Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

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.

---

One car is green, the other car is red. They are both speeding.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

Governments and institutions boycott things all the time. And how do you not know this isn't reflecting the will of the people?

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

So is boycotting an Olympics. Or is that now considered cancel culture because an individual was not making the choice?

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

Governments and institutions boycott things all the time. And how do you not know this isn't reflecting the will of the people?

---

The will of the people is irrelevant to the point. It is cancel culture.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

So is boycotting an Olympics. Or is that now considered cancel culture because an individual was not making the choice?

---

Yes it was/is. Which was my point-calling it a boycott or a cancellation does not change the purpose, nature or impact of the action. Its all semantics: we are not going to buy what you are selling, because we disagree with your political/cultural views. The essential thing is that the good, service, event or person being rejected is rejected based on some basis other than the merits of what is being sold.

Boycotting or canceling is not always wrong nor is it always right. I used to laugh at Bill Cosby. Now that I know what a creep he is, I won't watch him anymore. INMHO that is an appropriate cancellation of Bill Cosby or boycott of Bill Cosby content, whichever you want to call it.

The point I was making in the OP was that it is ironic for the County GOP to cancel the sale of cokes on county property based on the company's view of voting rights legislation and in the same breath accuse corporate America of encouraging cancel culture..

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

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.

---

One car is green, the other car is red. They are both speeding.

---

One is consistent with the values of free speech, and the other isn't. To boycott a company is to have a say in how they use your money if they're going to use it politically. Eich wasn't using company money for politics. He was using it to put food on the table, and ultimately that is what cancel culture opposes. It's saying if you don't agree with us, you shouldn't work, shouldn't eat, shouldn't exist.

---

Not sure that is true here-did Coca Cola spend money lobbying against the Georgia bill or was it just a comment from the CEO?

Those objecting to EIch have free speech rights equal to Eich's free speech rights. Neither Eich nor his detractors had a right to speak without fear of these sorts of consequences. So "cancelling Eich" is not inconsistent with the First Amendment.

And Coca Cola puts food on the table for its employees, shareholders and vendors so I don't see how it differs from an individual employee in that respect.

Surrey County realizes it is hurting a local company and backtracks:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/moron-north-carolina-county-ends-211327124.html

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

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.

---

One car is green, the other car is red. They are both speeding.

---

One is consistent with the values of free speech, and the other isn't. To boycott a company is to have a say in how they use your money if they're going to use it politically. Eich wasn't using company money for politics. He was using it to put food on the table, and ultimately that is what cancel culture opposes. It's saying if you don't agree with us, you shouldn't work, shouldn't eat, shouldn't exist.

---

Those objecting to EIch have free speech rights equal to Eich's free speech rights.

---

Not unless they've been fired for the way they marked a ballot, they don't. Their rights are noticeably superior to his.

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

So is boycotting an Olympics. Or is that now considered cancel culture because an individual was not making the choice?

---

Its all semantics: we are not going to buy what you are selling, because we disagree with your political/cultural views.

---

That's apparent, but it's not a good reason to dismiss it as a semantic issue.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

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."

---

I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.

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.

---

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.

---

Why not? They are stakeholders, too.

---

if a business/industry wants to tell me (assuming I'm a rep) how a policy can negatively or positively impact their business, I'm all ears. If they want to venture into areas that don't impact their business, I wouldn't listen.

Assuming yours or someone else's response is that it impacts their employees, yes, it does; all of them-conservative, liberal, republicans, democrats and all races. That industry is venturing into an area where they have no standing any greater than anyone else. In fact, they have less because they do not vote as a company.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

So boycotts based on political views are ok, but boycotts based on cultural views are evil? I fail to see the distinction.

---

Because there's not one.

The skeezy tactic is fine when your side uses it but it's a scandal and a sin when the other side uses it.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

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."

---

I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.

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.

---

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.

---

Why not? They are stakeholders, too.

---

if a business/industry wants to tell me (assuming I'm a rep) how a policy can negatively or positively impact their business, I'm all ears. If they want to venture into areas that don't impact their business, I wouldn't listen.

Assuming yours or someone else's response is that it impacts their employees, yes, it does; all of them-conservative, liberal, republicans, democrats and all races. That industry is venturing into an area where they have no standing any greater than anyone else. In fact, they have less because they do not vote as a company.

---

Never had to raise money for a campaign, have you?

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

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."

---

I didn't realize Coca Cola was making recommendations to Lawmakers during their sessions. That seems kinda odd.

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.

---

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.

---

Why not? They are stakeholders, too.

---

if a business/industry wants to tell me (assuming I'm a rep) how a policy can negatively or positively impact their business, I'm all ears. If they want to venture into areas that don't impact their business, I wouldn't listen.

Assuming yours or someone else's response is that it impacts their employees, yes, it does; all of them-conservative, liberal, republicans, democrats and all races. That industry is venturing into an area where they have no standing any greater than anyone else. In fact, they have less because they do not vote as a company.

---

Never had to raise money for a campaign, have you?

---

You mean like where politicians feel indebted to big money donors ?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

People as individuals don't have policies, they have opinions. The essence of cancel culture is targeting people for their opinions.

---

The essence of cancel culture is cancellation.

---

That begs a definition. I'm arguing that the term was coined as a reference to something distinct from traditional boycotts.

---

Did the county ask people not to buy Coke? Because that would be a traditional boycott.

---

The people's representatives did.

---

I don't care if they were elected or not. Without the request to boycott there is no boycott.

Plus, a boycott is an individual decision to buy or not. Here there is no individual choice allowed; the option has been cancelled.

---

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.

---

A decision not based on the merits or pricing of the product.

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.

---

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.

---

One car is green, the other car is red. They are both speeding.

---

One is consistent with the values of free speech, and the other isn't. To boycott a company is to have a say in how they use your money if they're going to use it politically. Eich wasn't using company money for politics. He was using it to put food on the table, and ultimately that is what cancel culture opposes. It's saying if you don't agree with us, you shouldn't work, shouldn't eat, shouldn't exist.

---

Those objecting to EIch have free speech rights equal to Eich's free speech rights.

---

Not unless they've been fired for the way they marked a ballot, they don't. Their rights are noticeably superior to his.

---

Technically Eich was not fired. He resigned based on pressure, but not for how he voted. Regardless,
their rights are the same. They can speak their mind on issues or keep their silence; they all bear the consequences of speaking an unpopular opinion.

In general I don't like it but I can see in extreme instances how economic pressure based on positions or actions unrelated to a job or product are appropriate. I would not put either Eich or the Coca Cola statement in the "extreme" category.

And to me, that is the core of the problem. Saying that one opposes gay marriage or that one views the Georgia legislation as anti-democratic do not strike me as outrageous or immoral positions. It is destructive to our society to inflict economic damages in response to those types of statements. But we have the right to inflict that damage so some people can't resist.

Its just dumb and divisive. And that is really the point of the OP. It is just as dumb when conservatives do it as when liberals do it.

Being in a C-suite of a major corporation sometimes provides you a platform that others do not have. That platform should be used with great care. Those using your product(s) fall in every political category. If your use of the platform has the potential to alienate a substantial number of your customers, you need to know the potential consequences to both the business and your career prior to opening your mouth. If, after weighing the risk you still think it's wise to speak, you are free to do so just as your customers are free to go elsewhere, drag your name through the mud or put you on a pedestal... oh ya, the board is free to terminate your contract within those guidelines.