• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberals Expand On Blacklisting, Promising To Close Down Conservative Businesses In Pittsburgh

JasperL said:
That's not how it works, actually. Using this standard, it would be illegitimate for liberals to blacklist a restaurant with a "Whites Only" policy because liberals value tolerance, even of racists who would make second class citizens of blacks if given the reins of power. It's absurd. Blacklisting a racist business is to punish the expressed INTOLERANCE, racism and bigotry of that owner. Giving their business to those who welcome everyone is to value, reward tolerance. You're trying to flip those things on their heads and call embraces of, rewarding, intolerance, tolerance. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...
As I see it, the moral "rightness" of a boycott pivots on three things:

1: Is the intent of the boycott to reduce the incidence of an immoral behaviour?

2: Will the boycott reasonably succeed in reducing the incidence of the targeted immoral behaviour?

3: Will the boycott realize the success in (2) without harming a significant number of businesses/individuals not engaged in the immoral behaviour?

Let's examine the case in the OP.

The answer to (1) could swing either way. The blacklist organizers would undoubtedly argue that their goal is to discourage racism. Their critics will point to the organizers' stated goal of "closing businesses down" and argue their goal is simple malice (i.e. vengeance). I tend to agree with the critics, but for sake of argument let's assume the organizers' intentions are noble and they sincerely mean to curb racist behaviour.

The moral case for the blacklist starts falling apart in (2) since i) business owners may not know why they're being boycotted, and ii) even if they become aware of the organizers' intentions, the chances they'll drop their racist views and behaviours in response to a threat by moralizing strangers is virtually nil. Precisely why I don't dig up the sins of the owners of the businesses I patronize and lord it over them.

What doesn't fall apart in (2) falls apart completely in (3). As much as progressives love to claim otherwise, not all Americans who voted for Pres. Trump (or even the majority of them) are racists. A boycott against businesses owned by Trump supporters is going to destroy more innocent people than guilty. Even if this weren't the case, the business owner isn't the only one who suffers from a boycott. He has employees, a family, customers who frequent his shop, suppliers, other businesses that rely on him. You're damaging or wiping them all out, guilty or not, with your broad spectrum boycott.

This last point is also where tolerance comes in. Even we buy your 'we don't have to tolerate intolerance' cop-out (totally at odds with classical liberalism, by the way), how do you call yourself 'tolerant' if you're willing to wipe out a legion of innocent people in your quest to redeem the guilty?

So no. Even if we assume this blacklist was organized with the noblest of intentions, it still fails a moral litmus test. It's indefensible. Any conservative blacklist with similar answers is likewise indefensible. But conservative blacklists, wherever and whenever they may take place, aren't the topic of this thread. They aren't your moral justification either.
 
I love it.

Give me the list and i will certainly boycott the businesses

I have been boycotting Walmart for many years

Bring back Sam Walton's Buy American plan and i will shop there again
 
Last edited:
Acadia said:
I'd like to see the list of performers threatened, attacked and blacklisted for coming out in support of Obama, or performing for his inaugurations, or visiting his WH.
Click to expand...

Well, if they were threatened to have their personal businesses shut down by Republicans who didn't like their politics, we both KNOW what they'd be called.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Some good points.

I have no issue with boycotting, but actively attempting to shut a business down...
Click to expand...

I hear you, it is just that some are willing to take things further than others... throw the whole thing in the 'this is why we cannot have nice things' folder.
 
COTO said:
As I see it, the moral "rightness" of a boycott pivots on three things:

1: Is the intent of the boycott to reduce the incidence of an immoral behaviour?

2: Will the boycott reasonably succeed in reducing the incidence of the targeted immoral behaviour?

3: Will the boycott realize the success in (2) without harming a significant number of businesses/individuals not engaged in the immoral behaviour?

Let's examine the case in the OP.

The answer to (1) could swing either way. The blacklist organizers would undoubtedly argue that their goal is to discourage racism. Their critics will point to the organizers' stated goal of "closing businesses down" and argue their goal is simple malice (i.e. vengeance). I tend to agree with the critics, but for sake of argument let's assume the organizers' intentions are noble and they sincerely mean to curb racist behaviour.

The moral case for the blacklist starts falling apart in (2) since i) business owners may not know why they're being boycotted, and ii) even if they become aware of the organizers' intentions, the chances they'll drop their racist views and behaviours in response to a threat by moralizing strangers is virtually nil. Precisely why I don't dig up the sins of the owners of the businesses I patronize and lord it over them.
Click to expand...

I don't know about racist/immoral VIEWS, but you can't doubt the power of public opinion to influence business behavior. My goodness, they spend $billions and $billions in PR and advertising. How much is a public boycott worth in negative publicity? It's not nothing, that's for sure.

What doesn't fall apart in (2) falls apart completely in (3). As much as progressives love to claim otherwise, not all Americans who voted for Pres. Trump (or even the majority of them) are racists. A boycott against businesses owned by Trump supporters is going to destroy more innocent people than guilty. Even if this weren't the case, the business owner isn't the only one who suffers from a boycott. He has employees, a family, customers who frequent his shop, suppliers, other businesses that rely on him. You're damaging or wiping them all out, guilty or not, with your broad spectrum boycott.

This last point is also where tolerance comes in. Even we buy your 'we don't have to tolerate intolerance' cop-out (totally at odds with classical liberalism, by the way), how do you call yourself 'tolerant' if you're willing to wipe out a legion of innocent people in your quest to redeem the guilty?

So no. Even if we assume this blacklist was organized with the noblest of intentions, it still fails a moral litmus test. It's indefensible. Any conservative blacklist with similar answers is likewise indefensible. But conservative blacklists, wherever and whenever they may take place, aren't the topic of this thread. They aren't your moral justification either.
Click to expand...

No, they're not my moral justification. What you're doing is applying subjective tests to the boycott and coming down opposed. That's fine and I agree with that to some extent. It's all our prerogative to disagree. What protesting is NOT is "fascism" or inherently illegitimate. It's one of our protected rights and exercising those rights, even stupidly or badly, is perhaps not good but it's not a descent into madness. People feel strongly Trump is uniquely destructive. Right or wrong, if they believe it, then boycotting those who enable him is in fact rational.

Besides, this event is a couple of morons whose effort has already failed.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know about racist/immoral VIEWS, but you can't doubt the power of public opinion to influence business behavior. My goodness, they spend $billions and $billions in PR and advertising. How much is a public boycott worth in negative publicity? It's not nothing, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Would you avoid voting in the next election if you saw your business on a Facebook blacklist targeting "Democrat-supporting businesses"?

JasperL said:
What protesting is NOT is "fascism" or inherently illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Anyone calling political activism "fascism" doesn't know what fascism is.

JasperL said:
People feel strongly Trump is uniquely destructive. Right or wrong, if they believe it, then boycotting those who enable him is in fact rational.
Click to expand...
Not if it's malicious, ineffective, and/or hurts more people than it helps--which was the point of my "subjective tests".

JasperL said:
Besides, this event is a couple of morons whose effort has already failed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We have to keep this in proper perspective.
 
COTO said:
The difference between hating a man and hating what a man does is the same difference between blacklisting his business to ruin him and continuing to patronize his business because a blacklist won't change what he does.

So which one are you? Which one will you defend? Hating a man or hating what a man does?
Click to expand...

So what do you do?

You come on here and say you hate other people for being who they are. A thing they don't have a choice about. A thing that doesn't impact you in any way shape or form.

These are your actions. These actions make you a bad, bad person.
 
3leftsdoo said:
In a since deleted Facebook post, a liberal operative in Steeltown said of his new site:

The new website promises to include, "a database of Trump-supporter owned businesses in the Pittsburgh area, as well as tips for how to get those specific businesses closed down."

Is liberal fascism the greatest danger our country currently faces?

How far will liberals go to destroy those they target?

When will their raging hysteria cease?

Read more about the Pittsburgh story here:

"This is insane": Leftists begin blacklist in Pittsburgh to get Trump-supporters' businesses "closed down"
Click to expand...

Soooo....... Where's the website?
 
3leftsdoo said:
In a since deleted Facebook post, a liberal operative in Steeltown said of his new site:

The new website promises to include, "a database of Trump-supporter owned businesses in the Pittsburgh area, as well as tips for how to get those specific businesses closed down."

Is liberal fascism the greatest danger our country currently faces?

How far will liberals go to destroy those they target?

When will their raging hysteria cease?

Read more about the Pittsburgh story here:

"This is insane": Leftists begin blacklist in Pittsburgh to get Trump-supporters' businesses "closed down"
Click to expand...

Conspiring to deny civil rights to people is a felony.
 
trixare4kids said:
Well, if they were threatened to have their personal businesses shut down by Republicans who didn't like their politics, we both KNOW what they'd be called.
Click to expand...

Give me an "R"....
 
PoS said:
Intolerance is intolerance- we're taking about ripping off hats with MAGA slogans, harassing Trump supporters and the like. I'm against these kinds of things even though I didnt vote for Trump. People need to be left alone.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it's unacceptable, I'm all over here saying so...but lumping in understandable outrage with racial intolerance seems like apples and oranges...yeah, but round, both fruit, but a little different...
 
trixare4kids said:
I think PoS was talking about the general intolerance shown by the left. The left has become what they say they detest, intolerant...

What if the right created a new website which promised a database of Obama-supporter owned businesses in the Pittsburgh area, complete with tips in how to get those specific businesses closed down? Seems highly unlikely you would say this is just desperation, by a group of people really unhappy with their representation. In fact, I am betting you would say these right-wingers were representative of the very definition of intolerance, racist, fascist....
Click to expand...

Mmm...no, I wouldn't. I'd say it's ****ty behavior, as I would in this situation, but I'm usually pretty careful with the words I choose. Yeah, I'm splitting hairs, these points I'm making aren't all that important, I'll get out ahead of that and say so... :)

As for "this is what the left it has become"...can we make a deal? You don't make inaccurate, lazy (love you) generalizations, and I won't be a big meanie in calling you out for them. Oh, and I won't call you a Nazi, either. ;)
 
3leftsdoo said:
In a since deleted Facebook post, a liberal operative in Steeltown said of his new site:

The new website promises to include, "a database of Trump-supporter owned businesses in the Pittsburgh area, as well as tips for how to get those specific businesses closed down."

Is liberal fascism the greatest danger our country currently faces?

How far will liberals go to destroy those they target?

When will their raging hysteria cease?

Read more about the Pittsburgh story here:

"This is insane": Leftists begin blacklist in Pittsburgh to get Trump-supporters' businesses "closed down"
Click to expand...

I think this is great. Would love to see the list
 
COTO said:
Would you avoid voting in the next election if you saw your business on a Facebook blacklist targeting "Democrat-supporting businesses"?
Click to expand...

Would you quit advertising on a particular Fox News show if your company was subject to a boycott? At least dozens of major companies have done just that. If you knew your name was going to be on a donor list (here's what would hurt a business is being on a Warren or Sanders list) would you think twice and maybe not donate? We DO NOT contribute to any political candidate in part just for that reason. We have particular reasons to keep a non-partisan public profile, but I'm sure many public facing businesses make the same decision for the same reason. Why risk alienating half your customer base?

Anyone calling political activism "fascism" doesn't know what fascism is.

Not if it's malicious, ineffective, and/or hurts more people than it helps--which was the point of my "subjective tests".

Agreed. We have to keep this in proper perspective.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page mostly. I don't boycott businesses over politics. I do boycott them for other reasons - how they're run, who leads them. One huge local firm cheated their little customers, massive fraud - they'll never get another dime of my money because the culture came from the owners, and I don't reward crooks who'd screw their little customers to add another $million to their $billion...

My point mostly was that IMO it's just a form of protest and not inherently good or bad. We seem to agree on that, and that's really my point... :peace
 
Acadia said:
I'd like to see the list of performers threatened, attacked and blacklisted for coming out in support of Obama, or performing for his inaugurations, or visiting his WH.
Click to expand...

Remember the Dixie Chicks?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
So what do you do?

You come on here and say you hate other people for being who they are. A thing they don't have a choice about. A thing that doesn't impact you in any way shape or form.

These are your actions. These actions make you a bad, bad person.
Click to expand...
The only things I condemn and have ever condemned are moral choices: Do you or do you not commit homosexual acts? Do you or do you not feed perverse sexual appetites through pornography, fantasizing, choice of personal associations, choice of places to go, situations in which you choose to put yourself or unwisely fail to avoid? Anyone attracted to the same sex--or robots, animals, children, close relatives, etc.--need fear no condemnation from me if they eschew all the aforementioned acts, which in every case is a moral choice. Moreover, I have immense respect for people who triumph over predispositions to sexual perversion.

I apply the same standard to sexual sins of all kinds, including adultery, voyeurism, and every sexual perversion under the sun.

Now that I've clarified my own position, I'd appreciate an answer to my question. To wit:

The difference between hating a man and hating what a man does is the same difference between blacklisting his business to ruin him and continuing to patronize his business because a blacklist won't change what he does.

So which one are you? Which one will you defend? Hating a man or hating what a man does?​
 
COTO said:
The only things I condemn and have ever condemned are moral choices: Do you or do you not commit homosexual acts? Do you or do you not feed perverse sexual appetites through pornography, fantasizing, choice of personal associations, choice of places to go, situations in which you choose to put yourself or unwisely fail to avoid? Anyone attracted to the same sex--or robots, animals, children, close relatives, etc.--need fear no condemnation from me if they eschew all the aforementioned acts, which in every case is a moral choice. Moreover, I have immense respect for people who triumph over predispositions to sexual perversion.

I apply the same standard to sexual sins of all kinds, including adultery, voyeurism, and every sexual perversion under the sun.

Now that I've clarified my own position, I'd appreciate an answer to my question. To wit:

The difference between hating a man and hating what a man does is the same difference between blacklisting his business to ruin him and continuing to patronize his business because a blacklist won't change what he does.

So which one are you? Which one will you defend? Hating a man or hating what a man does?​
Click to expand...

1) Moral choices? So choosing to have sex is a moral choice. So, there are a lot of immoral people out there. In fact, every single parent is immoral for having sex.

Oh, oh, you've decided that it's immoral for two men to have sex together. The reason you've decided this is immoral goes back a couple of thousand years and some religious book. Doesn't really have much to do with morals.

How immoral is it to go around treating people as third class citizens for the way they were born?


I don't have a problem with people having sex with a consenting adult, or robots, or rubber dolls. Children I have a problem with because children should not be having sex, and can't properly understand what they're getting into, same with people with learning disabilities who can't make decisions properly.

You have "immense respect" for people who literally don't have sex. WTF?

I assume you believe in God. If you do, then God created humans with genitals. God created people with sexual desires. God didn't always get things right and it would seem God made a system of reproduction that led to things like blond hair, blue eyes, gay people, disabled people and the like.

I wonder if you find disabled people having sex something you think about on a nightly basis and then go around telling disabled people they shouldn't be having sex.

Again, you're an immoral person in my eyes.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
1) Moral choices? So choosing to have sex is a moral choice. So, there are a lot of immoral people out there. In fact, every single parent is immoral for having sex.
Click to expand...
Sex is not inherently immoral. It can be (and is) a wonderful thing when all the prerequisites are met, just like driving a car or scaling a mountain can be wonderful things when all the prerequisites are met. These prerequisites have nothing to do with the thread topic. Whether you agree with me on them is irrelevant. I answered your questions solely to emphasize the difference between hating a man and hating what a man does.

Frigidweirdo said:
You have "immense respect" for people who literally don't have sex. WTF?
Click to expand...
I have respect for people who are pressured by some combination of nature and nurture to commit immoral sexual acts (or immoral acts generally) but nevertheless eschew these acts because they know they're immoral. They choose to do what they know to be right rather than rationalizing what is wrong, and this earns them my respect. If this shocks and bewilders you: oh well.

Frigidweirdo said:
Oh, oh, you've decided that it's immoral for two men to have sex together. The reason you've decided this is immoral goes back... I don't have a problem with people having sex with a consenting adult, or robots, or rubber dolls... God didn't always get things right and it would seem God made a system of reproduction that led to things like blond hair, ... I wonder if you find disabled people having sex something you think about on a nightly basis... Again, you're an immoral person in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Duly noted.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question now?
 
COTO said:
Sex is not inherently immoral. It can be (and is) a wonderful thing when all the prerequisites are met, just like driving a car or scaling a mountain can be wonderful things when all the prerequisites are met. These prerequisites have nothing to do with the thread topic. Whether you agree with me on them is irrelevant. I answered your questions solely to emphasize the difference between hating a man and hating what a man does.


I have respect for people who are pressured by some combination of nature and nurture to commit immoral sexual acts (or immoral acts generally) but nevertheless eschew these acts because they know they're immoral. They choose to do what they know to be right rather than rationalizing what is wrong, and this earns them my respect. If this shocks and bewilders you: oh well.


Duly noted.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question now?
Click to expand...

Let me guess, sex the way you like it moral. Sex the way other people like it, but you don't, is immoral. How convenient for you.

You talk about scaling a mountain or driving a car can be "wonderful things", and yet some people like to climb mountains going vertically, others like it taking it softly softly, some like driving cars fast, others prefer slow. What is "wonderful" is when people enjoy what they're doing. It's not "wonderful" when COTO decides he likes it that way.

You have respect blah blah blah, you talk about morality in a manner that shows you don't really respect people unless they do what you want them to do.

Would I like to answer your question? No, not really. You're the sort of person who gets in people's faces and tells them they're bad people. Why would I give a fart about your question?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Boohoo.

Wait, wasn't it the hard right Christian Conservatives who started this? Wasn't there a Texas band boycotted by the right because they opposed Dubya when he was president?

Come on, getting all shocked about something that's been happening for ages is a little ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would have been Dixie Chicks and their very vocal opposition to Bush. That's democracy!

The Dixie Chicks criticize President Bush - CNN Video

Maines doesn't have much good to say about Trump either...

Natalie Maines, Dixie Chicks frontwoman, to Donald Trump: 'I hate you' for bringing out worst in me - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
COTO said:
Sex is not inherently immoral. It can be (and is) a wonderful thing when all the prerequisites are met, just like driving a car or scaling a mountain can be wonderful things when all the prerequisites are met. These prerequisites have nothing to do with the thread topic. Whether you agree with me on them is irrelevant. I answered your questions solely to emphasize the difference between hating a man and hating what a man does.


I have respect for people who are pressured by some combination of nature and nurture to commit immoral sexual acts (or immoral acts generally) but nevertheless eschew these acts because they know they're immoral. They choose to do what they know to be right rather than rationalizing what is wrong, and this earns them my respect. If this shocks and bewilders you: oh well.


Duly noted.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question now?
Click to expand...

Who made you the arbiter of 'morality'? After all it's just a social construct, right? Your post reeks of condescension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom