media + politicians running their mouths + media + faceboook + media + all that other stuff....

#1. No one cares what One Million Moms has to say because they water down their message by boycotting everyone.
#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.

Yeah ... if this is the (even de facto) standard you're using, we're going to be at a loss to respond, because ... well, it's sort of nonsense to use "your facebook feed" or whatever, but it's also beyond subjective, and isn't really something to respond to.

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!

I think you have this EXACTLY reversed - this blew up in part BECAUSE it's a perceived attack on Christian values (and, of course, because it's an election year, among dozens of other effects) - that's why there was a "second date" set. I think you're mistaking causes and effects.

Sometimes a pipe is indeed just a pipe - even if your Facebook feed claims otherwise.

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.

I do agree with what you're saying here, it's tough to gauge "big" because of the influence of social media.

I just don't think it's particularly relevant to the comparison, since (theoretically) we're comparing motivations and intent.

The difference is that Sen's not trying to stand between you and your civil rights.

I think we're missing each other here. Please break down your version of causes and effects because I'm not getting how they are all that different than mine.

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

I don't think our perceptions of the motivations are that different which makes me think I'm totally missing what you are telling me.

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.

You should have checked out Starbucks' Facebook page the week they announced their support of the equal marriage law in our state. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people from all over the country - but most not from our state - ranting about how they would no longer go to Starbucks. Starbucks loyals - and new customers who were drawn in because of Starbucks' official position - responded by saying they would shop at Starbucks more than ever.

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.

Moms are some of the heaviest users of social media. I just got done working on a study on this topic at work. Motherhood is very isolating for many women, so they turn to blogging and social media networks to interact with others. Moms online are VERY social with each other, they are BIG into sharing, and word spreads like wild fire when they love or hate something.