I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.Quote:
"Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote," Quincey wrote in a statement published on Coca-Cola's website on April 1. "We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia's legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting."
Not too unusual, if a public company feels they could be impacted in some way. I just don't think it carries much weight in most instances.Forest Bueller_bf said:I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.Quote:
"Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote," Quincey wrote in a statement published on Coca-Cola's website on April 1. "We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia's legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting."
The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
well saidSam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
Yep.Sam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
Sam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
Forest Bueller_bf said:I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.Quote:
"Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote," Quincey wrote in a statement published on Coca-Cola's website on April 1. "We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia's legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting."
Guess I've kinda not been paying attention, but business doesn't need to be in the "business" of influencing or controlling legislation.
The separation of church and state is a great idea, the separation of business and state with the incredibly large potential of corruption, may not be a terrible idea. Coke should be concerning itself with legislation affecting their business practices, not voting laws, gun laws, and other laws they happen to disagree with. We don't want churches influencing elections, I don't want potentially crooked business people influencing elections either.
Boycotts target policies, while canceling targets people. The former pressures a company to change its practices, and the latter pressures them to punish an individual.Booray said:Sam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
So boycotts based on political views are ok, but boycotts based on cultural views are evil? I fail to see the distinction.
It is not a political issue but a racial justice issue.Sam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
Same thing.Waco1947 said:It is not a political issue but a racial justice issue.Sam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
Sam Lowry said:The line is usually pretty clear. Surry County GOP is boycotting Coke because Coke got itself involved in a political issue. Canceling would be, for example, not buying Coke because their CEO accidentally misgendered someone on Twitter in 2007.BaylorOkie said:
There is a fine line between canceling and simply deciding not to purchase from a company. As I type this, I have not read the article so I'm not commenting specifically on this instance. Just a general comment.
I don't particularly care for either. If people with conservative and/or traditional values start boycotting every company that supports progressive values, they will soon have very few places to shop.
People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
The people's representatives did.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.
I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.ATL Bear said:The people's representatives did.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.
Everyone knows at McDonalds you get Coke and at Taco Bell you get Pepsi. The GOP chose not to contract with Coke, simple as that.quash said:I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.ATL Bear said:The people's representatives did.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.
Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.
Sure. And so they cancelled their contract.Sam Lowry said:Everyone knows at McDonalds you get Coke and at Taco Bell you get Pepsi. The GOP chose not to contract with Coke, simple as that.quash said:I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.ATL Bear said:The people's representatives did.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.
Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.
Unless their reconditions are something along the lines of "try Zero. It looks like you could use it" or " try it with vanilla ice cream because I see you appreciate good snacks " I really see no reason to listen to their suggestions.Forest Bueller_bf said:I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.Quote:
"Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote," Quincey wrote in a statement published on Coca-Cola's website on April 1. "We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia's legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting."
Guess I've kinda not been paying attention, but business doesn't need to be in the "business" of influencing or controlling legislation.
The separation of church and state is a great idea, the separation of business and state with the incredibly large potential of corruption, may not be a terrible idea. Coke should be concerning itself with legislation affecting their business practices, not voting laws, gun laws, and other laws they happen to disagree with. We don't want churches influencing elections, I don't want potentially crooked business people influencing elections either.
LIB,MR BEARS said:Unless their reconditions are something along the lines of "try Zero. It looks like you could use it" or " try it with vanilla ice cream because I see you appreciate good snacks " I really see no reason to listen to their suggestions.Forest Bueller_bf said:I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.Quote:
"Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote," Quincey wrote in a statement published on Coca-Cola's website on April 1. "We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia's legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting."
Guess I've kinda not been paying attention, but business doesn't need to be in the "business" of influencing or controlling legislation.
The separation of church and state is a great idea, the separation of business and state with the incredibly large potential of corruption, may not be a terrible idea. Coke should be concerning itself with legislation affecting their business practices, not voting laws, gun laws, and other laws they happen to disagree with. We don't want churches influencing elections, I don't want potentially crooked business people influencing elections either.
A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.Sam Lowry said:Everyone knows at McDonalds you get Coke and at Taco Bell you get Pepsi. The GOP chose not to contract with Coke, simple as that.quash said:I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.ATL Bear said:The people's representatives did.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.
Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.
It's a boycott of the company based on the actions of the company, not an individual. No one would care if Coke's CEO personally opposed voter ID, or whatever this is about. Contrast with Brendon Eich, who was targeted for his views as an individual.Booray said:A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.Sam Lowry said:Everyone knows at McDonalds you get Coke and at Taco Bell you get Pepsi. The GOP chose not to contract with Coke, simple as that.quash said:I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.ATL Bear said:The people's representatives did.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.quash said:
People targeted for their policies. Cancel culture.
And to me the irony is the posters here surprised at a corporation getting involved in politics. Are you kidding me?
The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.
Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.
Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.
You define cancel culture narrowly, but it is a faux distinction. Boycotts of products or canceling of individuals are both about inflicting economic harm because one does not agree with another's political or cultural views. They are sibling tactics of the same strategy.
