Board 8 > Chick-Fil-A's sales have DOUBLED since the LGBT community called for a Boycott

(+) Yeah! (+)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

That being said, why is it "virtue signalling" to attempt to be marginally more ethical?

this in itself isn't virtue signalling. it is when you're making a super huge deal out of it, though (granted i saw that moreso with the blizzard stuff than this chick-fil-a stuff).

if you quietly boycott blizzard and chick-fil-a that's cool, but it's also rather reactionary and mindless. like, if you would think for yourself instead of just jumping on the bandwagon of the latest thing that everyone's outraged about, maybe you would do even more to change the world for the better.
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

We had no idea what Obama was going to do when he was voted in.

lol yes we did.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

this in itself isn't virtue signalling. it is when you're making a super huge deal out of it, though (granted i saw that moreso with the blizzard stuff than this chick-fil-a stuff).

if you quietly boycott blizzard and chick-fil-a that's cool, but it's also rather reactionary and mindless. like, if you would think for yourself instead of just jumping on the bandwagon of the latest thing that everyone's outraged about, maybe you would do even more to change the world for the better.

You're basically just complaining about tone, then. And what's more, making a big deal about it is how information spreads! How is anyone supposed to care about issues if they don't have people advocating for them? Pushing people to "think for themselves" and get more involved is all well and good but the reality is most people don't have the time, energy, or motivation to personally research what companies and issues they want to get upset about. Let alone the energy to stick to their convictions. So that argument basically falls flat to me - if everyone just quietly cared about issues there would be no group cultural awareness of them.

If you want to make a distinction on virtue signalling where it's seems like...they have to be loud advocates for obvious issues, but they also have to be hypocritical, and they may not be giving up anything or stick to it...I dunno? That seems like a weirdly specific thing to complain about.

---

You knew Obama was going to bomb countries and drone strikes on kids and all the rest before he was even elected president. How? Sure its easy to say that and act all smug now but yeah somehow I dont buy it.

Oh and forgot to say how much I love The Good Place.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You're basically just complaining about tone, then. And what's more, making a big deal about it is how information spreads! How is anyone supposed to care about issues if they don't have people advocating for them? Pushing people to "think for themselves" and get more involved is all well and good but the reality is most people don't have the time, energy, or motivation to personally research what companies and issues they want to get upset about. Let alone the energy to stick to their convictions. So that argument basically falls flat to me - if everyone just quietly cared about issues there would be no group cultural awareness of them.

If you want to make a distinction on virtue signalling where it's seems like...they have to be loud advocates for obvious issues, but they also have to be hypocritical, and they may not be giving up anything or stick to it...I dunno? That seems like a weirdly specific thing to complain about.

what i mean by "making a big deal out if it" is shit like how in lordofthemoron's blizzard topic, lisel opined that the people who didn't loudly condemn blizzard were "scum" and "pieces of shit."

boycotting blizzard is cool, but to assassinate people's characters over being "not anti-blizzard enough" is fucking ridiculous.

so yeah, you're correct in that i'm complaining about tone. i never said i'm against people boycotting blizzard or chick-fil-a, but when you're doing this hysterical "OMG WE HAVE TO FIGHT THESE PIECES OF SHIT WHO AREN'T SPEAKING OUT LOUDLY ENOUGH" thing as part of your "boycott," it does come across as virtue signalling.
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

You knew Obama was going to bomb countries and drone strikes on kids and all the rest before he was even elected president. How?

even during the campaign he was already talking how he was going to handle the war in afghanistan so to a certain extent we did know he was going to "bomb countries," yes.

i'm not saying we knew literally everything he was going to do or that he explicitly lied about certain things ("i'm definitely going to close guantanamo!") but to say "we had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what he was going to do" is a ridiculous exaggeration. don't know if you voted for him but it just comes across as if you're making excuses for having voted for him.

for the record, i didn't vote for obama as i don't live in the US but i loved him back in '08 so i'm certainly no saint in this regard. so i'm not trying to act all smug about this.
---

I've never been because I don't eat disgusting fast food but I donate $100 to them every year for what they stand for.

Nrrr posted...

There are people who care, and they engage in political organizing, not telling people to fight with their dollars, a bougie and ineffective form of activism that reinforces the dangerous myth of the free market being the way to solve global issues.

Yes, the way to solve global issues is at gunpoint. I'm glad this guy gets it.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Solioxrz362 posted...

what's wrong with capitalism

In this very topic we have the general understanding that corporations are bad. There are folks in this topic who try and make themselves feel even more morally superior (even as they do nothing) by claiming well all corporations are evil so how can you do this boycott while living in society hur hur hur Im so smart. Capitalism places a price tag on human life, it makes your only value how much profit you can produce. Its a system that says you deserve to be hungry or sick or homeless if you dont have the right amount of green paper. Scientific advancement is hampered by if itll be profitable or not. Decisions are decided not by their ethics but by their profit margin.

Scientific advancement is actually very well progressed by a free market. People have to make things that people want to buy, and often times that is on the basis of it being new in a way that solves problems better than the products before it did.

Btw pure free market doesn't work, you're right, but capitalism with some regulations is good.

All corporations are not bad, that's a silly thought IMO.
---

this seems to be a semantic debate tbqh. some people (muffin) would argue that "capitalism with regulations" is an oxymoron.
---

This topic reminds me why I dont post here much anymore

Ive been to the chic-fit-a headquarters. It was cool

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

You knew Obama was going to bomb countries and drone strikes on kids and all the rest before he was even elected president. How?

Because I didn't willfully delude myself. That's what it comes down to. He never ran on anti-war principles in 2008 and obviously not in 2012 either, and people still voted for him, Nobel prize and all. It's all delusion, same as Trump supporters now.

We're not even talking about GWB, who despite making the war machine 10x worse, actually did heavily campaign on anti-war rhetoric. Even that though, with his father's example, it would be delusional to believe his campaign promises.

edit: That said, you are right that we didn't know he would drone bomb literal American children. No one said he wasn't surprising in his presidency. But we knew reducing the war was not his priority.

And ultimately even if we didn't know he would bomb kids, you and I are still partly responsible.
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

Btw pure free market doesn't work

That doesn't even mean anything. It's a spectrum, and there are no real edges. Even in the most ancap and the most communist societies ever, it's gray.

The only meaningful argument is whether markets should be more or less free than they are now, and the people you're arguing with will always advocate for less. It's such a weird concession to say "yeah it needs SOME regulation".
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Of course Im yelling at gay people for eating there. Why wouldnt I be?

That's what I am specifically criticizing you for. It's the same kind of anti-empathetic ivory tower nonsense that fuels mentalities like "if you're poor and don't like taxes you're a self hater". Believe it or not, people can think about these things more than you and come to a different conclusion.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

You have to support corporations in order to live in our society. Its built around supporting corporations. Thats what capitalism is.

Like this. It means nothing. If you have to support corps to live in our society, how is it that you and I can choose to boycott CFA? It makes no sense. It's only when people call you out and say "what about McDonalds? Exxon? Amazon? [insert evil corp you support here]" that you pull out this weak ass excuse that you don't have a choice.

I believe that you genuinely liked CFA and it's a sacrifice to give it up, but I also know that you have your own reasons for still buying from all the other corps. You just don't have to pretend that it's a forced interaction, and you don't need to define anyone who has different reasons than you are immoral.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Why would you assume I dont constantly speak out against government atrocities on top of corporate atrocities?

Because your mentality is you don't have a choice in those matters. All problems are caused by capitalism and corporations, so do you really have any attention left for government? Or more importantly, yourself?
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

Scientific advancement is actually very well progressed by a free market. People have to make things that people want to buy, and often times that is on the basis of it being new in a way that solves problems better than the products before it did.

You really think science wouldn't be massively improved if Trump and McConnell controlled all funding?
---

See, that's the rub, "people have to make things that people want to buy", ignoring the things that would be a great boon to humanity and help out all people but would not profitable.

I was a teenager when I voted for Obama.

You have to buy stuff from some corporation or what are you doing? Discounting the mountain man that lives in the wilderness off the land. But you have to have land, you have to have money, what am I meant to do, move? I've lived in the same small town my entire life and no one has money here, least of all me. You boycott the worst ones, but what can you do beyond that? I'll buy from a place till I hear that theyre using child labor, or killing people in foreign countries, or what have you. Where do you buy your gas? Your food? You don't have a choice at participating in society, we just have to do the best we can and only support the lesser evil ones. All i'm saying is that if you go there and know what Chick Fila does than don't call yourself an LGBT ally, it's not right to eat there just because all business are shit.

What? Of course I have attention left, how could I not? I've argued about six different things since breakfast. Sure capitalism is evil and causes many problems but I'd hardly say it caused all problems. The world was still horrible before capitalism after all. But this society was set down long before any of us were born and I was raised in it. The system to changing it is rigged, the news is biased, and every store is owned by one fo the only five corporations. And they own the government too. That person we elected just took a million bucks from whatever company to vote the way they want, no matter what they said before they got elected. They control our country way more than the government proper because they have the most money. What exactly is the alternative choice we have?

But we know all corporations are bad. And who doesn't think they aren't bad. They're literally trying to pragmatically and ruthlessly make as much money as possible, which is bad, you know? It screws people over. If you're religious at all it's called one of the worst sins in the Bible.

People who think capitalism is bad or evil are honestly some of the funniest I read.

This whole topic has been entertaining.

Real talk though, without capitalism do you think anyone would have figured out how to mass produce medicine to sell it nearly as fast? Do you think we would have had cars or planes as early as we did?
Capitalism has probably saved more lives by increasing the life expectancy than the bad it does.

Human greed is the greatest source of innovation.

(PS: People saying corporations are evil may actually be more hilarious)
---

^ For the uninitiated, that's what privilege looks like.
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

^ For the uninitiated, that's what privilege looks like.

^ For the uninitiated that's what an ad hominem fallacy looks like due to not knowing how to argue.
---

And anyone who thinks they are better than a corporation should really look in a mirror and ask themselves if they are doing it to make the world better or to make themselves look better.

Giving up your chick-fil-a to eat is great and all, but if you really want to be altruistic you should be living on the bare minimum and donating the rest of your money to starving kids in africa. Obviously you'll be able to find a perfect charity that does nothing wrong and has no demerits.

Although really thats inefficient. Sure you'll make yourself feel better but is that really the greatest good you can do.

What you can instead do is build up a company, take a bunch of money from rich people and save up large amounts of money. You can be greedy and donate to charities only for tax breaks as you acquire more and more wealth. You then reinvest that money to make more money until you have built yourself a corporation. You are the epitome of capitalism.

Then when you are near retirement in your late years you start your own charity, one you make sure is doing a good thing and help the world far more than whatever boycotting you plan on doing.

If you think you have helped the world more than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, both capitalist, than it must be nice to live in your own world where you pick and choose the best way to help the world instead of doing critical thinking and thinking about what ACTUALLY helps the world.
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

^ For the uninitiated, that's what privilege looks like.

How do you figure? Which system did it better?

Colegreen_c12 posted...

And anyone who thinks they are better than a corporation should really look in a mirror and ask themselves if they are doing it to make the world better or to make themselves look better.

Giving up your chick-fil-a to eat is great and all, but if you really want to be altruistic you should be living on the bare minimum and donating the rest of your money to starving kids in africa. Obviously you'll be able to find a perfect charity that does nothing wrong and has no demerits.

Although really thats inefficient. Sure you'll make yourself feel better but is that really the greatest good you can do.

What you can instead do is build up a company, take a bunch of money from rich people and save up large amounts of money. You can be greedy and donate to charities only for tax breaks as you acquire more and more wealth. You then reinvest that money to make more money until you have built yourself a corporation. You are the epitome of capitalism.

Then when you are near retirement in your late years you start your own charity, one you make sure is doing a good thing and help the world far more than whatever boycotting you plan on doing.

If you think you have helped the world more than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, both capitalist, than it must be nice to live in your own world where you pick and choose the best way to help the world instead of doing critical thinking and thinking about what ACTUALLY helps the world.

this post sucks
---

I bet your tongue is solid black from all the boots you've been polishing today colegreen. I'm always annoyed by people who want everyone to know how 'amused' they are by the subject as if that somehow makes them beyond it. It just makes you a bore because that's what pseudo-intellectuals say to make themselves feel smart and above it all when it's really because they have no strong conviction or morality of their own so seeing it in others fills them with shame and rage.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I bet your tongue is solid black from all the boots you've been polishing today colegreen. I'm always annoyed by people who want everyone to know how 'amused' they are by the subject as if that somehow makes them beyond it. It just makes you a bore because that's what pseudo-intellectuals say to make themselves feel smart and above it all when it's really because they have no strong conviction or morality of their own so seeing it in others fills them with shame and rage.

Im sorry if you cant fool yourself into thinking your a good person after my posts.

I know im not a good person. But i also am not an evil person. Im a selfish person, same as you. The only difference is i acknolwedge it while you try to run from it.
---

Anyways i might check back in to see if anyone seriously wants to try and show how corporations or capitalism are evil.

I expect most people will just justify my condescending attitude by showing they can't argue any of my points and would rather just attack me or just blankently dismiss my argument because it doesn't conform to their world view.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm being likable here, but that was never my goal. My goal was primarily entertainment, and a small part wanted to see if i could get anyone to think critically about things. (I'm not saying that people in this topic aren't, a few are but a large majority are not).

And as a follow up response to @PerfectChaosZ. Don't assume that I have no strong morality or conviction of my own. Although I have no idea how you would get that from my post in the first place. I simply think about it logically and choose to embrace capitalism and build up wealthy as much as I can during my life to have the greatest impact when I die. If for example I could save 10 people a year or build up my wealth throughout my life and save 5000 people when I die I choose to later simply. My conviction is to do what I know will have the greatest benefit rather than care what people think of me or to have the "good" point of view when I really know it's the lazy point of view.
---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Anyways i might check back in to see if anyone seriously wants to try and show how corporations or capitalism are evil.

please defend sweatshops
---

Huh this topic certainly went a place
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Anyways i might check back in to see if anyone seriously wants to try and show how corporations or capitalism are evil.

please defend sweatshops

If you think sweatshops are a defining feature of capitalism you misunderstand what capitalism is.

Alternatives such as communism or socialism could just as easily have these same things, in some cases they could be worse. At least in a capitalist society workers theoretically could work somewhere else (yes I know that in practical conditions that isn't the case). In a communist society the same thing could easily happen, and in that case you wouldn't have a choice.

Additionally you are blaming capitalism or corporations for this, when really both of those things are just tools. What you really should be blaming are the people making those decisions. Yes capitalism lets people in power and people with influence make shitty choices, but that is in the case in basically every alternative as well.

Additionally I am not arguing for unrestricted capitalism, I am all for government regulations to a degree for protections against this stuff.

Basically capitalism is not evil because it is basically a tool. A tool can not be good or evil, merely the user of the tool can be good or evil. People have used capitalism to do good things for the world, such as advancing technology including healthcare by figuring out how to mass produce it and make it accessible. People building up great wealth and using it to give back to the world such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, all the while creating large numbers of jobs. People have also used it to do shitty things but a lot of those shitty things would have happened regardless.

If you really think society would have progressed as far as it would have without capitalism, I don't know what to tell you. If you think some examples of bad things it does makes it inherently evil I don't know what to tell you.
---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Additionally you are blaming capitalism or corporations for this, when really both of those things are just tools. What you really should be blaming are the people making those decisions.

i mean, if your argument is "corporations aren't evil because they're an abstract concept without consciousness or the ability to think and make decisions but the people owning those corporations ARE evil," sure, i can agree with that. that seems like kind of a pedantic argument, though. obviously, when perfectchaosz said "corporations," he was talking about the people owning the corporations.
---

also, no fucking way sweatshops could exist in a socialist society. a socialist society would have shit like minimum wage, workers' rights, etc. that would prevent sweatshops from happening.
---

And I don't think it matters if capitalism is "just a tool" if we keep having those using that tool abusing it to put others down. Which will continue to happen as long as it is a thing, sorry to say even with your saviors Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as you keep citing.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Additionally you are blaming capitalism or corporations for this, when really both of those things are just tools. What you really should be blaming are the people making those decisions.

i mean, if your argument is "corporations aren't evil because they're an abstract concept without consciousness or the ability to think and make decisions but the people owning those corporations ARE evil," sure, i can agree with that. that seems like kind of a pedantic argument, though. obviously, when perfectchaosz said "corporations," he was talking about the people owning the corporations.

His argument was that the concept of corporations are evil because they try to make money. I am willing to say that if you want to view a corporation as evil if it run by evil people that is fine. But even in that case I would say that some corporations are evil, some are good and some are neutral. Same as people. Corporations are basically an extension of people so saying they are universally evil means you think people are universally evil which is what I take offense to.

Mind you I don't think people are universally good either, I actually think people are generally neutral.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

But we know all corporations are bad. And who doesn't think they aren't bad. They're literally trying to pragmatically and ruthlessly make as much money as possible, which is bad, you know? It screws people over. If you're religious at all it's called one of the worst sins in the Bible.

This quote is what the real problem I have with what he's trying to say. He acts like corporations are inherently evil when in reality they are just a tool. If someone uses a corporation to make a bunch of money to donate to others I would argue that the corporation is good. Because the people behind it are good. Separating corporations and capitalism from people just show to me a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. Boycotting something is a facet of capitalism after all
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

also, no fucking way sweatshops could exist in a socialist society. a socialist society would have shit like minimum wage, workers' rights, etc. that would prevent sweatshops from happening.

That's uh, not true. If you had a socialist society in a very very poor society everyone would essentially be working in a sweatshop. Or do you think a poor society could make money out of nowhere and give everyone great lives
---

Bane_Of_Despair posted...

And I don't think it matters if capitalism is "just a tool" if we keep having those using that tool abusing it to put others down. Which will continue to happen as long as it is a thing, sorry to say even with your saviors Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as you keep citing.

I never said capitalism was "good". I just said it was not "evil". There may be better alternatives that could be inherently good. But a lot of those things are only even possible after piggybacking on what capitalism has brought us.
---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

This quote is what the real problem I have with what he's trying to say. He acts like corporations are inherently evil when in reality they are just a tool. If someone uses a corporation to make a bunch of money to donate to others I would argue that the corporation is good. Because the people behind it are good. Separating corporations and capitalism from people just show to me a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. Boycotting something is a facet of capitalism after all

If capitalism as a tool is only good if the people with the money are good and choose to do good things, why don't we instead take their money and ensure it's going to good things?

edit: fine, "not evil"

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Colegreen_c12 posted...

This quote is what the real problem I have with what he's trying to say. He acts like corporations are inherently evil when in reality they are just a tool. If someone uses a corporation to make a bunch of money to donate to others I would argue that the corporation is good. Because the people behind it are good. Separating corporations and capitalism from people just show to me a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. Boycotting something is a facet of capitalism after all

If capitalism as a tool is only good if the people with the money are good and choose to do good things, why don't we instead take their money and ensure it's going to good things?

edit: fine, "not evil"

And who do you propose does that? The government? Then you are just trusting the government to choose to do good things with it instead of an individual which always goes well.

At the end of the day some human is going to decide what to do with the money and it can either be good or bad. The best you can do is put in checks and rules to make sure it does as best as it can. And you can do that in a capitalist economy as well as a socialist/communist society.

Additionally, say we were in a purely communist society like we are suggesting, say it somehow magically only has altruistic people in charge. Are you ok with the fact that you may be stunting innovation? Is a capitalist society that innovates enough to solve world hunger and global warming in 100 years better? Or a is a communist society that has slower innovation but more equality but doesn't solve those problems until 200 years better?

I can't say one way or the other, but the point is that it's not black and white. Both have their pros and cons.
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

And who doesn't think they aren't bad

The ones who are alive right now because even though society deemed them worthless mistakes of nature, some greedy asshole found a way to capitalize off of their misfortune and in the pursuit of money, is actually serving their needs for once.

This is what I mean when I say statements like these are borne of ignorance and anti-empathy:
PerfectChaosZ posted...

ignoring the things that would be a great boon to humanity and help out all people but would not profitable

You're the one who is ignoring all the things that ALREADY have been a great boon to humanity but were never SOCIALLY profitable (as opposed to financially profitable). You imagine a society where everyone's needs are met because 51% agree on something, even though there's absolutely no mechanism to support the minorities. This is why people say "socialism doesn't work" or "communism has never really been tried". There is simply no history for it, and definitely no logic behind it.

And yes I am definitely saying capitalism is straight up good. NOT """capitalism""" which kids nowadays use to refer to modern keynesianism of the last 100 years (which is obviously bad). But capitalism meaning selling your labor to build capital and use it in a free market.

So go ahead and explain what services capitalism is failing to provide, and how anti-capital solves that. Protip: avoid mentioning any issues caused by anti-market force, or issues which solving would imply one or multiple genocides, or else you'll be laughed out.
---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

I can't say one way or the other, but the point is that it's not black and white. Both have their pros and cons.

This is so centrist I almost threw up
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Colegreen_c12 posted...

I can't say one way or the other, but the point is that it's not black and white. Both have their pros and cons.

This is so centrist I almost threw up

I guess saying I can't say one way or the other is probably going too far. Probably went too far trying to sound neutral there for the sake of the argument
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

What? Of course I have attention left, how could I not?

My point is, if you don't think you have a choice in certain government actions, then how can you give them your attention? It would be like protesting the sun rising in the morning. Either you're completely wasting your time fighting an impossible enemy, or you ignore/dismiss it, which (in my argument) leads to moral blind spots.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Either you're completely wasting your time fighting an impossible enemy

This one

Sales haven't doubled
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

^ For the uninitiated, that's what privilege looks like.

luuulll

that's fucking hilarious

this feels like it's ripped straight off of the twitter page of someone who thinks they're woke
---

I bet they could make another couple billy if they operated on Sunday instead of being a bunch of pussy bible nerds who can't even commit to holding the gays down every day because they still like sucking dick on weekends or something

and fuck chickens