Local Effort To Boycott Businesses Owned By Trump Supporters Brings Strong Response From GOP

[dianaiad]

Also if you actively encourage someone to kill someone else you could be charged.

But we are not talking about that. We are discussing whether boycotting trump supporters is free speech. We are not really discussing slander or libel or murder.

Hmmn.

Well, as I have been told here just within the last couple of days, having someone criticize my opinions, whether religious or political, is not an abrogation of free speech. I have to expect criticism. That's quite true.

But 'boycotts' are not simple criticism, are they? Not when they are organized, or solicited by someone, for the PURPOSE OF HARMING THE BUSINESS AND FORCING IT TO EITHER CHANGE OR LOSE CUSTOMERS AND MONEY. That's what boycotts are for. That's why people form them. Not for the purpose of criticism, but to harm the target in such way as to force it to do something. A boycott that does nothing is useless. The whole idea is to cause harm or to extort change. It's 'you want my money? Fine. you change your mind to my political opinion and I'll shop with you. Never mind that your politics have absolutely nothing to do with the product you sell or the service you provide, I have the power to shut you down if you don't change your politics, or just because I think I can make a point using your suffering."

And THAT, sir, is not free speech. I believe that Heinlein once wrote in one of his books that your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.'

Simple criticism, no matter how sharp, is 'swinging the fist." As long as it doesn't hit someone, no problem, right?

But...

Boycotts do not stop at the end of the nose, do they? Their entire purpose is to cause harm.

.....and THAT is what makes them like 'libel or slander or murder." Or extortion. Or blackmail. Or any other word you might like to use. It's dishonest, underhanded, and ultimately a really bad tactic, politically.

So....if you want to organize a boycott, just remember that you had better be able to prove any allegations you make against the target of that boycott....

Oh, and a boycott of a business simply because the owner supports a political opponent is a dumb idea. It WILL come back to kick you in the butt. Every single time. First, it hardens opposition. People are not fond of being forced to change their actions because of someone else's stupidity. Second, once you do it to someone else, that someone else WILL figure that he has the absolute right to do it to you when HE gets the power and popular support.

And the division goes on.

 

[dianaiad]

What does shoplifting have to do with boycotting a business you don't want to do business with?

Read the post, sooda. Sheesh.

 

[sooda]

Read the post, sooda. Sheesh.

You can boycott any business or any product you choose. Ask a lawyer.. Its has nothing to do with slander.You folks don't know anything about your rights.

Boycotts are not illegal in themselves, unless there are threats or violence involved. A "secondary" boycott, which boycotts those who do business with the primary target of the boycotters, is an unfair labor practice under Federal and state laws. (See: secondary boycott)
Boycott legal definition of boycott - Legal Dictionary
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/boycott

 

[sooda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_boycott

A boycott is an act of voluntary and intentional abstention from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for moral, social, political, or environmental reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behavior.

 

[Stevicus]

The story is quite clear. Frankly, it was mob rule, the students were encouraged to continue the boycott/demonstrations, and nobody attempted to put a stop to it. THAT'S WHY THE COLLEGE WAS SUED AND LOST. It was a very typical left wing political stunt...the family that owned the bakery, you see, had been Republican for a very long time. What, are you struggling to find a way to blame the victim here? The bakery owners shouldn't have been conservative? WHAT????? THEY did nothing wrong.

I'm not trying to blame the victim at all. I was just asking some questions. I didn't know that they family that owned the bakery was Republican. You think that was the reason?

Are there any other bakeries in the vicinity which would have been in competition with this bakery? Would they have benefited by increased business if they were able to find a way to take out the competition?

The 'root' of the problem was the left wing attitude of the college professors and their students, who thought that any perceived occurrence of racism, factual or not, was meat for their boycott grinder; it served the purpose of extending their political and ideological ends. They didn't CARE that they were wrong. They only wanted to make their point, regardless of who was damaged as a result. That's why Oberlin was sued, and why they lost. Oberlin claimed 'free speech,' but it was proven that the bakery was targeted falsely, that the college and the professors knew the claims were false, and neither they, nor the student leaders of the boycott and the demonstrations, cared. The Bakery was Republican, capitalistic, and thus fair game.

So, they just decided to pick on a bakery because they were capitalistic and Republican? Are they the only capitalistic and Republican business in the area?

I get that the college was sued and lost, so it seems clear that they're guilty of some degree of malfeasance. And any students involved in vandalism or violence should also be prosecuted. I was never advocating lawlessness here. A peaceful boycott wouldn't involve that.

In other words, I'm not disputing what you say about what happened, but I'm still not clear on why. All you're saying here is your own supposition about why you think they did it. Maybe it was because they were Republicans, but if that was their basis, then they'd be attacking/boycotting businesses all over the place.

For some reason, I'm reminded of a time many years ago when some animal rights activists burned down a McDonald's down the street from where I was living at the time (fortunately, nobody was hurt). The same night, the statue of Ronald McDonald outside of the Ronald McDonald House was vandalized. Obviously, they didn't like McDonald's. Suffice to say, I'm against what they did, and frankly, I was a bit ticked off about it. But I also knew why they did it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for illustrating that I was absolutely correct. I am surprised...but very appreciative.

You did not understand the source. But then I am not surprised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does shoplifting have to do with boycotting a business you don't want to do business with?

She is grasping at straws. She misinterpreted all provided sources. She does not seem to realize the context that she was using the word that extortion is an illegal act. There is nothing illegal about a voluntary boycott.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm not trying to blame the victim at all. I was just asking some questions. I didn't know that they family that owned the bakery was Republican. You think that was the reason?

I honestly don't know. I think that was the reason that the problem wasn't fixed sooner. The REASON was that two black shoplifters were apprehended and held for the police, and the opinion was...doing so was racist. The reason the college was sued and lost is because it not only did not correct the 'racist' meme, but actively encouraged the protestors and the ongoing general boycott and perpetuating the libel. The college was quite aware that ALL shoplifters were held for the police, not just black ones, but they figured that no matter what, arresting a black shoplifter was racist. Period.

Are there any other bakeries in the vicinity which would have been in competition with this bakery? Would they have benefited by increased business if they were able to find a way to take out the competition?

Dunno....but removing the business from the bakery under attack was damage enough, whether there were other bakeries or not.

So, they just decided to pick on a bakery because they were capitalistic and Republican? Are they the only capitalistic and Republican business in the area?

They picked on that bakery first because the report was that they arrested two black shoplifters simply and only because they were black...as if only black folks got arrested for shoplifting, and 'white' folks were let go. That was untrue, but I think that the situation wasn't corrected by the college or the boycott leaders BECAUSE the shop was 'capitalist' and therefore fair game.

I get that the college was sued and lost, so it seems clear that they're guilty of some degree of malfeasance. And any students involved in vandalism or violence should also be prosecuted. I was never advocating lawlessness here. A peaceful boycott wouldn't involve that.

No?

A peaceful boycott against a private business is meant to do harm to the business. That's the whole idea. If the reason behind the boycott is simply that they disagree with a political opinion...or if the reason is untrue (such as 'this store is racist! when it demonstrably is not), then it absolutely 'involves that.'

I'm all for freedom of both religion and speech. However, I am NOT a supporter of boycotts for political reasons against private people and businesses. I might refrain from going to a specific store (personal boycott) if that store has harmed me in some way, but absolutely NOT because I disagree with the owners politically or religiously. I think that's....

Like wearing a MAGA hat and having some demonstrator bash you in the head with a sign and shout pejoratives at you. It's just wrong. Free speech is free SPEECH, not freedom to go hurt people, physically or financially.

Remember; I'm talking about private businesses, not government agencies. Ghandhi got freedom for India by boycotting (among other things) British services. I notice, however, that there are no reports of him advocating a boycott of Indian businesses that happened to sell things to Englishmen.

In other words, I'm not disputing what you say about what happened, but I'm still not clear on why. All you're saying here is your own supposition about why you think they did it. Maybe it was because they were Republicans, but if that was their basis, then they'd be attacking/boycotting businesses all over the place.

"They" do. Or haven't you been paying attention? The Oberlin students began it over an excuse, involving a pair of shoplifters who happened to be black. The problem escalated when it was clear that a: the shoplifters were guilty, and confessed, and b: that it didn't matter what color the shoplifter was...if he was caught stealing, he was turned over to the police. The assumption of the Oberlin folks was that if black students were involved, OF COURSE it was racism, whether they were actually shoplifting or not.

.....and the boycott/harassment didn't stop when the facts were known. AMOF, it STILL hasn't stopped all the way. Oberlin is still claiming that a; the store WAS racist by doing anything to stop black kids from shoplifting, and protesting that is freedom of speech and thus legal. Of course. their position on this is understandable. Eleven million bucks is a lot of money.

For some reason, I'm reminded of a time many years ago when some animal rights activists burned down a McDonald's down the street from where I was living at the time (fortunately, nobody was hurt). The same night, the statue of Ronald McDonald outside of the Ronald McDonald House was vandalized. Obviously, they didn't like McDonald's. Suffice to say, I'm against what they did, and frankly, I was a bit ticked off about it. But I also knew why they did it.

Do you think that 'knowing why they did it' ameliorates what they did, in any way? It doesn't, y'know. Consider; every crime has a motive; a reason. Having a reason doesn't mean that an act is acceptable, legal, moral or ethical. It just means that there's a reason. Doing something WITHOUT a reason is, well, insane by definition.

The Oberlin crowd had a reason. They are 'against racism,' and decided to pick this bakery and this incident to proclaim their being against racism. The trouble is, they picked an innocent target, and when they KNEW the target was innocent, they just doubled down and figured that their agenda was more important than facts, or the rights of innocent people.

So I know why they did it, too. It was an incredibly stupid reason, but (shrug) it was indeed a reason.

 

[dianaiad]

She is grasping at straws. She misinterpreted all provided sources. She does not seem to realize the context that she was using the word that extortion is an illegal act. There is nothing illegal about a voluntary boycott.

Evidently, SZ, there can be.

There are eleven million bucks here telling us that it can be...if not illegal, then certainly actionable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidently, SZ, there can be.

There are eleven million bucks here telling us that it can be...if not illegal, then certainly actionable.

You are conflating a case of libel with a legitimate boycott. People can boycott others, it is legal, as long as one is not making false claims about them. Tell me, what are the false claims made about the businesses that supported Trump?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just, when you boycott someone, you are VERY certain that the accusations you make against that someone are true. Not just your opinion, but, y'know, fact.

'cuz if you don't, it's libel, and libel IS very much against the law.

Indeed. It would be very defamatory to accuse someone of being a Trump supporter if they actually weren't.

 

[Augustus]

Laura Ingraham Vows to Boycott ‘Pathetic’ Nike After Flag Shoe Dropped Over Colin Kaepernick’s Objections

More than 700,000 pledge to boycott Target over transgender bathroom policy

'One Million Moms' Boycotts Whole Foods Market for Sponsoring Drag Queen Hour


"Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts," Trump said.

"I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way?" he added in a tweet.

etc., etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The definition of extortion:

extortion
noun
ex·tor·tion | \ ik-ˈstȯr-shən \
Definition of extortion


1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property


Please note: 'especially money' is not 'Money exclusively."

Blackmail, also, isn't always about money.

Both things, extortion or blackmail, are most often about money, but both concepts encompass everything else, as well. When your kid threatens his seatmate with being beaten up on his way home from school if he doesn't help him cheat on the exam.....that's extortion.

Threatening anybody with violence or harm unless an act is performed (like putting a sign out, or selling 'p ussy hat' patterns, or allowing shoplifters to go free because they are of a specific skin color) is extortion.

But nobody is actually being extorted. If you openly offer something for sale but somebody says "I don't want to purchase what you are selling because I do not feel I should give you my money", they are not extorting you. They're not forcing you to do anything.

 

[Curious George]

Hmmn.

Well, as I have been told here just within the last couple of days, having someone criticize my opinions, whether religious or political, is not an abrogation of free speech. I have to expect criticism. That's quite true.

But 'boycotts' are not simple criticism, are they? Not when they are organized, or solicited by someone, for the PURPOSE OF HARMING THE BUSINESS AND FORCING IT TO EITHER CHANGE OR LOSE CUSTOMERS AND MONEY. That's what boycotts are for. That's why people form them. Not for the purpose of criticism, but to harm the target in such way as to force it to do something. A boycott that does nothing is useless. The whole idea is to cause harm or to extort change. It's 'you want my money? Fine. you change your mind to my political opinion and I'll shop with you. Never mind that your politics have absolutely nothing to do with the product you sell or the service you provide, I have the power to shut you down if you don't change your politics, or just because I think I can make a point using your suffering."

And THAT, sir, is not free speech. I believe that Heinlein once wrote in one of his books that your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.'

Simple criticism, no matter how sharp, is 'swinging the fist." As long as it doesn't hit someone, no problem, right?

But...

Boycotts do not stop at the end of the nose, do they? Their entire purpose is to cause harm.

.....and THAT is what makes them like 'libel or slander or murder." Or extortion. Or blackmail. Or any other word you might like to use. It's dishonest, underhanded, and ultimately a really bad tactic, politically.

So....if you want to organize a boycott, just remember that you had better be able to prove any allegations you make against the target of that boycott....

Oh, and a boycott of a business simply because the owner supports a political opponent is a dumb idea. It WILL come back to kick you in the butt. Every single time. First, it hardens opposition. People are not fond of being forced to change their actions because of someone else's stupidity. Second, once you do it to someone else, that someone else WILL figure that he has the absolute right to do it to you when HE gets the power and popular support.

And the division goes on.

Oh boy. I really hope i needn't explain what free speech means. You seem to be confusing the concept of free speech with some weird notion of consequence free speech.

How one spends dollars is indeed a form of speech. Encouraging others how to spend (or not spend) their dollars is also a form of speech. If I convince the entire community not to buy your products because you like downhill skiing, that is okay. Now things get a little dicey when we have different pulpits. For instance if I was a cnn anchor and you were just a local business woman. But generally this is okay provided i reasonably believe my statements used to encourage others are true.

Again let me emphasize, the reason i am encouraging people not to buy your products need not have anything to do with your products.

For this behavior to be punishable the same way offenses are punishable (like when i swing my fist into someone's nose) would entail the government to restrict my speech. This is a violation of the principle freedom of speech. The government restricting, limiting, chilling or banning speech.

Now the government can limit some speech. For instance, the government can put in place time place and manner restrictions. The government can make certain words illegal such as fighting words, or words that give rise to eminent danger. The issues get rather nuanced, so hopefully i won't need to go into them all. The important part to notice here is that me choosing where i spend my dollars and me encouraging others where to spend there dollars is part of what we recognize as free speech. That is speech which the government cannot regulate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Laura Ingraham Vows to Boycott ‘Pathetic’ Nike After Flag Shoe Dropped Over Colin Kaepernick’s Objections


"Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts," Trump said.

"I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way?" he added in a tweet.

etc., etc.

Fun fact: Nike's profits increased by almost a billion dollars in the year following the ad.
SOURCE: Nike reports double-digit profit growth after Colin Kaepernick controversy

 

[Twilight Hue]

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Local social media is abuzz over efforts in Pittsburgh to identify and boycott businesses owned by supporters of President Donald Trump.

“Look at what they’re trying to do. People who they just don’t agree with, they want to take and punish. I absolutely believe this is a fascist behavior, and I totally reject it,” says the GOP chairman.

DeMarco compares it to the Nazis drawing Stars of David on Jewish-owned businesses to urge Germans to boycott.

“I absolutely see a parallel. They’re trying to place a mark on a business to boycott it, to not frequent it, not to utilize it and try to make it unacceptable,” DeMarco says.

Local Effort To Boycott Businesses Owned By Trump Supporters Brings Strong Response From GOP

...Well, I agree with DeMarco, that this is a very fascist attitude. The left has become excessively 'clanny', and I think they're learning it from anti-American, leftists from around the world, whose goal is to actually destroy the United States from the inside out.

I don't think Pittsburgh really cares. Have you ever been down in the area? The vast majority of people are Trump supporters.

Let the socialist left morons organizing the boycott make a fool out of themselves. That's including their socialist Democrat mayor Billy boy.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think Pittsburgh really cares. Have you ever been down in the area? The vast majority of people are Trump supporters.

Very strange that most of them voted for Clinton in the election then...

 

[Stevicus]

I honestly don't know. I think that was the reason that the problem wasn't fixed sooner. The REASON was that two black shoplifters were apprehended and held for the police, and the opinion was...doing so was racist. The reason the college was sued and lost is because it not only did not correct the 'racist' meme, but actively encouraged the protestors and the ongoing general boycott and perpetuating the libel. The college was quite aware that ALL shoplifters were held for the police, not just black ones, but they figured that no matter what, arresting a black shoplifter was racist. Period.

This is what makes no sense. If they knew that the information was bogus, why didn't they say anything? Considering that it cost the college $11 million, I think someone has some 'splaining to do.

Dunno....but removing the business from the bakery under attack was damage enough, whether there were other bakeries or not.

That's the only thing that would make sense. At least it would explain why this bakery was railroaded like that.

You make it sound like the students and college administrators were bored one weekend and decided to ruin a bakery just for kicks.

They picked on that bakery first because the report was that they arrested two black shoplifters simply and only because they were black...as if only black folks got arrested for shoplifting, and 'white' folks were let go. That was untrue, but I think that the situation wasn't corrected by the college or the boycott leaders BECAUSE the shop was 'capitalist' and therefore fair game.

This is what makes no sense and why more information is needed. One could just as easily suggest that the college administrators were health nuts and they didn't like the idea of a shop selling cakes and pies so close to the campus.

No?

A peaceful boycott against a private business is meant to do harm to the business. That's the whole idea. If the reason behind the boycott is simply that they disagree with a political opinion...or if the reason is untrue (such as 'this store is racist! when it demonstrably is not), then it absolutely 'involves that.'

I'm all for freedom of both religion and speech. However, I am NOT a supporter of boycotts for political reasons against private people and businesses. I might refrain from going to a specific store (personal boycott) if that store has harmed me in some way, but absolutely NOT because I disagree with the owners politically or religiously. I think that's....

Like wearing a MAGA hat and having some demonstrator bash you in the head with a sign and shout pejoratives at you. It's just wrong. Free speech is free SPEECH, not freedom to go hurt people, physically or financially.

Remember; I'm talking about private businesses, not government agencies. Ghandhi got freedom for India by boycotting (among other things) British services. I notice, however, that there are no reports of him advocating a boycott of Indian businesses that happened to sell things to Englishmen.

All I was pointing out was that there's a difference between a peaceful demonstration/boycott versus the violent, chaotic lynch mob mentality that you're describing at Oberlin College. You were saying that there was vandalism, threats of violence, people blocking others from entering the store. These actions cross the line, and would not be considered as legitimate or part of a peaceful demonstration.

But if they're following the rules, staying off private property, and simply demonstrating without vandalism or threats of violence, then I can't see that there's any basis for your complaint.

You can't have it both ways. The same constitutional rights and freedoms that allow capitalists to own and operate private businesses also allow individuals to freely associate with each other and organize a boycott. It also allows them the right to assemble freely and hold a public demonstration. As long as they don't incite violence or create a clear and present danger, they have every right to do so.

This is the problem with capitalists. They think that their right to own property and earn a profit somehow overrides everyone else's constitutional rights. That's where capitalists are fundamentally wrong.

"They" do. Or haven't you been paying attention? The Oberlin students began it over an excuse, involving a pair of shoplifters who happened to be black. The problem escalated when it was clear that a: the shoplifters were guilty, and confessed, and b: that it didn't matter what color the shoplifter was...if he was caught stealing, he was turned over to the police. The assumption of the Oberlin folks was that if black students were involved, OF COURSE it was racism, whether they were actually shoplifting or not.

.....and the boycott/harassment didn't stop when the facts were known. AMOF, it STILL hasn't stopped all the way. Oberlin is still claiming that a; the store WAS racist by doing anything to stop black kids from shoplifting, and protesting that is freedom of speech and thus legal. Of course. their position on this is understandable. Eleven million bucks is a lot of money.

So, they're attacking other businesses, too?

Basically, what we have here is a case of the truth being brought to light, yet still rejected by many - for reasons that only they know.

I'm reminded of the Duke Lacrosse case, where the accused individuals were innocent and the prosecutor knew they were innocent, yet still decided to pursue charges against them just the same. It got to the point where the prosecutor had to resign in disgrace, so one might well wonder just what in the heck he was thinking. It seems irrationally self-destructive, and I was just curious as to what brings people to this line of thinking.

Do you think that 'knowing why they did it' ameliorates what they did, in any way? It doesn't, y'know. Consider; every crime has a motive; a reason. Having a reason doesn't mean that an act is acceptable, legal, moral or ethical. It just means that there's a reason. Doing something WITHOUT a reason is, well, insane by definition.

It doesn't ameliorate anything to know the reason, but it might still be helpful to know what the cause is just the same. It doesn't excuse the individual lawbreaker(s), but it might be useful information in preventing future crimes or dissuading others from doing the same.

We're also talking about politically-motivated crimes peripherally related to issues currently being debated in society. It is necessary to know the reasons, to know the "why," in order for members of society to discuss their disagreements peacefully and reach a point of understanding. Wanting to know "why" is the first step towards political harmony in our society and in the world as a whole.

The main trouble in society nowadays is that many people simply don't care about the reasons bad things happen. They don't want to know why; they just demand that it all be fixed. I see this mentality on both sides of the spectrum. It's a part of the political culture, not intrinsic to any specific ideology or faction.

The Oberlin crowd had a reason. They are 'against racism,' and decided to pick this bakery and this incident to proclaim their being against racism. The trouble is, they picked an innocent target, and when they KNEW the target was innocent, they just doubled down and figured that their agenda was more important than facts, or the rights of innocent people.

So I know why they did it, too. It was an incredibly stupid reason, but (shrug) it was indeed a reason.

There's nothing wrong with being against racism, but earlier, you were suggesting that the bakery was targeted because they were Republicans and capitalists. So, even if the boycotters and college administrators knew that the bakers were not racist, it didn't matter in their eyes. At least, that's what it looks like here.

 

[dianaiad]

You are conflating a case of libel with a legitimate boycott. People can boycott others, it is legal, as long as one is not making false claims about them. Tell me, what are the false claims made about the businesses that supported Trump?

I see. The No True Scott thing.

You are saying that any boycott that causes harm is not a real boycott?

The problem is, all boycotts cause harm. That's the whole idea behind a boycott. "I'll show you, you won't get any of MY money," and the group boycotts I refer to are more than that. "I'll show you, you'll not only not get any of my money, I'll do whatever I have to do in order to see to it that you don't get anybody ELSE'S money, either." That's harm....with the intent to do harm.

As to businesses that support Trump. Hmnn. I wonder if you would be as understanding and supporting of such boycotts if the only reason some lynch mob decided to shut down a business was because it supported OAC?

Nothing else...just that it donated to her campaign and/or put a sign up somewhere?

Because that's what a group boycott is, especially against private businesses; a lynch mob.

Now it happens that there are folks on the left who do the 'Name and Shame' game here, by posting the names of anybody who has supported, or donated to, Trump's campaign. The idea is, let everybody know who they are so that they can AVOID USING THEIR SERVICES, not shop there, stop inviting them to parties, and generally shun them.

Because they dared express a political opinion.

Now me, I'm absolutely, 100% AGAINST that sort of thing. I hate it. It violates the spirit of the first amendment utterly. We should be able to express our support for a political candidate or idea without putting our selves, our families and our businesses in danger, but the left is making it DANGEROUS to be outwardly conservative.

As you might know, I just left a global knitting site that I had been a member of for over ten years. Why? Because I'm a conservative. I voted for Trump. I never said political things on that site...it was for KNITTING, not politics, I thought. I didn't give two hoots who designed the patterns I used, or who wrote the blogs I read, or who ran the 'mystery knit alongs" I joined, and none of us said anything political.

But that site enacted a new policy; they would not allow any conservative posts, or any pattern that even hinted at right wing opinions, even as they celebrated "p*ssy" hat patterns 152 of them...and "F*** Trump scarves and a whole bunch of blatantly left wing patterns and posts. Any opposition to those posts was seen as 'blatant white supremacy," and the writer/designer was kicked off.

So I quit, A very personal boycott...because I had directly been harmed. I won't go back until that site either allows free speech from all viewpoints, OR bans political discussion altogether. Either way will work...it's a KNITTING site.

One of the things that site does is to allow left wing designers and posters the ability to post lists of people and businesses (knitting and design businesses) which do NOT have specific signs up welcoming people of all races, creeds, ethnicities or sexual orientation....with the intent of having everybody still on the site shun those people until they do. Those businesses do not have to be conservative. They just have to ....not have rainbow banners in the aisles, a sign outside, and a full page on their website explaining how they are NOT racist or homophobic or against religious liberty or speciesist or whatever. Now THEY only have to put up the signs and all is well. However, if they happen to be owned by someone who voted Republican at any time....

That business is to be shut down utterly. Demonstrations are organized. Comment campaigns on their websites are urged. It's a campaign of terror and extortion that is very real.

Now, SZ, you probably won't read this because you will claim it is too long. However, someone else might.

 

[dianaiad]

Indeed. It would be very defamatory to accuse someone of being a Trump supporter if they actually weren't.

Insult noted. However, if being a Trump supporter makes one a target of boycotts, demonstrations and other intentionally harmful things, because those who do them THINK that being a Trump supporter is E V I L, then, well....

Look, I think people who support the far left, as represented by 'the Squad,' and most of the current Democratic candidates, are not thinking clearly, and indeed, truly stupid.

I'd still shop in their stores unless they treated ME badly.