Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i can see where boycotts and protests can be seen as a form of bullying, after all you are trying to use force to get what you want.
That opinion sounds like the result of being taught in a school where the little kid that swung desperately at the bigger bully got suspended as well "because he was also involved in violence." All the little kid wanted was to be left alone...<gasp> he used force to get the bully to leave him alone.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 04-20-2016 at 02:42 PM..
i can see where boycotts and protests can be seen as a form of bullying, after all you are trying to use force to get what you want.
"Force"? Boycott is a passive practice, pretty much the opposite of force. I shop at Costco over Walmart because I despise the latter's business practices - is that somehow using force against Walmart?
That opinion sounds like the result of being taught in a school where the little kid that swung desperately at the bigger bully got suspended as well "because he was also involved in violence." All the little kid wanted was to be left alone...<gasp> he used force to get the bully to leave him alone.
i only said i can see where boycotts and protests can be a form of bullying, i never said i agreed with it. try a little reading comprehension sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
"Force"? Boycott is a passive practice, pretty much the opposite of force. I shop at Costco over Walmart because I despise the latter's business practices - is that somehow using force against Walmart?
there is a difference between boycotting, and making a choice as to where to shop. it is a fine line i know, and some people cant see that fine line. remember that you as an individual makes a choice to shop somewhere else, where if you as an individual organizes or attempts to organize an group of people to shop somewhere else, then you have a boycott.
"Bullying" is intimidating a person/group that has less power than you do.
"Fighting back" is a response to bullying, by the group with less power.
Churches for centuries have bullied gay people, called them sinners, thrown them out of churches, humiliated them among their townspeople, etc. They usually got away with it because gay people had no "power" at all and it was such a forbidden topic, most gay people didn't know any others to gather with, let alone ask for any political voice.
In the late 20th Century, this began to chance, and LGBT people were granted some of the same rights others have taken for granted forever. Those who oppose this somehow claim it is hurting THEM to have to afford someone else the same rights they have. Then when the originally-less powerful person fights back, usually with a lawsuit, the "bully" claims "Waah, they're bullying me!"
If you are kicking a dog over and over, and it finally turns around and bites you, that's not a "mean" dog, it's defending itself. This is most of what is happening in any civil rights movement when a once-oppressed group gains power and enough self-respect to fight back, and those who are used to getting their way without a fight suddenly feel "bullied".
Back to current issues--many disagree with same-sex marriage or other GLBT issues. That is their right to their opinion and they may in fact voice that opinion. But voicing an opinion opens you up to consequences, including being called "bigoted".
Being called a "bigot" is NOT "bullying"; it is someone else's opinion of your opinion. You think X, they think Y of you because you think X. You both have free speech and both are legal. However, if opinion "X" delegitimizes an entire demographic of people, it is generally considered something worse than just "voicing an opinion" such as "I like vanilla ice cream"; it's more typically known as "prejudice". Statement of prejudice are likely to open you up to being called "intolerant" or "bigoted",. but those are just words, and at the end of the day, you are no worse off for it. If it hurts you to be called "intolerant", imagine what it feels like to the groups who have historically been told they are "sinners" or "perverts" or "mentally ill" or "untrustworthy" by people who've never met them, simply for existing.
Words are words, but some are spoken in ignorance, intolerance or even hatred, and it is not improper to call them as such. When we voice our opinion, we have to expect ramifications from doing so.
A gay person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is not hurting anyone, but a magistrate who refuses to do her job and sign the marriage license IS hurting those who are then unable to get legally married. Her religion may say it is wrong, but SHE is not being made to marry a woman, therefore her religion is not being compromised. Civil marriages are not even the jurisdiction of any religion, and no religion has jurisdiction over those who do not follow it. Otherwise, Kosher Jews could claim that any restaurant that serves pork is "violating their religious freedom" and force them to stop. A person who keeps kosher and for some reason got a job serving in such a restaurant is still not allowed to say "I will work her but I will not serve anybody pork because it's against my religion" would rightly be told "I'm sorry, that's a part of the job; if you can't do it, you can't work here."
Maybe religious freedom arguments weren't the gist of this thread, but this very article just appeared in no other than Baptist News:
there is a difference between boycotting, and making a choice as to where to shop. it is a fine line i know, and some people cant see that fine line.
OK, cool. I can't see it. Can you perhaps verbalize it?
Quote:
remember that you as an individual makes a choice to shop somewhere else, where if you as an individual organizes or attempts to organize an group of people to shop somewhere else, then you have a boycott.
Yeah most of these mobs are bullying in nature but as long as they don't become violent, they should have every right to protest. I've only publicly 'protested' once in my life at a right to life rally and you have to be strong as people did holler and threaten us. SO far, I trust our Constitution more than any other governmental design.
OK, cool. I can't see it. Can you perhaps verbalize it?
And force comes into the picture - where?
the fact that you are organizing a group, or several groups of people to boycott a particular store, or chain of stores, to force them to do what you want them to do IS force. same with protesting the stores, because again you are using force, though a much softer force, to try and get the stores to change something you dont like.
the fact that you are organizing a group, or several groups of people to boycott a particular store, or chain of stores, to force them to do what you want them to do IS force. same with protesting the stores, because again you are using force, though a much softer force, to try and get the stores to change something you dont like.
A boycott is merely a group of people enlightened to stop patronizing a business that's already operating against their joint interest. You're placing that into the same category as shooting a man with a gun: "Just a softer force."
Pretty soon, simply stating your opinion is "bullying" and the word has ceased to have meaning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
