Buying Products That Profit Questionable Individuals or Entities

[Stevicus]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

I've never seen nor read anything in the Harry Potter series, so I don't have any plans to buy any games related to it. I have no problem with those who wish to boycott, though.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

I don't have an issue with boycotting as a tool for political activism. It was successfully used during the Civil Rights movement, although there have been times where it hasn't worked. Local activists targeting a local company for boycott might work, but on a national or global level, I'm not sure. It's only one tool out of many that can be used in a political cause.

Some of it may depend on the product people are being asked to boycott and whether it's considered a necessity or a luxury.

On a slightly related note, I find myself being even more frustrated with the countless suckers out there who give money to snake-oil salesmen and con artists. In doing so, they just encourage more such activity. When it comes to the entertainment industry, it seems mostly vacuous and puerile, appealing to the baser instincts of the simple-minded. And the reason for this is because of the suckers who buy it. They know what sells and how easily manipulated and mollified the buying public is.

As an example, I've been boycotting major league baseball since 1994, the year they cancelled the World Series due to a players' strike. Of course, in practice, it has amounted to a one-person boycott, because no one else seems to have any kind of backbone. They just have to have their baseball no matter what. They're like addicts who can't quit a destructive habit - and the purveyors of professional sports know this. Suckers.

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

When it comes to other countries and governments, it can vary. I don't see that much traction has been gained in any movements to boycott countries which have cheap labor, sweatshops, or prohibitions against unions or collective bargaining. Likewise, the movement to push for people to buy products "Made in the USA" seems to have mixed and spotty results. Moreover, any proposals to impose or increase tariffs on foreign-made imports is met with extremely powerful and zealous opposition.

Also, just as with anything in politics, there needs to be certain set of consistent principles one might operate by. It's a fair question to ask, why should we boycott China if we're still doing business with Saudi Arabia or any number of other countries whose governments have shoddy human rights records? Is there some consistent standard or formula we can follow to determine when to boycott and when not to?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Boycotting Rowling doesn’t make much sense to me because, unlike boycotting Nestle or the Montgomery Bus boycott, it doesn’t have an effect on anything. Rowling is an individual with an opinion, an opinion that will likely never change regardless how poorly received it is. As for Nestle, the way they operate their business is corrupt and by boycotting their products that will be a direct influence against their operations.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The controversy surrounding Rowling has, AFAIK, been completely blown out of proportion. The idea of boycotting her sounds to me as selective outrage.

I think she has repeated her more problematic takes enough for the controversy not to be disproportionate at this point. For me, her endorsement of Matt Walsh and general theme of adopting TERF talking points removed any doubts I had about whether she was just misunderstood or genuinely being transphobic.

As for the idea of boycotting in general, I see it as a valid way to address social issues, as long as one is not an hypocrite when doing it such as supporting/buying products from someone who is doing something even worse.

That's where my own lack of a firm position on the issue stems from: I don't fault specific boycotts of unethical entities or individuals, but I also recognize that it is essentially impossible to consistently boycott all of them. How does one choose, and which boycotts should be prioritized when one has to pick their battles? I haven't found any easy answer to this.

 

[Rival]

I think the difficulty in defining genders is usually only a "trainwreck" from a perspective that overlooks or denies current science, because there is no scientific consensus as to what qualities or traits define each gender. But to Matt Walsh and other anti-trans commentators, sex and gender are synonymous, so they think the latter has an easy, one-size-fits-all definition.

There is actually a lot of scientific data on this now from psychological and neurological standpoints. From things like dopamine production to where one's gaze falls have all been attached to one's sex. If one's 'gender' doesn't match one's biological sex that is an issue of having male or female brain function that doesn't match the biological reality. But we do know what this brain function is. If we didn't, nobody could say he were transgender at all, or that he agreed with his sex. We are born knowing, as it's a brain function, it's not malleable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ah...
Now that you mention that... I decided to google his name. I have definitely watched a few very short videos of him questioning people.
The one with the person saying he can't say what a woman is because he is not a woman made me facepalm.

Let's be honest, what he really meant by that is that he can't define what a woman is in a way that he feels safe the far-left won't cancel him. He obviously does have a conception of what it means to be a woman, even if he is not able to state as accurately as he would like to.

How would you define "woman" in a way that acknowledged 1) that sex and gender are not synonymous, and 2) the current lack of scientific definition as to which traits constitute each gender?

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is actually a lot of scientific data on this now from psychological and neurological standpoints. From things like dopamine production to where one's gaze falls have all been attached to one's sex. If one's 'gender' doesn't match one's biological sex that is an issue of having male or female brain function that doesn't match the biological reality. But we do know what this brain function is. If we didn't, nobody could say he were transgender at all, or that he agreed with his sex. We are born knowing, as its a brain function, it's not malleable.

Sex is indeed biologically defined; I'm speaking of gender. It has no clear-cut, universal scientific definition. Which traits or behaviors are "masculine" or "feminine" largely varies by culture, too, and there's no scientific consensus neatly listing specific traits or behaviors that define each.

 

[Rival]

Sex is indeed biologically defined; I'm speaking of gender. It has no clear-cut, universal scientific definition. Which traits or behaviors are "masculine" or "feminine" largely varies by culture, too, and there's no scientific consensus neatly listing specific traits or behaviors that define each.

No they really don't vary. Women the world over gravitate towards jobs working with people and men gravitate towards things, i.e cars or buildings. Women are relationship focused and men are task oriented. These things are truths and are recognisable. They are distinct behaviour patterns. Things like dress will vary, but recognisable behaviours won't. Women like to gossip and share information with other women, for example. There are good evolutionary explanations for this. These behaviours are 'gender'. They're how we actually recognise a man from a woman when other factors are not present and they work.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Boycotting Rowling doesn’t make much sense to me because, unlike boycotting Nestle or the Montgomery Bus boycott, it doesn’t have an effect on anything. Rowling is an individual with an opinion, an opinion that will likely never change regardless how poorly received it is. As for Nestle, the way they operate their business is corrupt and by boycotting their products that will be a direct influence against their operations.

The way I see individual boycotts, they may pressure the individual to change their public conduct or speech even if that person doesn't change their opinion. For example, I could see myself doing business with a religious fundamentalist who believes atheists are sinful or immoral, but I would boycott them if they—as an influential public figure—also publicly announced their views and tried to inspire others to adopt such views.

To me, it's almost entirely about the practical effects of their words and actions, and J. K. Rowling's opinions have stirred up a lot of anti-trans sentiment ever since she started airing them publicly.

 

[Koldo]

How would you define "woman" in a way that acknowledged 1) that sex and gender are not synonymous, and 2) the current lack of scientific definition as to which traits constitute each gender?

I don't refer to gender when I use the term 'woman'. I refer to sex.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No they really don't vary. Women the world over gravitate towards jobs working with people and men gravitate towards things, i.e cars or buildings. Women are relationship focused and men are task oriented. These things are truths and are recognisable. They are distinct behaviour patterns. Things like dress will vary, but recognisable behaviours won't. Women like to gossip and share information with other women, for example. There are good evolutionary explanations for this. These behaviours are 'gender'. They're how we actually recognise a man from a woman when other factors are not present and they work.

There is no scientific consensus on this, though. For instance, no reputable scientific institution currently recognizes such a definition of gender, in contrast to this:

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with others. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

Gender EURO

Furthermore:

What is gender? What is sex? - CIHR

Using the definition you propose, would someone be less of a man for not gravitating much toward things as opposed to people?

If you want an example of how gendered traits vary across cultures, I think comparing Saudi or Yemeni culture to American or British culture may be a solid start. Numerous behaviors and traits that are considered "masculine" by many in the former, such as wearing jeans or not being shy, are much more normalized in the latter. Even something like participating in chores is seen as "unmanly" in some narrower communities.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't refer to gender when I use the term 'woman'. I refer to sex.

Then how does your definition account for trans men, non-binary biological females, or trans women? We know all of them exist, so treating the word "woman" as synonymous with sex is incomplete at best. It works in most cases because most people identify as the gender matching their birth sex, but a supposedly universal definition can't have exceptions.

 

[Koldo]

I think she has repeated her more problematic takes enough for the controversy not to be disproportionate at this point. For me, her endorsement of Matt Walsh and general theme of adopting TERF talking points removed any doubts I had about whether she was just misunderstood or genuinely being transphobic.



That's where my own lack of a firm position on the issue stems from: I don't fault specific boycotts of unethical entities or individuals, but I also recognize that it is essentially impossible to consistently boycott all of them. How does one choose, and which boycotts should be prioritized when one has to pick their battles? I haven't found any easy answer to this.

According to the harm being caused and the impact of your boycot.

 

[Rival]

There is no scientific consensus on this, though. For instance, no reputable scientific institution currently recognizes such a definition of gender, in contrast to this:



Gender EURO

Furthermore:

What is gender? What is sex? - CIHR

Using the definition you propose, would someone be less of a man for not gravitating much toward things as opposed to people?

If you want an example of how gendered traits vary across cultures, I think comparing Saudi or Yemeni culture to American or British culture may be a solid start. Numerous behaviors and traits that are considered "masculine" by many in the former, such as wearing jeans or not being shy, are much more normalized in the latter. Even something like participating in chores is seen as "unmanly" in some narrower communities.

Yes, in some cultures he would be considered feminine.

Frontiers | All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields (frontiersin.org)

Sex Differences in the relationship of regional Dopamine release to affect and cognitive function in Striatal and Extrastriatal Regions using PET and [18F]Fallypride - PMC (nih.gov)

Dopamine and Stress System Modulation of Sex Differences in Decision Making | Neuropsychopharmacology (nature.com)

Dopamine, the Left Brain, Women, and Men | Psychology Today United Kingdom

On the right side of the brain - the artsy part - serotonin and norepinephrine are more dominant. Serotonin and norepinephrine have more to do with emotional activation and arousal systems. The serotonin systems manage our movements and focus on a close personal level. They work in close concert with the opiate reward system and some other hormonal and neuronal systems associated with close in work - feeding babies, eating - stuff we would do with our gaze directed downward, and usually doesn't require as much planning. Norepinephrine and serotonin networks also manage our vestibular systems, helping us balance, postural control, and knowing which way is up or down. Again, one associates balance with looking down or being centered in space. Norepinephrine tracts in the brain are also heavily involved in the "close-in" sense of touch.

The dopamine systems on the left side of the brain become more active with thinking and planning that is more long term. Scanning the horizon, searching and recognition. These systems rarely operate close in our personal space, as it is rare to bring something within arm's reach that we do not already recognize. The medial dopamine systems are used in exploration, navigation, and orientation to landmarks. Far vision, upward gaze, hearing, and smell are more associated with the dopamine tracts. Dopamine's linkage to distant space seems to have associated itself in humans with distant time as well. There is no species quite so future oriented as Homo sapien. No other species has such high concentrations of dopamine in the brain.

An obvious and perhaps controversial correlate to these different neurotransmitter systems responsible for close/feeling/balance versus far/navigation/planning is the inherent female/male parallel. Aggressive "male" behaviors are mediated by dopamine, whereas receptive "female" and maternal behaviors (grooming, feeding) are mediated by close-in cues, norepinephrine, and opiate and oxytocin systems.

Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings - PMC (nih.gov)

Etc. This goes on and on.

It's a closed case.

 

[Debater Slayer]

According to the harm being caused and the impact of your boycot.

Let's take the CCP as an example. If I buy specific Chinese products, I know some of the revenue is going to the Chinese government that is now committing genocide against the Uyghurs, abusing political dissidents, and exercising geopolitical exploitation of multiple countries.

If I decide to boycott China because of this, I'm left with two issues:

1) my boycott has a minuscule, negligible impact, and

2) I will be inconsistent if I don't also boycott products that generate revenue for Saudi Arabia, the US, France, or any other country with notably abusive policies, be they domestic or foreign.

How to resolve the second problem is, to me, a more difficult question than how to resolve the first one, since I can answer the first by saying that my boycott is primarily conscientious even if it has a negligible impact.

 

[Nakosis]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

Not a fan of boycotts.
I don't like the idea of trying to punish an individual just because someone else says it is the thing everyone ought to do.
Of course I might avoid supporting an individual or company myself because I don't like their position but that's an individual thing. I don't expect everyone else to make the same choices as I do because I think it is "the right thing" to do.

I still think people get to make their own choices and that's ok with me.

Myself, I don't care about Rowling or her opinion so it wouldn't affect my choice. However wouldn't have bought it anyway since I never liked Harry Potter.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The way I see individual boycotts, they may pressure the individual to change their public conduct or speech even if that person doesn't change their opinion. For example, I could see myself doing business with a religious fundamentalist who believes atheists are sinful or immoral, but I would boycott them if they—as an influential public figure—also publicly announced their views and tried to inspire others to adopt such views.

To me, it's almost entirely about the practical effects of their words and actions, and J. K. Rowling's opinions have stirred up a lot of anti-trans sentiment ever since she started airing them publicly.

Sure, but it is unrelated to how they conduct their business.

If Rowling was, for example, banning people who identify as trans from buying her books, or making them pay more somehow, then that would be different. Her opinions on this matter are unrelated to the Harry Potter media.

What is happening is the boycotters are targeting her in indirect ways. Which they have every right to do, and it may or may not an effect. But to me this seems like it will just cause more drama and tension between Rowling and the trans community.

What I think crosses the line is doxxing her and things of that nature. It seems to have become a larger controversy than it needs to be and is only getting worse.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, in some cultures he would be considered feminine.

Frontiers | All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields (frontiersin.org)

Sex Differences in the relationship of regional Dopamine release to affect and cognitive function in Striatal and Extrastriatal Regions using PET and [18F]Fallypride - PMC (nih.gov)

Dopamine and Stress System Modulation of Sex Differences in Decision Making | Neuropsychopharmacology (nature.com)

Dopamine, the Left Brain, Women, and Men | Psychology Today United Kingdom

On the right side of the brain - the artsy part - serotonin and norepinephrine are more dominant. Serotonin and norepinephrine have more to do with emotional activation and arousal systems. The serotonin systems manage our movements and focus on a close personal level. They work in close concert with the opiate reward system and some other hormonal and neuronal systems associated with close in work - feeding babies, eating - stuff we would do with our gaze directed downward, and usually doesn't require as much planning. Norepinephrine and serotonin networks also manage our vestibular systems, helping us balance, postural control, and knowing which way is up or down. Again, one associates balance with looking down or being centered in space. Norepinephrine tracts in the brain are also heavily involved in the "close-in" sense of touch.

The dopamine systems on the left side of the brain become more active with thinking and planning that is more long term. Scanning the horizon, searching and recognition. These systems rarely operate close in our personal space, as it is rare to bring something within arm's reach that we do not already recognize. The medial dopamine systems are used in exploration, navigation, and orientation to landmarks. Far vision, upward gaze, hearing, and smell are more associated with the dopamine tracts. Dopamine's linkage to distant space seems to have associated itself in humans with distant time as well. There is no species quite so future oriented as Homo sapien. No other species has such high concentrations of dopamine in the brain.

An obvious and perhaps controversial correlate to these different neurotransmitter systems responsible for close/feeling/balance versus far/navigation/planning is the inherent female/male parallel. Aggressive "male" behaviors are mediated by dopamine, whereas receptive "female" and maternal behaviors (grooming, feeding) are mediated by close-in cues, norepinephrine, and opiate and oxytocin systems.

Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings - PMC (nih.gov)

Etc. This goes on and on.

It's a closed case.

All of these links discuss sex-based differences. There's nothing defining gender nor necessarily attaching it to sex-based differences. As I said in a previous post, while treating "man" and "woman" as terms that are synonymous with sex works in most cases because most people are cisgendered, it needs to not have any exceptions if it is to be a universal definition. If gender were universally defined, you wouldn't have needed to say "in some cultures" to qualify your statement that someone would be considered "feminine" if he were less interested in things as opposed to people.

The first link also talks about gendered differences observed in the analyzed studies, which, it seems, are largely concentrated in the US and the Western world. From the outset, this is bound to be limited in its scope of examining various cultural concepts of gender and their associated behaviors and traits.

I think this may also be useful here:

Are you a creative and emotional person? Maybe an artist or a musician? Then you are probably right-brained. No? Perhaps you are a rational, analytical and logical thinker? Maybe a mathematician or an engineer? Then you are most likely left-brained. Who does not know that creativity and emotion are located in the right half of the brain, while rationality and logic are situated in the left half of the brain? Everyone has come across this popular notion of left or right brain dominance, which determines a person’s way of thinking and his/her personality. This notion, however, is a widely held misconception. Here we will discuss the concept of this notion, known as hemisphericity or hemispheric dominance, how it arose, and why it is a misconception.

Neuromyth 6 - OECD

Also:

Before the Left Brain was Logical, it was Male

Defining gender is far from a closed case if we're talking about a scientific, rigorous definition. If it were, some of the world's most reputable medical and scientific institutions wouldn't be undecided about it or explicitly referring to gender as a social construct.

 

[Secret Chief]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

The problem is one could probably find a reason not to make a purchase from any source, whether that be the individual, the company or the country of origin. I think one has to draw a line somewhere. Also, the distinctions may seem rather arbitrary to others, the choices we make may be as much emotional as factual.

 

[Secret Chief]

I do 'boycott' some products that are owned by individuals or companies I don't like.
I'd never buy a Dyson vacuum cleaner or go in a Weatherspoon's pub

But I'm not good at this and i suppose I buy plenty from China

It's probably impossible not to buy stuff from China, as much as I'd like to. Walking past a Wetherspoons pub is easy though

 

[Rival]

All of these links discuss sex-based differences. There's nothing defining gender nor necessarily attaching it to sex-based differences. As I said in a previous post, while treating "man" and "woman" as terms that are synonymous with sex works in most cases because most people are cisgendered, it needs to not have any exceptions if it is to be a universal definition. If gender were universally defined, you wouldn't have needed to say "in some cultures" to qualify your statement that someone would be less of a man if he were less interested in things as opposed to people.

The first link also talks about gendered differences observed in the analyzed studies, which, it seems, are largely concentrated in the US and the Western world. From the outset, this is bound to be limited in its scope of examining various cultural concepts of gender and their associated behaviors and traits.

I think this may also be useful here:



Neuromyth 6 - OECD

Also:

Before the Left Brain was Logical, it was Male

Defining gender is far from a closed case if we're talking about a scientific, rigorous definition. If it were, some of the world's most reputable medical and scientific institutions wouldn't be undecided about it or explicitly referring to gender as a social construct.

I think you are misunderstanding here.

All behaviours are based in either biology, psychology or neurology, or they're socially conditioned.

What I'm trying to get at is that behaviours that we consider feminine, for example (prefer people to things), when observed in a person with XY chromosomes, enough of these behaviours tells you the neurotype/psychology etc. of this person is female, which is the 'gender'. Usually these line up, but when they don't you end up with a transgender person. It's gender not sex because it's the behaviour, the psychology, the experiences as of a man/woman. Male and female are always based in something we can in fact measure, otherwise they wouldn't exist other than as cultural phenomena, but we know that they do exist. Unless you are putting forward a TERF kind of argument where you believe the only differences between men and women are sex based and there is no difference psychologically or neurologically?