question: in the UK we get alot of boycott calls. But should there be a set period for a boycott? I submit a range of offences should have a period of time. 1) food poisoning: 6 months - eviltoast

we dont need to have a legislative response but that would also be pretty funny. I was struck by how evil that mcdonalds worker hosing down the homeless guy was but couldnt put my finger on the correct punishment. Obviously the worst offences deserve lifetime ‘never again will I’ but as time passes… I once swore to never eat burger king after they sacked me over something really stupid, but these days I happily spend money there and enthusiastically went for the plant based whopper for a few months before it got really boring. Likewise facebook, I will never. But it does seem to be popular despite how shit it is.

so in degrees of severity for any business:

a PR blunder like a stupid tweet or dumb error: a week. food poisoning: 6 months serious PR error: 1 year hosing down/assaulting the public: 3 years amazon plotting to destroy everyone: until next christmas when you need to sort shit out

whats the strongest boycott length but not a fundamental falling out/never again?

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    If it’s an ongoing pattern of malpractice, the boycott theoretically goes on. People have been boycotting Nestlé for something like 40 years over their pushing of infant formula in the developing world (and, more recently, other sharp practices such as taking privatised water supplies away from local communities), though to be sure, some people carve out exceptions for Nespresso capsules or Japanese Kit-Kats or such; as Jello Biafra put it, give me convenience, or give me death.