It’s a first step to gauge the amount of support for the cause. If you can’t convince people not to purchase things for just one day your sure as fuck not going to be able to convince them to not go to work.
If you support a boycott or general strike then I hope you’re willing to do the bare minimum of not making purchases on one specific day even if you think it isn’t going to much.
How exactly do you gauge the effects? Do you have access to their daily financials? Because just gauging the support and nothing else feels like the literal definition of performative action.
Not sure why the next step after not purchasing for a day is to not go to your job. Seems like it would be to not purchase for a week, or month, or permanently stop giving companies your money.
If the general public lacks the focus to do anything more than a day, then the specific action that one day should be radically different. Something very simple that overwhelms stores and forces your hand tomorrow and the next day. For example, everyone could go out that day and intentionally get trespassed from a store they don’t like. Not as a group, individually throughout the day. It doesn’t have to be violent or even illegal, just break policy - go in without wearing shoes or something.
everyone could go out that day and intentionally get trespassed from a store they don’t like. Not as a group, individually throughout the day. It doesn’t have to be violent or even illegal, just break policy - go in without wearing shoes or something.
“How exactly do you gauge the effects? Because just gauging the support and nothing else feels like the literal definition of performative action.”
I guess my response is the entire middle part of my other comment that you just cut out to try to make a point. I’m just not going to bother copying things around.
Ill try to spell it out a bit better though. The one day of protest causes a permanent change - you’re banned from a store. And the store does all the fucking work for you after the first day to keep you from buying there.
If you want paperwork to gauge the effect, ask the police for the trespass in writing.
So not purchasing from a store for a day isn’t going to affect the store, but getting yourself kicked out of the store for not wearing shoes will?
Your saying not making purchases for a day will have no effect, but your counter suggestion will have no greater impact on the store but require a greater buy-in from the people taking part.
I’ll try to spell it out again: this is the lowest possible bar to get people to take part. If successful, it shows everyone how many people are willing to take at least some action, which makes it easier to organize more meaningful action in the future.
Your second paragraph is just your first paragraph of question rephrased as confident conclusions with absolutely no facts or information inbetween. It’s weird, man. Is this AI? That’s not how it works.
It’s a miserably low bar that’s been done a hundred times over to zero effect. It feels like an idea born straight out of a boardroom meeting to lessen the effects of protests. Billionaires probably giggle and try to guess who floated this one to the masses.
Your second paragraph first sentence is just your first paragraph of question last post rephrased as confident conclusions with absolutely no facts or information inbetween. in either. It’s weird, man. Is this AI? Why am I held to a different standard than you? That’s not how it works.
It feels like an idea born straight out of a boardroom meeting to lessen the effects of protests
Ah, but “get yourself kicked out of stores”, something the only mildly annoys the workers and doesn’t affect the owners at all, THAT will have the billionaires shaking in their boots!
This entire thread is you trying to lessen then effects of protests. If I’m misunderstanding you then try taking the boot out of your mouth before speaking.
Agreed. Might as well call the next day the ‘buy twice as much as normal’ protest, because that’s all that will happen.
It’s a first step to gauge the amount of support for the cause. If you can’t convince people not to purchase things for just one day your sure as fuck not going to be able to convince them to not go to work.
If you support a boycott or general strike then I hope you’re willing to do the bare minimum of not making purchases on one specific day even if you think it isn’t going to much.
How exactly do you gauge the effects? Do you have access to their daily financials? Because just gauging the support and nothing else feels like the literal definition of performative action.
Not sure why the next step after not purchasing for a day is to not go to your job. Seems like it would be to not purchase for a week, or month, or permanently stop giving companies your money.
If the general public lacks the focus to do anything more than a day, then the specific action that one day should be radically different. Something very simple that overwhelms stores and forces your hand tomorrow and the next day. For example, everyone could go out that day and intentionally get trespassed from a store they don’t like. Not as a group, individually throughout the day. It doesn’t have to be violent or even illegal, just break policy - go in without wearing shoes or something.
“How exactly do you gauge the effects? Because just gauging the support and nothing else feels like the literal definition of performative action.”
I guess my response is the entire middle part of my other comment that you just cut out to try to make a point. I’m just not going to bother copying things around.
Ill try to spell it out a bit better though. The one day of protest causes a permanent change - you’re banned from a store. And the store does all the fucking work for you after the first day to keep you from buying there.
If you want paperwork to gauge the effect, ask the police for the trespass in writing.
So not purchasing from a store for a day isn’t going to affect the store, but getting yourself kicked out of the store for not wearing shoes will?
Your saying not making purchases for a day will have no effect, but your counter suggestion will have no greater impact on the store but require a greater buy-in from the people taking part.
I’ll try to spell it out again: this is the lowest possible bar to get people to take part. If successful, it shows everyone how many people are willing to take at least some action, which makes it easier to organize more meaningful action in the future.
Yes and yes.
Your second paragraph is just your first paragraph of question rephrased as confident conclusions with absolutely no facts or information inbetween. It’s weird, man. Is this AI? That’s not how it works.
It’s a miserably low bar that’s been done a hundred times over to zero effect. It feels like an idea born straight out of a boardroom meeting to lessen the effects of protests. Billionaires probably giggle and try to guess who floated this one to the masses.
Your
second paragraphfirst sentence is just yourfirst paragraph of questionlast post rephrased as confident conclusions with absolutely no facts or informationinbetween.in either. It’s weird, man.Is this AI?Why am I held to a different standard than you? That’s not how it works.Ah, but “get yourself kicked out of stores”, something the only mildly annoys the workers and doesn’t affect the owners at all, THAT will have the billionaires shaking in their boots!
This entire thread is you trying to lessen then effects of protests. If I’m misunderstanding you then try taking the boot out of your mouth before speaking.
Or the day before