no he doesn’t. he said personal boycotts aren’t effective
Same thing. This is non-sequitur logic. If an individual action is “not effective”, that’s clearly an endorsement for not boycotting personally, thus patronise.
Nonsense. There’s no “leap” in understanding a definition. Boycotting /means/ patronisation is not okey. To not boycott is to be okay with patronisation. By definition. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot coherently claim it’s not okay to patronise a baddy while taking a stance against boycotting.
Is it okay to patronise bad player X? If not, then boycotting is required. If yes, then you are not boycotting.
Context is paramount. In this context, the supplier is the oppressor. If the supplier is not an oppressor, that’s out of scope.
(edit) btw, endorsing oppression and supporting oppression are not the same thing. I said Doctorow /supports/ oppression with his stance, not that he endorses it. He clearly does not endorse it, but his approach does not do justice to his intent.
No, that difference between those words is important. My stance is in fact that Doctorow does not endorse oppression but he supports it through his actions and advocacy – unintentionally of course.
Only if you don’t know the nuanced difference between “endorsement” and “supports” will you fail to take it seriously. Endorsement deals with deontology (intent) whereas support is utilitarian in meaning.
Same thing. This is non-sequitur logic. If an individual action is “not effective”, that’s clearly an endorsement for not boycotting personally, thus patronise.
no, you’re making a leap of logic
Nonsense. There’s no “leap” in understanding a definition. Boycotting /means/ patronisation is not okey. To not boycott is to be okay with patronisation. By definition. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot coherently claim it’s not okay to patronise a baddy while taking a stance against boycotting.
Is it okay to patronise bad player X? If not, then boycotting is required. If yes, then you are not boycotting.
being ok with patronization is not the same as endorsing oppression. that’s the lep you’re making
Context is paramount. In this context, the supplier is the oppressor. If the supplier is not an oppressor, that’s out of scope.
(edit) btw, endorsing oppression and supporting oppression are not the same thing. I said Doctorow /supports/ oppression with his stance, not that he endorses it. He clearly does not endorse it, but his approach does not do justice to his intent.
this is a semantic game
No, that difference between those words is important. My stance is in fact that Doctorow does not endorse oppression but he supports it through his actions and advocacy – unintentionally of course.
this is so self contradictory no one should take it seriously
Only if you don’t know the nuanced difference between “endorsement” and “supports” will you fail to take it seriously. Endorsement deals with deontology (intent) whereas support is utilitarian in meaning.
you’re stretching the definition of support to meaninglessness.
he’s not endorsing oppression, and saying he is simply is a lie.
You’ll have to quote where I said he was “endorsing” oppression.
Exactly. “Support”, not “endorse”.