- 0 Posts
- 6 Comments
0·4 days agoYes and yes.
Your second paragraph is just your first paragraph of question rephrased as confident conclusions with absolutely no facts or information inbetween. It’s weird, man. Is this AI? That’s not how it works.
It’s a miserably low bar that’s been done a hundred times over to zero effect. It feels like an idea born straight out of a boardroom meeting to lessen the effects of protests. Billionaires probably giggle and try to guess who floated this one to the masses.
I guess my response is the entire middle part of my other comment that you just cut out to try to make a point. I’m just not going to bother copying things around.
Ill try to spell it out a bit better though. The one day of protest causes a permanent change - you’re banned from a store. And the store does all the fucking work for you after the first day to keep you from buying there.
If you want paperwork to gauge the effect, ask the police for the trespass in writing.
How exactly do you gauge the effects? Do you have access to their daily financials? Because just gauging the support and nothing else feels like the literal definition of performative action.
Not sure why the next step after not purchasing for a day is to not go to your job. Seems like it would be to not purchase for a week, or month, or permanently stop giving companies your money.
If the general public lacks the focus to do anything more than a day, then the specific action that one day should be radically different. Something very simple that overwhelms stores and forces your hand tomorrow and the next day. For example, everyone could go out that day and intentionally get trespassed from a store they don’t like. Not as a group, individually throughout the day. It doesn’t have to be violent or even illegal, just break policy - go in without wearing shoes or something.
Agreed. Might as well call the next day the ‘buy twice as much as normal’ protest, because that’s all that will happen.
They’re safer if they develop nuclear weapons on their own.