Dude warped do you really not know anything about Chick-fil-a? It wasn't just "some higher up", it was the fuckin owner that said it. And regardless of whether you think all the managers share the same beliefs (hint: they do, it's part of their whole image. Their whole point is that they support Christian fundamentalist values or whatever bullshit; and it's not like in-n-out who print JOHN 3:16 on their cups or whatever, they actively espouse those beliefs), their profits fund anti-LGBT movements and legislation. It's like saying "oh mormons aren't so bad just let them believe whatever they want". If it was just that nobody would care, it's that they mobilize and fund huge amounts of anti-LGBT propaganda and all kinds of shit.
Yeah I'll admit I lack clarity of who the guy that said it exactly was in the companies structure. I thought he WAS the owner then someone told me he was the owner's son (wait what), then I was told he just didn't own the company, now you are telling me he does. Some people say one source is more legit than the other so I'm seriously lost on that.
But yeah saying every manager and employee of Chik-Fil-A is a gay hater basically a statistical impossibility. Maybe MAJORITY. But how would you even know that? what is your sources? Was their a survey? An depth investigation? from who?
Again, I've heard conflicting reports on how bad the organizations exactly are. I took the rightwing stance "that they aren't so bad" because 'innocent until proven guilty'. In my eyes they are still not proven guilty. By default I assume innocent. So if you could, link me some sources. I'm getting most of my shit from second hand (talking to people in person, especially multiple people, makes it hard to fact check everyone even with access to Google.)
I mean you can't just say "YOU GUYS THIS IS POINTLESS TO TALK ABOUT" because it's actually important. Nobody gives a shit what some random person believes in, and if it was just the owners' personal beliefs nobody would give two shits; it's because they actively participate and fund in anti-LGBT bullshit, and that's why it's important.
I never said it was pointless to talk about. I understand its important. Nor did I say screw the gays. Just like when I pirate software I'm not saying "fuck developers". If you think I am then I guess there is no where to go from here because this has become subjective.
Also "I don't care what they do, I just want their cool shit" is the worst reason for doing anything. You don't get your precious greasy chicken? Oh no, screw the gays lets get greasy and party!
You are over blowing what I'm saying. I shouldn't have to damage my lifestyle to stay ethical.
Anyone who's idle in the face of injustice is complicit.
See I don't completely agree, complicit to me in this case would be where you basically have nothing to lose. If a bully is beating someone up I wouldn't interfere directly because I don't want to have my teeth knocked out. I might do something else to stop it if I think I can do it without worry that the bully may come after me later though or maybe if I think I can take the bully on without repercussions to myself.
I don't think you really understand how these things come to be. Boycotts take time to organize. It takes time to get the message through to everybody who might be willing to participate. It usually takes some media attention (sometimes the alternative media, in this case the mainstream).
Yeah I don't because I don't participate in boycotts. :P
Furthermore, I don't see why you're insisting that the boycott is supposedly about the CEO's personal views. It's been made pretty clear that this is about his money being used to actively oppress people). When a CEO of a company makes his horrible personal views known to the world he's practically inviting people to look at his record, and that's one of the things that got the ball rolling.
Because it really doesn't seem completely clear whether or not the reason is one thing or another that people are doing either. I don't think most of the people on either side are really on the same page. Its just TEAM A VS TEAM B. People argue about EVERYTHING TO WIN THE ARGUMENT AND BE SATISFIED. We don't argue for truth or good. We argue to assert that we are right, good, or just better/best.
But yeah, your point that the guy opened his record up for more investigation is a pretty good argument actually. And I sort of thought you might go with that actually (see I'm doing it to, trying to win... and I kind of hate myself for it because its not logical) BUT I really do think there are plenty of people boycotting Chik-Fil-A merely because of his comments. Which is a dumb reason.
SURE some, probably even MOST of the people actually boycotting it (and not just saying they wont eat at a restaurant they never would have eaten at anyway) are doing it for the reasons you specify. I still look at them as aliens for giving up something they really like.
Now you're just being apologetic. You admit that Chik-fil-a is donating to these groups, but "they're not so bad" because "they're only against gay marriage, and it's not like they're racists or anything". What kind of a defense is that? Do you believe gay marriage should be illegal? If not, why on earth would you tout their beliefs as a good thing?
No I stated that I don't think it should be illegal. I DON'T TOUT THEIR BELEIFS AS A GOOD THING C'MON MAN YOU READ MY POST. I'm saying on a level from 1 to 10 of being dicks they are on the lower scale of dickery and dumbness.
This is pure homophobia, and although some of these organizations may not be classified as hate groups (note: the Family Research Council has been called a hate group by the well-respected Southern Poverty Law Center), we have to acknowledge that they're no better than the KKK. The KKK was against full citizenship for black people, the FRC is against full citizenship for gay people. It's astonishing to me you can defend this.
My next question is how am I supposed to know that Southern Poverty Law Center is well respected? And I know I talk about SOURCES AND SHIT even my mind turns to: WAIT ISN'T THAT A FALLACY? Appeal to authority. Shit its almost like its technically impossible to know anything as a fact (because it is). I just go by whats statistically most likely. But yeah I defend them so much in that I didn't place them in the hole of "Morally bankrupt" like the KKK and Westboro. Again though it was second hand knowledge passed to me so... now I guess I'm not so sure. (I bet your at least somewhat satisfied that I've that I might have been wrong? But I always know that I might be wrong. I don't really trust any information completely. This was more of "I HEARD THIS ARGUMENT, HOW DO YOU RESPOND?" Should I not do that? I kind of like doing that.)
You're just posting propaganda now. First of all, if I were to list all the horrible things the FRC is responsible for, this post would likely go over the length limit. And actually, they are involved in the Uganda "kill the gays" bill. Every single important individual who went to Uganda to push this legal murder of gay people is actually involved with the FRC. Every one. The only reason they finally put out a statement against the bill (undercut somewhat by them actively lobbying to defeat a resolution condemning the bill) is because of some very good reporting on the matter that clearly implicated them, such as by Rachel Maddow. They couldn't keep actively working to further the bill anymore without destroying their reputation domestically.
OK, again. I back off here. I guess I did not know the facts, I just heard an argument and thought that I might see how you guys responded to it. (But I guess I should feel bad anyway? weird I just got a sense of deja vu)
I'm rather surprised at all of this, actually. I'm well aware that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but now you're just eating up right-wing propaganda and spitting it out here without a shred of critical thought.
Well, I guess I should have known you thought was wasn't very intelligent.
If a fast food chicken sandwich is more important than you than the rights of gay people, fine. Your decision. But stop telling people not to fight back. It's obviously easy for you to say, since you're not the one whose throat is being stepped on. This is just privilege talking as usual.
The fast food isn't more important that the rights of gay people. But I think losing out on the sandwich is unnecessary in fixing the problem. I'd rather just replace all the people that hate gay people in Chik-Fil-a with people that don't or destroy the anti-gay organizations they fund directly.
Actually, the "first amendment" reason didn't come until much later, because the attempted ban of Chik-fil-a in some small local community came long after the idea of organizing a day of support for the company.
OK, you got sources? (really I just want all the sources so I can absorb them later, I kind of want to shelve this dicussion untill I read more i guess. but I'll still obviously respond to further responses)
As much as I hated the disgusting day of support for Chik-fil-a, this is how you change things: by well-organized personal protests with large turnouts. It turned out to be extremely easy in this particular case because the protest consisted of driving to your local fast food restaurant and ordering something, but it's still the basic template.
OK I suppose this is jsut a case of me not wording things very well: Whether or not their effective, I think boycotting/or stuffing you face in reaction to this controversy is dumb. If I wasn't in the mood for chik-fil-a (sometimes is the case) I'm not going to go eat it because of some organized political event.
Boycotting can have an effect. But what you get isn't worth what you sacrifice for when you can jump right over the sacrifice part. While I don't know of to many things we can do, I'd be shocked if our only option was to sacrifice something like this to get legalized gay marriage.
I know that fast food chicken seems absurd as something one doesn't want to sacrifice but its just not something I can sacrifice in the case. and If I was I'd be disingenuous because I wouldn't care enough about their food in the first place. Like, I might be willing to stop going to burger king, or mcdonalds, or White Castle, because I don't like any of those fast food places very much anyway. But I'd hardly be boycotting them since I basically never go there anyway.
This notion that protest actions are ineffectual as a rule is just naive, and the reason people make this observation is because you can never immediately see the results of such an action. But just like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s had its impact through massive protests, the protesters have in this case shown the world that this disgusting anti-gay fast food vendor actually has a base of support. That matters in every aspect of society, not the least of which is the politicians who make the rules and have to answer to their constituents.
See above.
Actually, no, it was the former. There are a number of social issues that the so-called Religious Right identifies with. The only one that Chik-fil-a has made a big fuss about was the issue of marriage equality. You can check this yourself by going through the record of the people who supported the protest or who covered it: try to find even one mention of the other issues.
Yeah, I know that this is the only issue. I'm saying that the people are mostly delusional and stubborn. Sure there are probably a couple that are truly hateful of gays. but you are assuming to much of these people that they even understand what the fuck they are doing. They all live in a republican 1950's dream world.
Such grandeur to say that my comment on the American spirit is "deflected" by you, as if you represent the American people.
I don't represent the american people. I don't have illusions of grandeur. I just figured what you said was directed at me.
Hell, I wouldn't consider myself grand if such were the case anyway. Despite what you might think I don't think I share all the same opinions of the Americans surrounding me.
I'm really astonished by how straight a face you're keeping while telling someone not to care about gay people actively being oppressed because the oppressor makes such great chicken sandwiches. Please refer back to my earlier comment about this being so representative of the American spirit and tell me again how you single-handedly deflect my point.
You can't see my face.
And I was never telling them to not care. I'm telling them you can care but I think you are crazy for giving up this delicious food.
Also semi-related:
The American spirit is "TYPE A PERSONALITIES ARE THE BEST" which I don't even closely resemble. American spirit is "You can always succeed if you work hard enough. If you are failing its your own fault and you have earned our disgust."
Go ahead and apply that to the other people, I don't worship type A's
When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.
See my above statements. I think its pretty absurd to suggest someone avoiding such a fight is 'cheering on the bully'.
btw Warped655 I'm not saying you're required to take part in the boycott (even though yeah you shorta kinda should), I'm saying that if you're so infatuated with their products that you don't want to protest them, you should at least have the basic moral decency to not tell others they should drop their principles. By doing that, you're projecting your own personal choice among conflicting interests onto other people.
I just can't relate to them is all. I used the word 'dumb'. that was my mistake.
And I think that's also what's driving the silly notion that a boycott just doesn't help: you personally can't make the choice to join, so you have to defame the movement so that idly standing by is not such a bad thing. I'm thousands of kilometers away and I know not to go to Chik-fil-a if I ever get the chance: would that have been possible without a well-organized movement? The practical result of all of this is that this company is very likely going to have much less profit to give to these hateful right-wing groups. Yet the protest movement is "not how you change things politically". Does anyone actually believe that except you? Open your eyes to what's happening and critically evaluate the events that are unfolding. Just to note one example, Jon Stewart covered the counterprotest recently and turned the entire anti-gay movement into a laughing stock. And not through a distortion of their views, but simply by accurately displaying them. And he's not alone. This Chik-fil-a protest has the capacity to become a quite important step towards marriage equality because it has woken people up to just how broad and large a public support base there is. Do you think a massive boycott of a moderately large fast food place for the purpose of gay rights could have happened 10 years ago?
Stop eating up right-wing propaganda and take a look outside your window is what I suggest you should do.
I just don't want to give up the damn chicken. And I don't think its wrong of me to partake. If there was an identical restaurant without the gay hating I'd be wrong here obviously.
Anyway, what you are saying is GREAT. If this shit works maybe Chik-Fil-A will stop their anti-gay ways. Everyone wins. Unless you are saying that you want Chik-Fil-A to go under instead... then not so great. But I doubt that is what you actually think.
Gaming World Forums
Happy New Salt + What's on your mind 2012: CHILL YOUR HEAD
