• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s a subtle but important distinction, IMO.

    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:

    1. these companies, as entities if not people, actually merit hostility for what they are doing in this specific instance
    2. coordinating people’s actions without a direct emotional reason for action is less effective
    • neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      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 🤷‍♀️