[ SECRET POST #2496 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2496 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #357.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's the people who act like their not actually "pirating" or that it's ~morally correct~ to steal things (with some exceptions- Orson Scott Card, for one example) that piss me off, personally. |D

Or like they're doing it as some sort of act against capitalism.

No, you're not. You're acting against a cashier who works at a store that sells shows and movies. You know, the person you think you're rooting for.

[loracarol]

Oh man, I hate that. ANYONE who acts like their acting against some kind of ~ism when really they're just hurting the people on the lower runf og the ladder piss me off.

Like, the people who put stickers on products at the store to fight the [insert power here]! You are an idiot.

/rant

[(Anonymous)]

Not to derail totally, but that's basically any kind of purchase-based activism. The nature of exploitation is such that if you boycott *anything*, you're hurting people on the bottom more than on the top, because they're on the bottom already. :( This goes for everything from boycotting movies to refusing to buy certain kinds of coffee to massive trade embargoes. There's a term for this but I cannot for the life of me remember it right now.

[loracarol]

True, but I'd argue that boycotting something is different from doing something that causes direct problems for the cashiers, such as

1. putting stickers on things ("this costume is certified racist" for one example) that the workers have to clean up, and might get in trouble for

2. shop lifting, where the money comes out of the cashier's tips

which is what had in mind when I wrote the comment, but rereading that, I realized that was all in my head, and not actually something I wrote. Sorry. =_=;

[crunchysunrises]

I think you're overlooking several important factors. For instance, during the general hue and outcry against Chik-fil-A awhile back, people were protesting the shops, refusing to buy the product, what-have-you. And while that's all very well and good, I'd argue that the bigoted chain-owner and his family weren't hurt as badly as people'd like to think. Know why? Because, regardless of whether or not anyone eats at their stores, they're still going to make the same amount off of the franchise. That's what a franchise is.

For example, a certain Chik-fil-A might usually have seven people working X shift but, knowing that business will be slow as a punishment against the chain owner's personal opinions, the owners of that certain, individual restaurant will only schedule three people to handle the reduced demand for their product. So four people aren't getting the cash that they'd normally get for working hours that they'd normally have. If that trend continues, the people working at that restaurant location are going to have problems making their bill at the end of the month.

And I can't even blame the individual restaurant owners for tamping down on unnecessary costs, such as paying seven people to do the work of three, because they have a contracted responsibility to pay a flat rate to the franchise every quarter for the privilege of being a Chik-fil-A restaurant. Which, in turn, means that all of that boycotting and not eating at Chik-fil-A restaurants didn't hurt the guy at the top at all. Regardless of whether or not anyone ate at any of his franchised restaurants, he still made the same amount of money off of them and, presumably, donated the same amount that he always donates to whatever organizations set everyone off.

The only people hurt were the people who worked the actual shifts at the restaurants and the individual owners who, more often than not, are actually families that have sunk everything they have - including their retirement money in some cases - into whatever franchise they're trying to make a go of - Chik-fil-A, the local car dealership, whatever.

Now, let's get back to your "book morality" in which you seem to believe that only Orson Scott Card is being hurt when you pirate his books for Morality. He certainly makes a percentage of whatever money his books rake in but the rest of the profits go to his agent, the staff at his agency, the publisher's staff, the publisher's printing costs, the bookstore's staff, the bookstore's overhead, etc. You're hurting a ton of "little people" too just to get back at one old man.

I'd probably take your Morality schtick more seriously if you only borrowed his books from the library but, since you're theoretically pirating them, you've got unclean hands as well as misguided principles.

The issues surrounding piracy are a lot more complicated than people generally like to believe but, all of that aside, I can't stand the idea that "boycotting doesn't cause direct problems" for the workers/little people because it most certainly does. If you weigh it up and decide that yes, your principle is more important than whatever harm you're causing, that's one thing. To entirely ignore the harm though, invalidates your argument.

[(Anonymous)]

NA What do you suggest, instead of boycotting, which does raise awareness? Because activists are all too aware of how limited and imperfect our options for protesting are, and too many critics who are not angry and hurt enough to be activists IRL, would say "do squat and therefore be beyond possible criticsm or hypocrisy".

[crunchysunrises]

It's late where I am so hopefully this will make some semblance of sense.

I'm not of the belief that doing nothing puts one beyond criticism or hypocrisy because I also believe that choosing not to do something is as valid an option as choosing to take an action, which in turn means that the same ethics should be applied to 'do nothing' as 'do anything'.

(Although, as an aside, it's narrow-sighted to say that the reason 'too many' critics are critics and not activists is because they're 'not angry and hurt enough to be activists'. There are a lot of different reasons why people don't become activists, especially in this era where it's super easy to sign a petition or do a five-minute thing online. I had this whole big bit about why the most common methods of attracting members and/or Getting The Message Out There actually alienate a lot of potential members or people who would've joined But For X, but then I realized that it doesn't necessarily apply to your question.)

But, that said, I think the "raise awareness" part of the campaign should be more carefully tailored to what activists are raising awareness for or protesting against, instead of using the same basic playbook for everything, regardless of how poorly it fits the specific situation. It would probably help if people, or at least the people in charge of organizing the group, made an effort to understand How Things Work, No Really, before demanding that X, Y, or Z action take place. Knowing how whatever they're working for or against actually functions in a day-to-day way would certainly help the organizers know what will hurt or help their target and what won't. (And also, whether the target even wants their help. No really, that actually comes up and yes, it's always an unpleasant surprise to the activists when their intended beneficiaries turn around and legally eviscerating them for actually harming their interests with their ignorance.)

While boycotting Pop's shop, which is owned and run solely by Pop, would certainly be an effective protest against Pop, it looses something important when applied to anything as large and pyramid-shaped as a franchise. (And yes, there are certainly more effective methods of expressing displeasure over a franchise owner's personal opinions than strangling a bunch of uninvolved people at the bottommost rungs.)

[loracarol]

So the only option is to continue giving money to a company who's morals you don't agree with? If you send a company money, and protest against them, why are they going to care? Why should they care about your morals when you're giving them money (unless you are giving them such a large amount of money that it within their best interests to listen to you, but that's not happening in this scenario)?

And I did clarify that I think getting the books/movies from a legitimate source (the library) was preferable, if you don't want to give money directly to the company.

[crunchysunrises]

Why should any company care about your morals? It's a non-human entity made up of many different individuals who all have their own priorities and morals, neither of which may match up with your own.

And I didn't tell you that you had to continue buying products from companies who practices you disagree with. I said it was short-sighted, ill-considered, and disingenuous to pretend that your actions have no consequences for other people. Knowing and choosing to do them anyway is one thing. Doing them and then wailing, "I didn't know! I didn't mean to!" or "Your suffering is unimportant! Think of The Cause!" is something else entirely. And your post sounded very much like the second.

"Preferable" is not the same as "I'm not doing it." I stand by my statements.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd argue that boycotting is generally not about hurting an organization so much as it's about not contributing to that organization. Failure to give them money isn't an act of malice.

[(Anonymous)]

Or people who don't tip. "I'm making a statement about the restaurant industry! They should pay decent wages to their wait staff and not expect us to take up the slack! I'm going to show my solidarity to the working wo/man by stiffing them!" As though it were some kind of Dickensian cri du Coeur. Dude, just stop. You're not a freedom fighter, you're just cheap.

[(Anonymous)]

It is an act against capitalism.

You know why? Because those cashiers and lower-rung people often can't afford to buy shows, movies, and books. That right there is ridiculous. I'm not going to pat myself on the back for upholding a system that makes the people that sell books so poor that they can't buy the books they're selling. That's ridiculous. That's not even funny.

[(Anonymous)]

Um, I really don't think the higher-ups in gov't & business are looking at the number of torrented copies of The Walking Dead and thinking 'damn, we need to raise the minimum wage so people can afford expanded cable and other fun things'. Hell, they don't think that when people can't afford housing or food without gov't help. If the reaction to working people not being able to afford food is to cut food stamps so they can afford less food, they're not going to connect piracy to the need for greater disposable income for the masses. I seriously doubt anyone takes piracy as a message against capitalism or income inequality. Crappy industry practices, yes, but that's more about region-locking and other idiocy that leaves people with no alternative.