What exactly is "ideological food"?

[mjr]

So, what is it?

https://www.wnd.com/2018/11/house-de...ological-food/

[s_stabeler]

It's a rather poorly-thought out tweet referencing the controversy a couple of years back when they claimed they were opposed to same-sex marriage.

as far as I'm aware, it's highly unllikely that Chik-Fil-A has actually been banned from anywhere- I'm guessing it's more likely that they simply didn't serve any fast food at the meal in question. However, to make one thing clear, while the democrats don't have to buy food from Chik-Fil-A, if there was an actual ban due to their views, I wouldn't support it. (In this case, they were just stating their views, so it's covered under freeedom of speech.)

[Greenday]

I haven't bought from Chik Fil A since the owners came out as homophobic. Despite their food being delicious. But quite a few people have stopped eating there because morals are more important than chicken-based fast food.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I haven't bought from Chik Fil A since the owners came out as homophobic. Despite their food being delicious. But quite a few people have stopped eating there because morals are more important than chicken-based fast food.

Same. It's interesting - I'm usually not a boycotting type but homophobia/transphobia I just have no time for. I can give my money to others. Science doesn't bear out the prejudice and I don't like to empower bullies.

Which is odd because on other issues the Chick-Fil-A peeps REALLY do a alot of things I like in terms of their workers (and I actually have no problem with the closed on Sunday thing-I wish more people did it.)

It's the reverse of Papa Johns where dumbass opened his mouth and was removed. If Chick Fil A would just retract that one bit I'd go back, but if they want to symbolically support their right to discriminate, I'll symbolically get food elsewhere.

[mjr]

but if they want to symbolically support their right to discriminate, I'll symbolically get food elsewhere.

So, is it the discrimination in general you don't like, or the specific type of discrimination?

[s_stabeler]

1. Does it really matter? He's not saying that anyone else should boycott them, just that he chooses to boycott them.
2. It sounds like what he's saying is that for him, homophobia/transphobia are big enough issues for him to boycott something.

To make things clear, frankly, it's fine for someone to choose not to patronise a business for any reason- even bigoted ones- what they cannot do is attempt to prevent other people from patronising said businesses.

[mjr]

1. Does it really matter? He's not saying that anyone else should boycott them, just that he chooses to boycott them.
2. It sounds like what he's saying is that for him, homophobia/transphobia are big enough issues for him to boycott something.

To make things clear, frankly, it's fine for someone to choose not to patronise a business for any reason- even bigoted ones- what they cannot do is attempt to prevent other people from patronising said businesses.

The flaw, as I see it, is everyone and every business discriminates in their own way. To say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, I get that he's not saying anyone else should boycott them, but I don't like the automatic association of "we support family values" with homophobia.

You know, bullying does go both ways.

[Gravekeeper]

but I don't like the automatic association of "we support family values" with homophobia.

"Family values" is a meaningless phrase whose primary usage in modern American discourse is as a dog whistle for homophobia, sexism and other bullshit. You may not like the automatic association but the association is there because the loudest proponents of it use it that way.

Take it up with them, not us.

[s_stabeler]

The flaw, as I see it, is everyone and every business discriminates in their own way. To say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, I get that he's not saying anyone else should boycott them, but I don't like the automatic association of "we support family values" with homophobia.

You know, bullying does go both ways.

...In this case, they specifically opposed same-sex marriage. that is where I got the homophobia from.

and yes, everyone discriminates in some way- certainly in the context of recognising there are differences between people-however, he is saying that discrimination against homosexual people is, to him, a good enough reason for him not to patronise somewhere. I fail too see how that is a problem. It's just as acceptable for someone of similar views to Chik-Fil-A to refuse to go to a fast food restaurant that supports gay marriage.

The reason that Kim Davis was in the wrong incidentally, was that what she wanted was essentially to ignore the Supreme Court ruling that gay people are entitled to marry. (To the point that she actually claimed that the marriage licenses issued due to the courts forcing the issue weren't valid) that- where you are trying to claim your bigotry erodes the rights of others- is unacceptable.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

So I sort of let everyone answer for me and I'm happy with that.

That said, I do want to touch on one thing: "So, is it the discrimination in general you don't like, or the specific type of discrimination? ".

Some background:

I grew up in Texas fairly normally up until middle school. Around then, and I have suspicions but I can't say for sure, I began getting targeted for homophobic bullying. You know, stupid stuff like "is a f**", group accosting during gym, to the point that by about midway through my 7th grade year, my gym coach let me just hang out in his office half the period most days. Some more background: I'm straight. I retreated into things like Scifi books, random intellectual pursuits but largely this behavior (which went so far as to causing my shirt to be lit on fire with me still in it although thankfully the perpetrator realized he'd f'd up and put it out almost immediately) set me on a course of extraordinarily high anxiety which culminated in dropping out in High School only returning to academia after I'd sorted myself out. Of course that also meant, the traditional "find your true friends" academic avenue was out. If I learned to accept who I was as a person, I did that mostly alone in the orbit of various groups I wasn't necessarily a part of.

The internet did not tell me I was ok for who I was.

The internet did not defend me.

The internet did not tell me my nerdy persuits were cool.

--

Cut to, who I am as a person is largely defined by watching "groups" in a third-party sense. I have a high degree of skepticism and while I tend to get along with everyone, I also have a tendency to get called a pedant from time to time largely because even when I speak bullshit, I generally have the impulse to run to ground anything that's exposed as false.

I may have been the victim of homophobic bullying, but I am not of that culture and do not qualify (in my experience) for that type of commiseration. I'm still a privileged white dude except that means fuck all to me in reality because I have traditionally taken the shit jobs, no one wanted and used them as springboards. Who I am in business is largely driven by working myself up through a shitty warehouse job into the office, into tech, into the upper levels of technology.

--

This is all to say, that I *get* that discrimination exists. When you ask me do I have a problem with *all* descrimination, my answer to you is yes with a rather large but at the end.

Yes, all discrimination IS problematic because no matter who is on what side and what the relative merits of said causes are, systemic/group-based discrimination has a tendancy to historically mean fuck all in terms of righteousness. But you fight the battles that are most worth fighting at the moment. The French Revolution was most certainly deserved, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also a heinous mass murder. Most human beings are reacting to their own personal pain and desires, so if you target racist Frank who never really knew a black dude and his kid takes on that heat, that doesn't cause less of a historical problem than the reverse. It is the continual fueling of a fire of resentment that never dies because people are unwilling to understand the other perspective.

Add to that, if you want to look at it through a nationalistic lens (sticking to strictly Americans), other foreign conservatives or liberals can and will tend to fuel those fires because they can "right on" a general idea but they tend to be abstracted from the specifics. So while it might be highly beneficial for an American conservative or an American liberal to understand the other side, both receive attaboys for failing to understand their own municipal context. Sure, why not remove rights from racist dudes.

Hence I don't really agree with modern US political thought: I fully believe that economic and social discrimination, especially in a pluralistic environment is anathema to what we would want to keep an liberal democracy solid. Whether liberals or conservatives would like to admit it, using the state overtly or indirectly through inaction (in the case of social discrimination) courts open economic warfare between diverse groups. Open economic warfare creates winners and losers. Losers will seek restitution. Failing a governmental recourse, violence will result.

Examples: Republican tax plan that disproportionately burdens Democratic municipalities. Democratic preoccupation with military size when these are largely southern, republican working class people affected by cuts. Republicans wanting to cut city housing subsides when again, it primarily affects democratic voters.

So to your question, do I see a disconnect? No. I'm personally choosing to not frequent an establishment that expouses values that lead to numnutz setting my shirt on fire. I'm not organizing. I'm not calling for group action. I'm saying if you're going to take the profit you make from me to do that, fuck you. If you want to not shit where you work (ie, just make money for your family), I'll come back.

Do I see the same type of discrimination on the other side? Yes but it's not quite systemic yet. I suspect one of the largest blockers to real self-examination on the left is still that frankly while I'm sure there are some people who would like to see straight white dudes not be allowed to vote, it's still straight white dudes preventing others from voting.

So if you ever need to decode my answers, they stem from the fact that I tend to work down from this regardless of what I believe:
1) Is this a problem created directly by overstep of the government on behalf of a group
2) Is this a group of people who are directly impacting others
3) Is this a group that may be problematic but could start impacting others
4) Is this an issue where I find fault in the logic but only affects those who fixate on it.

You may hear me bag on liberals a lot but they're usually in category 3 or 4. That is, I'm voicing my opposition to what I think is an untenable position. Occasionally in academia or in closed circles it's a 2.

The problem and the reason you seem me boycott in this case, is this is a case of a 1/2 issue. The person in question is claiming "marriage" (a legal definition) is under attack when they are the ones causing the 1 or 2 issue. Hence regardless of bs I see coming from that issue like oh- quoating Orson Scott Card out of context, the big issue is still the marriage one.

I may believe Enders Game was unfortunately slandered and despite being a shit movie, maybe could have been more if not for the politics of that American moment, I can still prioritize marriage equality over it.

It's just I'm not blind to pure rhetoric on both sides.

[Gravekeeper]

Do I see the same type of discrimination on the other side? Yes but it's not quite systemic yet. I suspect one of the largest blockers to real self-examination on the left is still that frankly while I'm sure there are some people who would like to see straight white dudes not be allowed to vote, it's still straight white dudes preventing others from voting.

It's no where near systemic. Thing about American politics is the right is trending further right and is very tribal. Making the left of the spectrum wider and wider when it already contained a variety of views to begin with. While Republican politics in the US have long trended towards demonizing an "other" to garner political support. The who doesn't particularly matter ( immigrants, gays, Muslims or the newest I see getting thrown around a lot now: "Leftists" ).

Sure, there's fringes on the left calling for straight white dudes being unable to vote. But it's the fringe. Conversely, the fringe on the American right has been embraced and willingly pushed into the main stream by the President himself and the media that follows him.

The stupidest ideas on the American left ( ban all white dudes, vaccines cause autism, etc ) generally swirl around the annals of tumblr and twitter. The stupidest ideas on the American right ( Build a wall, total and complete shut down of Muslims, rake the forest, etc ) are being broadcast by the White House itself.

[jackfaire]

Honestly my choosing to not patronize Chik-Fil-A for their homophobic views is no different than my avoiding a grocery store because the manager's a real asshole, or avoiding my neighborhood pizza chain (when I am in the radius) because I have bad blood with one of their drivers.

Treating it like it's a political movement is ridiculous. We all make choices based on various reasons on why Company X gets our money and Company Y does not.

Just about every reason is an ideological one. You have certain ideas and you adhere to them in avoiding or choosing various businesses.