> These abstract objections to specific actions are, frankly, a cop out.
My objections aren't to these specific actions. I'm trying to discuss the phenomena of very vocal outrage at a distance motivating company change. I specifically didn't mention my stance on the results because I don't want to be one of those people who supports the means only when it leads to results I like (e.g both Democrats and Republicans when it comes a President of their party overreaching their power to do something their party supports).
For the record, I am very pro-immigration and don't like the current Administration. That's part of why I have mixed feelings about the general approach.
The other reason I have mixed feelings is because corporations do need to be accountable, and currently the outrage mob seems to be the most effective, if very narrow tool for helping accomplish. But while I don't think it's the proper tool for that, I'm not really sure what else to try to replace it with.
> Your statement also completely disregards morality and ethics.
That's a fair point, my description was lacking. I think mobs also tend to act amorally and without regard for ethics. May they have reactions rooted in moral and ethical causes? Absolutely. I don't think often gets applied to their reactions though. I think in these situations, most people check their civility at the "keyboard" (door, getting online, etc).
The reaction here was relatively mild. There have been bigger, badder ones though, and while this doesn't really compare effect-wise, it is on the same spectrum, in my mind.
Do I want things to change? Absolutely. Do I want things to change just because a large number of people were informed of something through a random news article and poor handling of it? I'm not so sure.
Your point is extremely valid. Misinformation spread online and repeat in echo chambers seems to be the political climate for the USA.
Personally, I consider myself to be a Republican, but it seems fear and hatred has tainted my party. A great example would be to look at all the Republican presidential candidates for 2016 and watch how many opposed the current administration.
However, once they saw the voters following they were forced to do the same rather than demonstrate what a backbone is for.
My objections aren't to these specific actions. I'm trying to discuss the phenomena of very vocal outrage at a distance motivating company change. I specifically didn't mention my stance on the results because I don't want to be one of those people who supports the means only when it leads to results I like (e.g both Democrats and Republicans when it comes a President of their party overreaching their power to do something their party supports).
For the record, I am very pro-immigration and don't like the current Administration. That's part of why I have mixed feelings about the general approach.
The other reason I have mixed feelings is because corporations do need to be accountable, and currently the outrage mob seems to be the most effective, if very narrow tool for helping accomplish. But while I don't think it's the proper tool for that, I'm not really sure what else to try to replace it with.
> Your statement also completely disregards morality and ethics.
That's a fair point, my description was lacking. I think mobs also tend to act amorally and without regard for ethics. May they have reactions rooted in moral and ethical causes? Absolutely. I don't think often gets applied to their reactions though. I think in these situations, most people check their civility at the "keyboard" (door, getting online, etc).
The reaction here was relatively mild. There have been bigger, badder ones though, and while this doesn't really compare effect-wise, it is on the same spectrum, in my mind.
Do I want things to change? Absolutely. Do I want things to change just because a large number of people were informed of something through a random news article and poor handling of it? I'm not so sure.