Yeah just FYI there is no such thing as a boycott that doesn't have collateral damage The whole reason boycotts are hard is that when you punish a whole company or organization, the workers on the bottom suffer more than the owners at the top
-
Show this thread
-
That's one of the many reasons strikes both work better and are more morally defensible than boycotts -- it's workers deciding to withhold their own labor, not customers withholding their dollars (which, if you've read Marx, is a fake abstract form of "value" and not real value)
1 reply 8 retweets 96 likesShow this thread -
But anyway *every single* boycott has the problem that it "hurts the workers" and people who bring that shit up for one boycott but not others are engaging in textbook special pleading I.e. you just want to buy the Harry Potter game and are making excuses
2 replies 12 retweets 91 likesShow this thread
It's not like there aren't a ton of poor people who desperately need their paycheck who would theoretically get hurt short-term from a successful boycott of Amazon, or Chick Fil-A, or a racist bus company
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.