Tuesday 17 March 2015

Boycott: Boycotts

Is boycott politics a boycott of politics, evading the responsibilities and demands that politics impose on us for an easy cyber-way out? Does our consumer power — that $800 billion [sic] gays spend annually at being gay — really make us stronger, more potent citizens? Or does it makes us less citizens, shut us into ghettos where we become what we do or do not purchase with our power? Does it foreclose more generous identities, more onerous but meaningful commitments, larger and more human solidarities?

Scott Long, from an excellent piece, Fashion Police.

PS Bandwagonesque.


'US'??!!

And what will this achieve, Pete, or is it just another photo opp?

One has to admire how Saint Peter can not send a tweet without doing an @someonefamous. Pls retweet me, I'm a needy girl who seeks praise and followers.

#fuckyoursillyhashtags
Posted by Fagburn at 17:20:00
Labels: , , ,

3 comments:

  1. BK17 March 2015 at 17:44

    In the manner of big-name grudge matches, it also attracts celebrity wannabes like Peter Tatchell, straining to scrape up leftover attention.

    He's a fucking great writer, isn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  2. BK17 March 2015 at 18:51

    He puts most paid journalists to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  3. kdd18 March 2015 at 01:36

    Boycotting itself is not bullying, it's just abstinence. We can all decide whether to subscribe to a certain persons values or not. That's just personal choice.

    The problem comes when people (particularly celebrities) try to invoke others to do the same. Rather than insist on boycotts they should invite others to look at the situation and assess for themselves. Unfortunately Twitter has become a strong medium for lazy hashtag politics. Had EJ left the hashtag off his post would have been fine, in my opinion. In any case it doesn't hide the fact that D&G were in the wrong, which is what they've been trying to do.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)