Should you boycott a bike brand if its parent company supports the NRA?

Vilie Er wrote:

I took all my Giro shoes, Rapha shoes, gloves, helmet and a bunch of jerseys out into the back garden today and burned it because of this article. Thanks road.cc. I feel a lot better now.

 

 

 

 

Did I fuck.

Yeah, you can't reach where your mum keeps the matches.

Cugel wrote:

Interesting that, in these post-modern times, actions as a consumer are seen as a meaningful or effective way to change egergious political policies or cultural behaviours. Sadly, such consumer "choices" will have little or no effect. Of course, many people are nothing more than consumers these days. They are what they buy (including the stuff that goes in the landfill). What else can they do but refuse to sup from a camelbak?

What, then, would have an actual effect to alter or eliminate these nasty doings?

Going absolutely ballistic about it on social media.

Oxfam didn't know how to do The Right Thing in Chad or Haiti, and still didn't get it a few years later when an internal investigation reported back.

A few dropped donations results in shrugged shoulders.

The story being batted all over social media and the mainstream media results in executives quitting and being beaten up by MPs... and The Right Thing might actually follow.

'Consumer power' goes way beyond taking your pound to a competitor down the street.

davel wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Interesting that, in these post-modern times, actions as a consumer are seen as a meaningful or effective way to change egergious political policies or cultural behaviours. Sadly, such consumer "choices" will have little or no effect. Of course, many people are nothing more than consumers these days. They are what they buy (including the stuff that goes in the landfill). What else can they do but refuse to sup from a camelbak?

What, then, would have an actual effect to alter or eliminate these nasty doings?

Going absolutely ballistic about it on social media. Oxfam didn't know how to do The Right Thing in Chad or Haiti, and still didn't get it a few years later when an internal investigation reported back. A few dropped donations results in shrugged shoulders. The story being batted all over social media and the mainstream media results in executives quitting and being beaten up by MPs... and The Right Thing might actually follow. 'Consumer power' goes way beyond taking your pound to a competitor down the street.

There is such a thing as bad publicity ... true. However, it all depends on the context as to whether publicity concerning support for this or that action/stance results in gain or loss for the supporter(s).

For example, if you're a Trunt-like politician, or a business organsiation supporting such a politician, this may increase your popularity in certain public domains. It might decrease popularity in others. In the consumer-is-king model, all that matters is the bottom line - does the amount of your popularity overall increase or decrease? Moreover, consumers have short little attention spans and will soon return to buying the shiny gew-gaw even if the manufacturer is a bit of a rascal.

The problem with consumer judgements is that they're far too democratic and, as such, far too fickle, unreasoning and volatile. The rule of fashion is no substitute for the rule of law.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:

davel wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Interesting that, in these post-modern times, actions as a consumer are seen as a meaningful or effective way to change egergious political policies or cultural behaviours. Sadly, such consumer "choices" will have little or no effect. Of course, many people are nothing more than consumers these days. They are what they buy (including the stuff that goes in the landfill). What else can they do but refuse to sup from a camelbak?

What, then, would have an actual effect to alter or eliminate these nasty doings?

Going absolutely ballistic about it on social media. Oxfam didn't know how to do The Right Thing in Chad or Haiti, and still didn't get it a few years later when an internal investigation reported back. A few dropped donations results in shrugged shoulders. The story being batted all over social media and the mainstream media results in executives quitting and being beaten up by MPs... and The Right Thing might actually follow. 'Consumer power' goes way beyond taking your pound to a competitor down the street.

There is such a thing as bad publicity ... true. However, it all depends on the context as to whether publicity concerning support for this or that action/stance results in gain or loss for the supporter(s).

For example, if you're a Trunt-like politician, or a business organsiation supporting such a politician, this may increase your popularity in certain public domains. It might decrease popularity in others. In the consumer-is-king model, all that matters is the bottom line - does the amount of your popularity overall increase or decrease? Moreover, consumers have short little attention spans and will soon return to buying the shiny gew-gaw even if the manufacturer is a bit of a rascal.

The problem with consumer judgements is that they're far too democratic and, as such, far too fickle, unreasoning and volatile. The rule of fashion is no substitute for the rule of law.

Cugel

I don't disagree... But it isn't that binary.

Ideally all politicians would be whiter than white and not have complicated interests.

While we're waiting for that, there are plenty of examples of social media, and good old-fashioned investigative journalism, 'forcing' politicians and organisations to do something akin to The Right Thing when seemingly they just couldn't be arsed otherwise.

davel wrote:

Ideally all politicians would be whiter than white and not have complicated interests.

Spangly Shiny wrote:

I only own one product from all the named manufacturers, a Camelback bottle. I use it in my van to piss in.

You may see that as a moral victory, but I still think they're taking the piss out of you...

madcarew wrote:

Spangly Shiny wrote:

I only own one product from all the named manufacturers, a Camelback bottle. I use it in my van to piss in.

You may see that as a moral victory, but I still think they're taking the piss out of you...

You're dead wrong there my friend. I claim no moral high ground, just passing (pardon the pun) a comment. I could not give a toss what you think!

Incidentally I bought the bottle in 2010 which predates Vista Outdoor's acquisition of Camelback and have been pissing in it for about five years. 

Spangly Shiny wrote:

Incidentally I bought the bottle in 2010 which predates Vista Outdoor's acquisition of Camelback and have been pissing in it for about five years. 

Isn't it full yet?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Spangly Shiny wrote:

Incidentally I bought the bottle in 2010 which predates Vista Outdoor's acquisition of Camelback and have been pissing in it for about five years. 

Isn't it full yet?

Many times.

Spangly Shiny wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Spangly Shiny wrote:

I only own one product from all the named manufacturers, a Camelback bottle. I use it in my van to piss in.

You may see that as a moral victory, but I still think they're taking the piss out of you...

You're dead wrong there my friend. I claim no moral high ground, just passing (pardon the pun) a comment. I could not give a toss what you think!

Incidentally I bought the bottle in 2010 which predates Vista Outdoor's acquisition of Camelback and have been pissing in it for about five years. 

I think you may have just missed the joke.

HenHarrier wrote:

There's a similar debate going on around Under Armour who support trophy and sport hunting, and around optics manufacturers like Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica who sell optics to birdwatchers and conservationists while making most of their money selling rifle scopes to hunters. I personally don't give my money to companies I disagree with on ethical grounds.

I would wager you do, without even knowing it, assuming you have any sort of ethical standards at all and don't wear sack cloth and live on lentils. Let's start with the clothing industry, who are notrious for exploiting workers in 3rd World countries. If you are a car owner, then discount anything from VW group (Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda) following recent revelations about force feeding exhaust fumes to primates, but maybe the other manufacturers just haven't been caught yet. Manufacured goods used in Europe have of course been almost totally outsourced to countries who are less concerned about pollution than we are. Once you dig beneath the surface of a company operating internationally, you are very likely to find they do things in other countries which would not be tolerated in the UK.  And if you really are sure of your own buying habits, try taking a look at where your pension fund is invested.

Griff500 wrote:

HenHarrier wrote:

There's a similar debate going on around Under Armour who support trophy and sport hunting, and around optics manufacturers like Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica who sell optics to birdwatchers and conservationists while making most of their money selling rifle scopes to hunters. I personally don't give my money to companies I disagree with on ethical grounds.

I would wager you do, without even knowing it, assuming you have any sort of ethical standards at all and don't wear sack cloth and live on lentils. Let's start with the clothing industry, who are notrious for exploiting workers in 3rd World countries. If you are a car owner, then discount anything from VW group (Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda) following recent revelations about force feeding exhaust fumes to primates, but maybe the other manufacturers just haven't been caught yet. Manufacured goods used in Europe have of course been almost totally outsourced to countries who are less concerned about pollution than we are. Once you dig beneath the surface of a company operating internationally, you are very likely to find they do things in other countries which would not be tolerated in the UK.  And if you really are sure of your own buying habits, try taking a look at where your pension fund is invested.

That's one aspect, and it's a murky international picture, like you say.

But that aspect only covers your own personal funds as a shopper, pension investor, etc. We're already seeing reputational fall-out with other brands such as Hertz (NRA members got discounts) dropping their NRA tie-ins. That's far more damaging to the NRA than where a few cyclists buy their shoes.

Even that won't do any lasting damage, but it's a small bit of rebalancing. One of the companies that dropped them, for example, had an NRA-themed credit card. Now it doesn't.

Griff500 wrote:

HenHarrier wrote:

There's a similar debate going on around Under Armour who support trophy and sport hunting, and around optics manufacturers like Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica who sell optics to birdwatchers and conservationists while making most of their money selling rifle scopes to hunters. I personally don't give my money to companies I disagree with on ethical grounds.

I would wager you do, without even knowing it, assuming you have any sort of ethical standards at all and don't wear sack cloth and live on lentils. Let's start with the clothing industry, who are notrious for exploiting workers in 3rd World countries. If you are a car owner, then discount anything from VW group (Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda) following recent revelations about force feeding exhaust fumes to primates, but maybe the other manufacturers just haven't been caught yet. Manufacured goods used in Europe have of course been almost totally outsourced to countries who are less concerned about pollution than we are. Once you dig beneath the surface of a company operating internationally, you are very likely to find they do things in other countries which would not be tolerated in the UK.  And if you really are sure of your own buying habits, try taking a look at where your pension fund is invested.

I understand that VW - Audi group were only one of the manufacturers caught up in this, Mercedes and BMW were also involved. They paid money to another agency who conducted 'research' for the motor industry generally. The companies claim that they were not informed of the actions until after they had taken place.

Just in the interests of balance you understand

HenHarrier wrote:

There's a similar debate going on around Under Armour who support trophy and sport hunting, and around optics manufacturers like Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica who sell optics to birdwatchers and conservationists while making most of their money selling rifle scopes to hunters. I personally don't give my money to companies I disagree with on ethical grounds. Does it make a difference? Perhaps, perhaps not, but personally I think it's better than doing nothing and adding to their bottom line. YMMV of course.

Under Armour came out pro Trump - so that's enough reason for me not to buy any of their kit. 

It helps you shop too - less choice makes it slightly easier. I remember back to the early 80s when you had hardly any choice for kit. It's a bewildering amount now. 

ConcordeCX wrote:

Some evidence that it can actually work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753

edit: interesting that they asked 3 different philosophers and got only 3 different opinions, because normally there's an n+1 rule at work here, where n is the number of philosophers, and n+m where m>0 is the number of distinct opinions about any given subject.

 

The answer to the topic is NO!

Sadly too many women have not made the complete transition from child to adult, so emotionally 'reason' support for some really crazy self-destructive shit; a related part-childishness crisis for men is discussed in the book "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover".

A lot of philosophy is out-of-date, sentimental, and even harmful.

That shooting could have been avoided if the multiple warning to US law enforcers had been acted upon, and less deaths may have occurred if the local police had not been incompetent cowards too!  A common thread with all these events appears to be mental instability and strong drugs.

We have no business questioning the very-clearly spelt-out, revolutionary, anti-tyranny reason why the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment.  A population without arms has no chance against a tyranny, and gives state enforcers and criminals too much power than normal people.  The NRA was probably formed because some people became aware and sought to counter Communist threats to the  2nd Amendment.

Arms are just a tool, it is a culture (influenced by race mix) which misuses arms which is the problem e.g. Switzerland doesn't have many shootings despite a lot of homes with high powered rifles, because of the culture and education.  SJWs need to grow up and realise that they are being used as useful-idiots by malevolent Sociopaths!

urbane wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Some evidence that it can actually work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753

edit: interesting that they asked 3 different philosophers and got only 3 different opinions, because normally there's an n+1 rule at work here, where n is the number of philosophers, and n+m where m>0 is the number of distinct opinions about any given subject.

 

The answer to the topic is NO!

Sadly too many women have not made the complete transition from child to adult, so emotionally 'reason' support for some really crazy self-destructive shit; a related part-childishness crisis for men is discussed in the book "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover".

A lot of philosophy is out-of-date, sentimental, and even harmful.

That shooting could have been avoided if the multiple warning to US law enforcers had been acted upon, and less deaths may have occurred if the local police had not been incompetent cowards too!  A common thread with all these events appears to be mental instability and strong drugs.

We have no business questioning the very-clearly spelt-out, revolutionary, anti-tyranny reason why the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment.  A population without arms has no chance against a tyranny, and gives state enforcers and criminals too much power than normal people.  The NRA was probably formed because some people became aware and sought to counter Communist threats to the  2nd Amendment.

Arms are just a tool, it is a culture (influenced by race mix) which misuses arms which is the problem e.g. Switzerland doesn't have many shootings despite a lot of homes with high powered rifles, because of the culture and education.  SJWs need to grow up and realise that they are being used as useful-idiots by malevolent Sociopaths!

The NRA was originally founded (1871) to advance rifle markmanship. It began directly lobbying for and against legislation in 1975.

I understand your point about the 2nd Amendment, but it should be updated to account for modern weaponry and the problems that it causes in the U.S. (most likely due to their culture).

I'm not sure what you mean  by your race mix comment and your comment about SJWs is arbitrary and pretty much content-less (you could replace the term SJW with any group and it would still make as much sense).

Personally, I can't see the justification for no restrictions on assault rifles.

urbane wrote:

A common thread with all these events appears to be mental instability and strong drugs.

We have that shit in Europe.

We don't have school shootings like in the US. Might there be another factor? Think, Watson!

urbane wrote:

Arms are just a tool

Tools that fire hundreds of rounds per minute and that your mentally unstable, hard drug-using teenager (and actual grown-up) in the US doesn't seem to have much difficulty laying their hands on.

I think you may have stumbled across your answer.

(I'm skeptical about the point you're making about Switzerland. Proof that assault rifles are as accessible to teenagers as in the US...?

And throwing 'race mix' into it without elaboration makes you seem weird).

urbane wrote:

The answer to the topic is NO!

Sadly too many women have not made the complete transition from child to adult, so emotionally 'reason' support for some really crazy self-destructive shit; a related part-childishness crisis for men is discussed in the book "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover".

A lot of philosophy is out-of-date, sentimental, and even harmful.

That shooting could have been avoided if the multiple warning to US law enforcers had been acted upon, and less deaths may have occurred if the local police had not been incompetent cowards too!  A common thread with all these events appears to be mental instability and strong drugs.

We have no business questioning the very-clearly spelt-out, revolutionary, anti-tyranny reason why the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment.  A population without arms has no chance against a tyranny, and gives state enforcers and criminals too much power than normal people.  The NRA was probably formed because some people became aware and sought to counter Communist threats to the  2nd Amendment.

Arms are just a tool, it is a culture (influenced by race mix) which misuses arms which is the problem e.g. Switzerland doesn't have many shootings despite a lot of homes with high powered rifles, because of the culture and education.  SJWs need to grow up and realise that they are being used as useful-idiots by malevolent Sociopaths!

"Sadly too many women have not made the complete transition from child to adult"

I think you should know that you have stumbled into the early part of 21st-century Britain from your armchair in a gentleman's club somewhere in the mid-late 19th.

"We have no business questioning [...]"

"We" are not all from the USA. We can question whatever we damn well like, thank you, and indeed it is our duty to question everything.

People in the USA have something called the First Amendment, which guarantees their right to question anything. Are you suggesting the Second Amendment trumps the First? This would be the very definition of the tyranny that you think you are defending yourselves from. 

In an earlier comment on this subject I speculated about the demographics of gun shit in the USA, so I looked it up.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-pol...

While looking I also found this interesting article from the Washington Post, which confirms my own suspicions about the racist aspects of so-called gun rights:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/15/the-right-to...

DoctorFish wrote:

Seems to me the answer is rather simple "Should you boycott a bike brand if its parent company supports the NRA?"

Do you support the NRA?  If no, then yes, boycott them.  If yes, then no, don't boycott them.  If you don't care then buy what you like.

That's about right IMHO.

I don't buy from companies that are proven to be pernicious and morally bankrupt. I feel that, by giving them money in any way, I am endorsing their nefarious activity. I don't expect anyone else to do the same (though naturally would be happier if they did). I won't support Specialized after their disgusting bullying behaviour towards a small Canadian bike shop a few years ago, which was shown to be part of a pattern.

Only a fool underestimates the power of public boycotts.