so you should try to think about your methods and whether they’re effective. if you wouldn’t just hold your breath, it’s probably because you’re smart enough to recognize there is no causal link between your respiratory function and the animal agriculture industry. the same is true of your shopping habits.
There is a causal link. Patronisation feeds money (or profitable data) to the oppressor. There is no reasonable question that patrons increase revenue. There is no reasonable question that revenue supports a company’s operations.
You’re also missing the other point that I made. Reducing the adversary’s revenue is not the only effect. It’s a training exercise. Boycotting puts you into a disciplined lifestyle that enables you to study how the infra works without the oppressor. You see what patrons do not. You support alternative markets and competitors. It enables identification of problems with the alternate path, thus enabling corrective actions.
By refusing to send email to a Microsoft recipient, I consequently support the postal service (which is under threat by email). Support for the postal service is more important than MS’s loss of my profitable data. If the recipient does not publish a physical address and it’s a gov agency, I make an open data demand to force them to publish it, ultimately to enable compeition with MS. The recipient is also burdened by having to deal with paper mail. That burden serves as pressure to use a less controversial email supplier.
but depriving them of that in a disorganized way doesn’t actually cause them to change their methods.
Nonsense. That’s not how business works. A disorganized boycott lacks an express list of demands. That does not mean the oppressor does not know what drives the boycott. If they know what the issue is, the business case wins.
More importantly, as explained in detail, behavior modification is not the only goal. I have no demands for Microsoft. MS is unredeemable. There is nothing they can change to reverse my boycott. The boycott ensures that MS gains no revenue from me. MS loses the empowerment of the capital they would otherwise acquire from my patronage. I am free from serving as an enabler. I force other people to feed Microsoft’s competitors. If they want to talk to me, they cannot use outlook.com.
so you should try to think about your methods and whether they’re effective. if you wouldn’t just hold your breath, it’s probably because you’re smart enough to recognize there is no causal link between your respiratory function and the animal agriculture industry. the same is true of your shopping habits.
There is a causal link. Patronisation feeds money (or profitable data) to the oppressor. There is no reasonable question that patrons increase revenue. There is no reasonable question that revenue supports a company’s operations.
You’re also missing the other point that I made. Reducing the adversary’s revenue is not the only effect. It’s a training exercise. Boycotting puts you into a disciplined lifestyle that enables you to study how the infra works without the oppressor. You see what patrons do not. You support alternative markets and competitors. It enables identification of problems with the alternate path, thus enabling corrective actions.
By refusing to send email to a Microsoft recipient, I consequently support the postal service (which is under threat by email). Support for the postal service is more important than MS’s loss of my profitable data. If the recipient does not publish a physical address and it’s a gov agency, I make an open data demand to force them to publish it, ultimately to enable compeition with MS. The recipient is also burdened by having to deal with paper mail. That burden serves as pressure to use a less controversial email supplier.
no. i read it.
but depriving them of that in a disorganized way doesn’t actually cause them to change their methods.
Nonsense. That’s not how business works. A disorganized boycott lacks an express list of demands. That does not mean the oppressor does not know what drives the boycott. If they know what the issue is, the business case wins.
More importantly, as explained in detail, behavior modification is not the only goal. I have no demands for Microsoft. MS is unredeemable. There is nothing they can change to reverse my boycott. The boycott ensures that MS gains no revenue from me. MS loses the empowerment of the capital they would otherwise acquire from my patronage. I am free from serving as an enabler. I force other people to feed Microsoft’s competitors. If they want to talk to me, they cannot use outlook.com.