Edit: For clarity, the “you” used here is the collective you and not “you” as in the account I’m replying to.
For the record, I agree with your example and personally won’t eat/buy The Lord’s Chicken™. But do you really think you’ve changed anyone’s mind? Probably not. All you’ve accomplished is making yourself feel morally superior. You don’t like something? Fine, more power to you. Don’t buy/support the thing (you should see the ever-growing list of companies and subsidiaries I won’t buy from). But also don’t slide into the DMs of other people’s lives and shit all over what little brings them joy. Why is this hard?
I don’t jump into other peoples lives. The example I gave is something that was brought up in person due to its relation to the conversation being had. I also feel like “shit[ting] all over what little brings them joy” is a bit of an over simplification. If what’s bringing them joy is also indirectly harming them, I feel like it should be discussed provided its on topic and not brought up out of the blue for no reason. To give a very simplistic broad example, asbestos. It was used for years as insulation, and contractors swore by it. New research comes out that says exposure gives you cancer. Do we ignore the fact asbestos gives you cancer, just because people are already using it and find it useful in their workflow? To bring it back to the original example, do we let people who identify as allies and/or queer continue to financially support chick-fil-a just because they can’t easily get a replacement that’s morally sound?
I get it, people should be allowed to enjoy their hobbies, their indulgences, and their worldly surroundings. I don’t disagree with that. People who bring up the fact that sometimes those things may be harmful and alternatives should be found should not be shamed though. That is unless they’re being a dick about it, or bringing it up constantly to the same person who doesn’t want to hear it. In which case, queue the definition of insanity script.
edit: thinking about it, you probably were talking about people on the fediverse doing this out of turn and not the example I was thinking of.
edit: thinking about it, you probably were talking about people on the fediverse doing this out of turn and not the example I was thinking of.
I was. Collective “you” and not a personal “you”. Could’ve been more clear I suppose. I usually try to say “one” instead of “[collective] you” but sometimes that makes the phrasing awkward.
Problem with this meme being it’s always the worst people who use it as a defense.
“Chick fil a is a corporation that directly financially supports anti-lgbt groups and should not be supported.”
“Ugh why does it matter, the chicken tastes good. Let people enjoy things!” (real conversation I’ve had, albeit tl;dr’d)
Edit: For clarity, the “you” used here is the collective you and not “you” as in the account I’m replying to.
For the record, I agree with your example and personally won’t eat/buy The Lord’s Chicken™. But do you really think you’ve changed anyone’s mind? Probably not. All you’ve accomplished is making yourself feel morally superior. You don’t like something? Fine, more power to you. Don’t buy/support the thing (you should see the ever-growing list of companies and subsidiaries I won’t buy from). But also don’t slide into the DMs of other people’s lives and shit all over what little brings them joy. Why is this hard?
I don’t jump into other peoples lives. The example I gave is something that was brought up in person due to its relation to the conversation being had. I also feel like “shit[ting] all over what little brings them joy” is a bit of an over simplification. If what’s bringing them joy is also indirectly harming them, I feel like it should be discussed provided its on topic and not brought up out of the blue for no reason. To give a very simplistic broad example, asbestos. It was used for years as insulation, and contractors swore by it. New research comes out that says exposure gives you cancer. Do we ignore the fact asbestos gives you cancer, just because people are already using it and find it useful in their workflow? To bring it back to the original example, do we let people who identify as allies and/or queer continue to financially support chick-fil-a just because they can’t easily get a replacement that’s morally sound?
I get it, people should be allowed to enjoy their hobbies, their indulgences, and their worldly surroundings. I don’t disagree with that. People who bring up the fact that sometimes those things may be harmful and alternatives should be found should not be shamed though. That is unless they’re being a dick about it, or bringing it up constantly to the same person who doesn’t want to hear it. In which case, queue the definition of insanity script.
edit: thinking about it, you probably were talking about people on the fediverse doing this out of turn and not the example I was thinking of.
I was. Collective “you” and not a personal “you”. Could’ve been more clear I suppose. I usually try to say “one” instead of “[collective] you” but sometimes that makes the phrasing awkward.
that’s fair. i apologize for using your brain power for this thing I lacked the ability to use brain power on, LOL