@nothings That'll show 'em!
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori So, yes, you need more than 66% of people to boycott in that scenario before you'll see them affected.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@cmuratori Now, maybe you can advance a solid claim about how a 70-80% boycott is unlikely or impossible. But you have to DO THAT.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@cmuratori But you don't do that by citing greensboro sit-ins that DIDN'T PAY MONEY, you do that by citing boycotts never being that big.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori 'Following store policy, the lunch counter staff refused to serve the African American men at the "whites only" counter'1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in "groups went into the place, purchased five-cent cups of coffee..."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@nothings Patronizing the establishment _was the point_. They were always prepared to pay if they were allowed to.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@nothings Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't. And I _didn't_ reference the sit-in you were talking about.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@nothings I _specifically said_ Oklahoma, which was Clara Luper, _who did often pay for stuff_: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-13/local/35235411_1_marilyn-hildreth-clara-luper-sit-ins …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@nothings "...before the drugstore agreed to serve them sodas and hamburgers." Etc., etc.
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.