As a business, if the management at these companies perceives an undeniable threat to the financial interests of their company, they are literally required by law to mitigate that threat
This seems like a good reason not to support them financially if they comply with fascist demands.
I’m very sure that Disney leadership is absolutely bristling at the undue influence being brought to bear on them by the FCC chairman
Disney the corporation isn’t the people running it because as you’ve pointed out there are systemic factors forcing their hands. For that reason it doesn’t make sense to translate sympathy for what you might imagine they are feeling into sympathy for the company itself. Our relationship as consumers with these companies is inherently adversarial, and there’s no need to anthropomorphize them, or take into consideration what would feel “fair” if a company could be thought of as a person, which it shouldn’t.
This seems like a good reason not to support them financially if they comply with fascist demands
As I said, there are plenty of good reasons not to support these companies financially. I am NOT arguing against withholding your patronage from these service providers. But it has little to do with their willingness to comply with fascist demands and everything to do with creating an environment where the business faces a greater existential threat from losing customers than they do from pushing back against the fascists. It’s a subtle but important distinction, IMO.
Disney the corporation isn’t the people running it
Then the meme should use “that which” instead of “those who”. I don’t disagree with you but the meme is pretty clearly saying “the people in charge are supporting fascism” rather than “we can force change by hurting the business’ bottom line”.
I’m not clear on what the purpose or justification for it is. To me it sounds like what you’re arguing is that these companies are not valid targets for moral condemnation, even if they might be valid targets for a strategic boycott. But why shouldn’t they be? Why wouldn’t this justify angrily calling for and acting towards their destruction, rather than attempting a strategic negotiation that is not overtly hostile? To me the former has two big advantages:
these companies, as entities if not people, actually merit hostility for what they are doing in this specific instance
coordinating people’s actions without a direct emotional reason for action is less effective
Because it’s disingenuous and provides a clear avenue for counter-attack.
I don’t want to get into an argument with everyone over the morality of these companies. That is a far less pressing concern than the fascists on our doorstep. And when your opposition is unscrupulous they will delight in any distraction from their faults.
I’m essentially performing triage. The infection doesn’t matter if the heart has been destroyed. Stop the bleeding first, then handle the infection.
And if “fascists are wantonly disregarding the first amendment” isn’t enough of a direct emotional reason for action then we’ve already lost 🤷♀️
This seems like a good reason not to support them financially if they comply with fascist demands.
Disney the corporation isn’t the people running it because as you’ve pointed out there are systemic factors forcing their hands. For that reason it doesn’t make sense to translate sympathy for what you might imagine they are feeling into sympathy for the company itself. Our relationship as consumers with these companies is inherently adversarial, and there’s no need to anthropomorphize them, or take into consideration what would feel “fair” if a company could be thought of as a person, which it shouldn’t.
As I said, there are plenty of good reasons not to support these companies financially. I am NOT arguing against withholding your patronage from these service providers. But it has little to do with their willingness to comply with fascist demands and everything to do with creating an environment where the business faces a greater existential threat from losing customers than they do from pushing back against the fascists. It’s a subtle but important distinction, IMO.
Then the meme should use “that which” instead of “those who”. I don’t disagree with you but the meme is pretty clearly saying “the people in charge are supporting fascism” rather than “we can force change by hurting the business’ bottom line”.
I’m not clear on what the purpose or justification for it is. To me it sounds like what you’re arguing is that these companies are not valid targets for moral condemnation, even if they might be valid targets for a strategic boycott. But why shouldn’t they be? Why wouldn’t this justify angrily calling for and acting towards their destruction, rather than attempting a strategic negotiation that is not overtly hostile? To me the former has two big advantages:
Because it’s disingenuous and provides a clear avenue for counter-attack.
I don’t want to get into an argument with everyone over the morality of these companies. That is a far less pressing concern than the fascists on our doorstep. And when your opposition is unscrupulous they will delight in any distraction from their faults.
I’m essentially performing triage. The infection doesn’t matter if the heart has been destroyed. Stop the bleeding first, then handle the infection.
And if “fascists are wantonly disregarding the first amendment” isn’t enough of a direct emotional reason for action then we’ve already lost 🤷♀️