- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
Summary
A Harris Poll revealed that 20% of Americans support boycotting companies aligning with Trump’s agenda, including major brands like Amazon, Target, and Tesla.
Boycotts are driven by dissatisfaction with companies rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with 46% citing DEI rollbacks as a reason.
Support for boycotts is stronger among younger, non-white, and Democratic demographics. Some boycotts, like the “Latino Freeze Movement” and religiously motivated Target boycotts, are coordinated within communities.
Companies cite legal pressures for DEI changes, while critics view it as a moral compromise.
Right? I thought that looked like some serious ideological, “but hurting business is too far!”-brainrot.
But the article is actually really confusing to me:
That means ~20% plan to boycott themselves, which is not necessarily the same as supporting a boycott. Participating != supporting. Not supporting would e.g. also potentially mean attacking people like the person with the sign in the article photo, or ruining a Thanksgiving dinner with a huge family argument. While supporting can also mean “I support the movement, but for this and that reason, don’t participate myself” (that may be due to genuine dependence on some boycotted things, or just lack of motivation, or a feeling of not knowing how to, etc.).
Then the article goes on with a quote:
Again, that seems like 20% are actively boycotting, which is actually a pretty big number for a movement like that.
But then, there is another conflicting number just one paragraph away:
So, wait, what? Why are the numbers so significantly different?
Wait, that is yet another number, where are the 20% coming from even?
Also, I swear, maybe I am imagining it, but I think the article changed while I was typing this, because I remember wanting to structure an argument around them later using the “support” wording again, but now I can’t find it any more. Maybe I was misreading, that happens to me at times, but it wouldn’t be the first time a news outlet has changed an article while it was already live without a notice.
To anyone not wanting to click, here is the neat graphic with some more demographic info from the article: