Off Topic > Off Topic
Boycotting - The means of controlling those who seek to control us.
PhantOS:
Master Matthew is actually a sleeper agent who was forced to freeze himself in a cryo machine in order to warn the future about the impending 1984-esque doomsday that cold war-era scientists predicted would happen. He's absolutely convinced that modern society is being brainwashed by Big Brother and that everything mainstream is just the means of controlling the masses and forcing them to do the bidding of the elite.
Little does he know that he's been full of stuff the whole time.
Rally:
there's a reason why they teach you how to structure persuasive essays in school and it's to avoid looking like OP
PhantOS:
With master matthew it always boils down to "someone's trying to control me! reeeeeee!" which sounds dangerously similar to the mantra of a landwhale straight out of SJW tumblr land.
maybe he's becoming his worst enemy
Drydess:
matthew slowly goes insane pt. 3
IkeTheGeneric:
While it is true that "Vote with your wallet" is a good philosophy to live by, the notion that people boycott companies to "Control those who seek to control us" is such a loving stupid concept that it seems only Master Matthew could have dreamed it up.
These companies are putting out advertisements to gather exposure to maximize profit. Any exposure is usually good exposure because boycotts usually aren't widespread enough to cause financial concerns. The dilemma is not that there's some conspiracy being uncovered where generic american alcohol company is trying to disenfranchise voters into picking their favored party, but rather that the company advertising is ham-fisting topical tropes to the point of possibly compromising certain ideals or morals. This is why if you see a commercial at the Superbowl with a liberal twist, it's because the commercial is trying to appeal to a certain crowd, and the only people who are going to boycott the advertised product are going to be predominantly republican who hated the liberal twist, or on the inverse, liberals who feel being targeted for the product was insulting.
These companies aren't trying to control you, they're trying to sell you their loving product. If at the end of the day you don't buy their product after watching the commercial, they lost. This is an already well understood concept to pretty much everyone who has basic income. The only reason why you don't see more boycotting is either because you're the only person who cares about thing you're whining about, or that everyone actually wants the product and aren't going to let a distasteful or stupid commercial change their mind.
Another thing - Boycotting over controversial ads is such a handicapped idea in the first place. Let's say everything goes all according to plan and you financially cripple the company you're boycotting. What's the end goal, try to show people that messing with your demographic leads to crippling boycotts? Great, you made advertisement more effective, potentially saving people the headache of dealing with boycotts in the future by effectively ignoring your demographic when trying to sell their product. Save the calls for boycotts for when companies actually forget up or do something legit evil, and not when they just offend your stupid ass.