Beware

We don't do cancel culture. We do free market. See we choose where to spend our money. That's not the same as trying to get something banned.

What a f**king moron. Claiming cancel culture is thriving in the right when it's been a leftist thing entirely. Of course, he doesn't even know what cancel culture means.

Like blue ninja and his 'every looter, rioter, arsonist and statute toppler is a white conservative' hilarity.

Holy spam batf**k. You really thought this was clever huh? Let me guess, you first posted it on politicstoo to a couple of libtards that kissed your ass and told you it would own the trumpites EPIC STYLE so you spammed this retarded ignorant take everywhere.

Now he's gotta run stuff past the brain trust on the politicsTOO short bus.
Must have low confidence since he gets his ass kicked so often.
It's kinda like Team Biden, a bunch of yes-men all looking around for the last lifeboat off the Titanic.
Three and a half months and no viable path forward.

Have you made your point yet? Because everyone here knows that cancel culture is a leftist tactic. Boycotts, on the other hand, goes both ways.

All politics-based outrage against businesses (or, on the other hand, politics-based goodwill toward businesses) can ultimately be distilled down to money.

If it doesn’t hurt or help the bottom-line, businesses don’t budge.

There is nothing magical about the word “boycott” that makes it any different than “cancel culture.” The consumer-corporate dynamic, and the politics-based motives and goals, are the same.

Which is simply this: customers standing up to get businesses to change their political outlook.

And there’s nothing inherently wrong about this! Consumers should feel empowered to speak up!

But it is a dynamic of right-wing culture warriors as well, as we’ve seen twice in just the past week.

(And what has liberals outraged enough to band together to try to “cancel” this week? Other than the same Goya fracas that has the Right equally animated, I’ve scoured PoliticsTOO and the rest of my news sources and found nothing)

Hope this helps.

OP never said a word about any particular political party or side, not even in the tags.

Not the same, boycott is boycott and every person can express their right to buy where they want. Cancel culture encompasses much more than simple boycotts and you know it or you actually are dumb. It is most certainly a Lefty thing.

Failed to explain the difference.

I did a couple comments below

Every Rightie here is vaguely gesturing at the notion that “cancel culture” is so much more than boycotting, but haven’t put any meat on those bare bones of an argument

When liberals say Louis C.K. is “cancelled” because of his masturbatory antics or something he said on-stage, they are saying Louis C.K. is to be boycotted until further notice.

When conservatives say the NFL is “boycotted” because they are now choosing to play the Black National Anthem or allow players to kneel during the National Anthem or whatever, they are saying the NFL is cancelled until further notice.

Both are a consumerist expression of the culture war from either a right or left perspective

They’re the same picture

But please feel free to change my mind

Has the NFL been cancelled? Did the president get forced out of his job after some stooge on Twitter doxxes him (obviously he doesn't need to be doxxed so don't be pedantic) and tells other stooges "Twitter do your thing" until weak kneed executives bow to the loud minority and fire him? And then after, he can't find a job because his name is all over the internet.

That you don't understand this is part of the reason you're a lefty. But one day, you won't be far left enough and idk, say a decent thing about Trump or not partake in slamming whites as evil or something then you'll see what it means. Remember, you're a straight white male. Enemy number one to leftists. Unless something changes in attitude, no matter how woke you are, it won't be enough if you stray off the leftist plantation of hive mind thought.

Hope this helps.

Cut off the bottom part. Really telling how he ONLY apologized to Jews, huh?

I subscribe to the “guns, germs, and steel” thesis: That white Europeans rampaged across the globe looting, pillaging, spreading disease (intentionally and unintentionally) and enslaving darker-skinned people for centuries because they had the power to do so, basically.

Technology is a force multiplier, and when forces are lopsided: it is human nature to take advantage, unfortunately to the point of war and enslavement.

I don’t think it had anything to do with pigmentation weakening whites’ self-esteem or whatever. That is its own kind of racist explanation.

A racism that “punches up,” but still racism. I guess he apologized for his comments as they related to Jews because that could be considered “punching down” due to the brutal treatment and anti-Semitism they have had to undergo for the past several centuries as well (the Holocaust being just the most notable example).

In the New World/Western Hemisphere at least, where the analysis is simple because the arrival of Europeans so radically changed everything, whites created this racial caste system that we are still laboring under, albeit to a lesser degree than before.

But two wrongs don’t make a right and I would encourage liberals concerned about racism and colonialism to read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” rather than resort to their own inverse form of racism to essentialize and demonize whiteness.

Requiring people to be dismissed from their employment because you don’t like their politics or they said “all lives matter”. Cancelling historic figures representations in statues by destroying. Defacing or removing them without due process. Banning, violently attacking any form of free speech.

Hey, remember when Trump instigated that those who kneel for the flag should be fired?

That sounds like advocating people to be dismissed from their employment because you don’t like their politics.

Yes, he was wrong in my opinion. He however is entitled to his opinion even a president can have one. Comparing incidents there are many more that have actually led to dismissal. I don’t think any kneelers were actually fired. A few people lost their jobs for saying all lives matter.

Now you get into technicalities over opinions that advocate are they still opinions?

Anyway to take a few singular examples, what about actually terminating someone for saying all lives matter?

Opinions, yes. Advocate for their dismissal on multiple occasions, no.

That's where the 'what happens if' comes in.

I'll put it simply. A boycott is an attempt by a group to affect certain change in a company by withholding your funds. Cancel culture is about destroying a person's reputation and getting them fired and personally hurt as much as possible or banning channels off YouTube or people off Twitter for wrongthink and to blacklist them from society.

I’m not sure the people who are the target of boycotts see much of a difference.

What happens if they decided to put a flag on the ground and piss on it with their dirty cocks? Just more freedom of expression while on the job?

Advocating doesn't equal cancel culture. Trump has a right to an opinion. He didn't cause the NFL to fold or even to get Krapperdick to be fired. The mental midget accomplished that on his own.

No NFL players actually pissed on the flag to cause Trump to advocate they be fired. At least, not that I have found.

Advocacy is all cancel culture can do. Whether it’s effective enough or not is about the same as if boycotts are effective. It’s just petitions by another name. And producers or owners can choose to ignore them or not. It just depends on how effective that advocacy is and whether or not those producers or owners do anything about it because they’re anticipating or actually experiencing a slump in sales or viewers.

People who participate in boycotts and so-called “cancel culture” also have an opinion. It seems you’re not against that but the overall effective consensus rather than the opinion itself.
It is only human nature to re-brand something as new in order to discourage or encourage participation in it. Much as there isn’t much difference in boycotting and cancel culture and racism and reverse-racism. It is a poor attempt to just excuse hypocrisy.

I don’t see any reason why liberals in 2020 should defer to the historical figures that white supremacists chose to commemorate by casting statues of them 100+ years ago during the height of Jim Crow.

1890-1950 was the biggest Confederate statue-building period.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

There’s a reason those statues got built, while countless slaves and descendants of slaves were buried in unmarked or sparse graves.

Robert E. Lee and other former Confederates like him wanted no monuments of the Civil War period, understanding what a terrible price their treason inflicted on the nation and gracious to be welcomed back into the Union — which is presumably why the statues didn’t start to be erected until decades after his death. I side with him on this one.

Of course you totally side step the founders statues, religious statues, former presidents. We both know why you don’t see why because you have the same mentality as the Taliban. Will we tear down the pyramids? The Parthenon, the mesoamerican pyramids as well because those societies propagated or human slavery? Answer that question please.

The difference being that Louis WAS cancelled for awhile because people that would usually employ him were shamed online until they made that decision to 'cancel him' until the outrage died down.

The NFL didn't miss a game nor was a single player benched for it despite the boycott.

See the difference between 'canceled' in these two examples?

How is buying more of something in response to a boycott cancel culture?

And I suppose you'd like black people to have their own national anthem
Boycott the NFL and help end segregation :P

It’s not. It’s called aggressive advertising.

Okaaayyyy? Not exactly...but that's part of it.
And what's wrong with that?

Nothing, if you’re a company desperate for publicity and don’t mind using the President as part of a marketing ploy. And, of course, being the consumers buying things they don't really want or need during a time when they may be vulnerable due to an economic crisis.

Desperate for publicity? Using the president as a marketing ploy? You do realize all buddy did was praise the president, the same way he did for Obama, and was hit with a leftist boycott campaign? Hard to imagine if Trump hated Hispanics like the TDS trolls claim that he'd show support, but he seems to just want to support an American company who, for no fault of his own, he impacted negatively. Now it seems to gone positive for Goya.

Yes, the publicity stunt worked out great.

You're forgetting the part where stinkin' libtards tried to boycott the company cause the guy said we were blessed to have Trump.
Icing on the cake is that it's a Hispanic family who runs it.

Yes, it was mutually beneficial. Most good businesses are. And Trump didn’t have to spend a dime. The kind of business Trump likes best. Good trade.

What are you talking about?
They're not "desperate for publicity", they're good people trying to run a good company and some commie scum tried to oppose them. Look at all the stuff they gave away to help people during the pandemic! They're a good company and they deserve the positive publicity.

Advertising. I had not heard of Goya until this year, now I’m I bet my local grocery store will carry their product. Probably an isle exclusive to Goya products for a year or so.

So being invited to the wh and going was a devious plan for publicity invented by the Goya owner? Severely doubt. He would have laid it on REAL thick if that was the case. This is a result of feral leftist outrage that is incomprehensible to anyone normal.

Why would it have to be described as devious? Not all successful business ventures need be so harshly described. It was a good strategy, and beneficial for the a President as well.

Oh just face it, the left's plan to boycott Goya completely backfired

right right, cause you can't just accept that there are good people who might like Trump

you need to wake up

And you can’t accept it was just a publicity stunt. And it worked.

Not everything is motivated by desire for gain

Businesses that do not try to exceed their profits tend to not last very long. Considering they’ve been around since 1936, I imagine they’ve had quite the motivation to stay in business this long. And besides, financial gain is good for everyone from their employers, their employees, and the loyal consumers who genuinely enjoy their products and not just those who are desperate to “own the libs”

If it WERE a publicity stunt it WOULDN'T have worked if the LIBTARDS didn't make such a BIG DEAL about it!!!
And it WASN'T for PUBLICITY!!!

Yes, that’s why it was a good publicity stunt. A good business anticipates the market. Unless you’re saying Goya acted against their best interests by supporting an unpopular President. There was certainly some risk for that but there is no such thing as bad publicity, you know.

And you know why it happened? Cause freaking libtards tried to punish them just for saying we were blessed to have a president like Trump.

It might have been both at the same time. You can do what's best for your business and admire the president at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, I’m instigating Goya foods anticipated the backlash as a marketing scheme. A very clever one.