Whatcha boycotting?

[Exodor]

Or that buying something from Amazon makes you a fan of limiting bathroom breaks. Or that grabbing some chicken nuggets on the way home makes you homophobic.

Amazon is frustrating to me because I feel like they're imposing impossible standards for no reason. When I order shit from Amazon I really don't need it the next day but they've structured their warehouses and delivery infrastructure to provide a service that I don't necessarily want.

My power company (PGE) lets me choose to opt-in to using only renewable power sources for an extra monthly fee. I would definitely opt-in to an Amazon plan that delivers my stuff a day later and allows workers to take bathroom breaks and not meet impossible quotas.

[Defiant]

The Republican party.

[gbasden]

Blizzard.

I'm also quite surprised more of my OO brethren won't take a stand. I guess it's much easier to make such a stand when you don't like the product.

Ditto and ditto.

[gbasden]

Wait... What?!?!

You posted:

Blizzard.

I'm also quite surprised more of my OO brethren won't take a stand. I guess it's much easier to make such a stand when you don't like the product.

That is not remotely similar to "I couldn't care less about what people who haven't weighed in think." I hadn't posted anything, but your first post made it clear that you were "disappointed" that I wasn't chiming in with my boycott of Blizzard. Actually, the implication is that if you "won't take a stand", then you are in some manner complicit.

And that second statement was a direct snarky dig at the members of the forum.

I would have been more than happy to sit things out if your post had actually been what you just posted. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that 75% of the people who responded to the other thread are against boycotting Blizzard. That would take more analysis than I want to make. But I'm sure you crunched the numbers. Right? Also, are you claiming that everyone that responded in the other thread was obligated to post in this thread? Even if they had no intent to purchase any Blizzard products? That goes directly against your claim that you don't care what people that haven't responded think.

Given that there is a very active thread right now about Diablo 2 Resurrection, I don't think it's crazy to think that many on the forum are not boycotting Blizzard.

[Blackhawk]

There is a very active thread, but I count five people in it who seem to have actually purchased the game, and a lot who are simply reminiscing about the original. Are we collectively boycotting? No, but I don't think five people out of the entire forum is enough to say that the forum isn't responding to the issue.

[Carpet_pissr]

Or that buying something from Amazon makes you a fan of limiting bathroom breaks. Or that grabbing some chicken nuggets on the way home makes you homophobic.

Amazon is frustrating to me because I feel like they're imposing impossible standards for no reason. When I order shit from Amazon I really don't need it the next day but they've structured their warehouses and delivery infrastructure to provide a service that I don't necessarily want.

My power company (PGE) lets me choose to opt-in to using only renewable power sources for an extra monthly fee. I would definitely opt-in to an Amazon plan that delivers my stuff a day later and allows workers to take bathroom breaks and not meet impossible quotas.

Have you ordered anything from them in the past...couple of years? Every single order I place, they strongly suggest, or offer a carrot ($1 or $2 digital credit) if I either delay my preferred delivery date, or just combine my orders into one delivery date. Hell, they even have a program for this, called "Amazon Day Delivery", trying to encourage customers to have multiple items ordered arrive at the same time (one trip to your door from distribution point, on last day of week, vs 5 trips to your door every day for a week, as the items become available).

At the top of every order: "Select FREE Amazon Day Delivery below to have orders delivered together in fewer boxes on a single day."

I guess that could be targeted, so I may be seeing something that you are not.

[Smoove_B]

I guess that could be targeted, so I may be seeing something that you are not.

They were offering $1 credits for a long time but they seem to have disappeared for me. I'm not sure if it's because they opened a more local hub and deliveries are easier (for them) now so the incentive to have me delay things isn't there anymore. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn those $1 credits are tied to distance from delivery hubs.

[Defiant]

I guess that could be targeted, so I may be seeing something that you are not.

You might not see it if you're not a Prime member (I think they go by slower shipping, then, unless you pay for faster shipping?), or if you're buying things from 3rd party vendors who ship their own things.

[TheMix]

Given that there is a very active thread right now about Diablo 2 Resurrection, I don't think it's crazy to think that many on the forum are not boycotting Blizzard.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you go back and read the thread that Blackhawk mentioned, you'll find that most (or maybe all) of those people pre-purchased the game before the story about Blizzard broke. Are you suggesting that they should have known about it before they purchased? Or that they should "burn" their copy now that they know? That's moving into the territory that the other other thread already covered (Art vs. Artist, I think?).

It feels like a lot of erroneous assumptions are being made.

[noxiousdog]

Given that there is a very active thread right now about Diablo 2 Resurrection, I don't think it's crazy to think that many on the forum are not boycotting Blizzard.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you go back and read the thread that Blackhawk mentioned, you'll find that most (or maybe all) of those people pre-purchased the game before the story about Blizzard broke. Are you suggesting that they should have known about it before they purchased? Or that they should "burn" their copy now that they know? That's moving into the territory that the other other thread already covered (Art vs. Artist, I think?).

It feels like a lot of erroneous assumptions are being made.

I think 83%-17% is pretty self explanatory; and that's just the folks that are willing to speak up.

I really can't figure out what yours and Blackhawk's stance is here. You're protecting the larger community from what? Being judged for supporting morally bankrupt corporate leadership? And note, that we're not even calling anyone specific out.

Why aren't you doing that for Republicans or the police?

[TheMix]

Being judged for supporting morally bankrupt corporate leadership? And note, that we're not even calling anyone specific out.

Seems like you just did.

But I give up. Go ahead and sit on your high horse and make wrong judgements about everyone around you. Clearly nothing we say is going to stop you from making incorrect and offensive assumptions.

Also, if you actually think that I "support morally bankrupt corporate leadership", then the only appropriate response I have is "fuck off".

[noxiousdog]

Being judged for supporting morally bankrupt corporate leadership? And note, that we're not even calling anyone specific out.

Seems like you just did.

But I give up. Go ahead and sit on your high horse and make wrong judgements about everyone around you. Clearly nothing we say is going to stop you from making incorrect and offensive assumptions.

Also, if you actually think that I "support morally bankrupt corporate leadership", then the only appropriate response I have is "fuck off".

So far, the only person making personal attacks is you.

[coopasonic]

Being judged for supporting morally bankrupt corporate leadership? And note, that we're not even calling anyone specific out.

We're a group of people (mostly middle aged men) who like video games. If we were to stop giving money to companies with morally bankrupt corporate leadership, we'd have a lot more time on our hands, I guess. Leadership = power and money = abusive assholes. Absolutely a generalization with notable exceptions, I'm aware. As long as situations like these result in scapegoats and mostly meaningless fines, it's going to be very slow to change. Meaningful consequences are required to change behavior. If the numbers I saw recently are accurate, Kotick is making more money this year than he would ever realistically need, so good luck making him give a shit about consequences.

I guess we could stick with a list of carefully vetted indie games.

My point? Damned if I know. We don't have any meaningful power and the people that do have the power aren't doing anything about it. Maybe that's why cancel culture is a thing. It gives the masses some power. Not enough in some cases apparently.

[TheMix]

Being judged for supporting morally bankrupt corporate leadership? And note, that we're not even calling anyone specific out.

Seems like you just did.

But I give up. Go ahead and sit on your high horse and make wrong judgements about everyone around you. Clearly nothing we say is going to stop you from making incorrect and offensive assumptions.

Also, if you actually think that I "support morally bankrupt corporate leadership", then the only appropriate response I have is "fuck off".

So far, the only person making personal attacks is you.

I absolutely disagree. I am personally insulted by your comments. And offended. And absolutely feel attacked. I consider being told that I "support morally bankrupt corporate leadership" to be a direct insult. That is a direct attack on my character. On my morals. On who I am as a person. That you find that to be innocuous, but find it offensive that I accused you of sitting on your high horse, is ridiculous. Or perhaps you think "fuck off" is a direct insult? It was a request. Unlike your comment, it was not character assassination.

Or perhaps you don't feel that the 20+ years that I've been a member of GG and OO, and my meager ~9k posts don't make me part of the community? So when you make general comments about all of OO, I should not feel like I'm being included? How could I possibly be offended.

That you so callously divide everyone into either "actively support boycott" or "actively support the company/behavior" is extremely offensive.

Is your claim that you were not trying to insult all of us? Because, your belief to the contrary, you absolutely are.

[TheMix]

I also think it's worth noting, ND, that pretty much everyone is stating their feelings, beliefs, stances, etc. You are the only person that is making declarations about what other people feel, believe, etc. You don't know me. Please stop pretending to speak for me.

[Blackhawk]

I really can't figure out what yours and Blackhawk's stance is here. You're protecting the larger community from what? Being judged for supporting morally bankrupt corporate leadership? And note, that we're not even calling anyone specific out.

First off, larger community. Five. People. Five people, some of whom probably made the purchase in advance. So somewhere between zero and five. That's not the larger community. You're comments lump every single person who isn't in front of Blizzard with a picket sign into the same category. What, if they're not on your side they're the enemy? Get over yourself. Stop judging the entire world around you for not living up to your standards when your standards are subjective. I'm pretty certain that everybody in here has some habit or patronizes some businesses that others find abhorrent, including you. What makes your opinion the one that's, as you seem to think, objectively correct?

[TheMix]

It would seem I'm not the only person experiencing at least some degree of offense here.

[Blackhawk]

At the top of every order: "Select FREE Amazon Day Delivery below to have orders delivered together in fewer boxes on a single day."

I guess that could be targeted, so I may be seeing something that you are not.

You still get that option with Prime, but the truth is it is essentially mandatory now. Amazon's reputation was when it was 'get it to you in 2-3 days.' It's now 2-3 days from the time it ships, which isn't defined. I have done enough shopping with them that I've noticed a pattern. If you order something - pretty much anything - and you're not near a warehouse, they will sit on that order. Order a widget on Tuesday, and they will ship it Friday. Why? Because they are waiting to see if you order anything else between now and then, and want to combine the shipping.

Then:
Order a widget Tuesday morning, it ships Tuesday. One order, one package, 2-3 days from order to door.
Order a widget Tuesday morning, it ships Tuesday. Order a sprocket Tuesday night, it ships Wednesday morning. Order a doohickey Friday afternoon, it ships Friday. Three orders, three packages, 2-3 days each from order to door.

Now:
Order a widget Tuesday morning, it ships Friday. One order, one package, 5-6 days from order to door.
Order a widget Tuesday morning, order a sprocket Tuesday night, order a doohickey Thursday afternoon, it all ships Friday. Three orders, one package, 2-6 days from order door, depending on when you ordered.

Now, I'm sure some of that was Amazon responding to pressure about worker conditions by reducing workload. But Amazon is Amazon, and most of it is probably because it saves them a ton on shipping, which boosts profits.

[TheMix]

So far, the only person making personal attacks is you.

I'm going to take a step back here.

I have found in life that sometimes colorful language is required to get someone's attention. We tried using rational discussion. We tried logic. You doubled down. So I used a colorful phrase in the hope that it would make you pause and take a moment to actually read and understand the discussion. I intentional chose words that were not an attack.

But if you found that choice of wording offensive, then I'm sorry. It was not meant as an insult, but as a commentary on the lack of progression of the discussion at hand. And clearly only served to distract from the discussion.

[Blackhawk]

Yeah, this is going in circles. I'm raising my blood pressure for no real purpose.

And it is at least the third time this argument has been had.

[LawBeefaroni]

At the top of every order: "Select FREE Amazon Day Delivery below to have orders delivered together in fewer boxes on a single day."

I guess that could be targeted, so I may be seeing something that you are not.

You still get that option with Prime, but the truth is it is essentially mandatory now. Amazon's reputation was when it was 'get it to you in 2-3 days.' It's now 2-3 days from the time it ships, which isn't defined. I have done enough shopping with them that I've noticed a pattern. If you order something - pretty much anything - and you're not near a warehouse, they will sit on that order. Order a widget on Tuesday, and they will ship it Friday. Why? Because they are waiting to see if you order anything else between now and then, and want to combine the shipping.

Then:
Order a widget Tuesday morning, it ships Tuesday. One order, one package, 2-3 days from order to door.
Order a widget Tuesday morning, it ships Tuesday. Order a sprocket Tuesday night, it ships Wednesday morning. Order a doohickey Friday afternoon, it ships Friday. Three orders, three packages, 2-3 days each from order to door.

Now:
Order a widget Tuesday morning, it ships Friday. One order, one package, 5-6 days from order to door.
Order a widget Tuesday morning, order a sprocket Tuesday night, order a doohickey Thursday afternoon, it all ships Friday. Three orders, one package, 2-6 days from order door, depending on when you ordered.

Now, I'm sure some of that was Amazon responding to pressure about worker conditions by reducing workload. But Amazon is Amazon, and most of it is probably because it saves them a ton on shipping, which boosts profits.

This is very location-specific. I get everything within the expected time frame and most everything is same day, next day or 2nd day. I'm careful to make sure something is in-stock, of course.

When I do opt for slower delivery with the digital credit offers it still usually gets here in 2 days.

[Blackhawk]

Yeah, I mentioned that if you're near a warehouse it's less of a thing.

I have a feeling that Amazons algorithms fill a warehouse by themselves.

[gilraen]

I don't bother with the slower delivery for free digital credits anymore because I either forget to use them or can't even find them on their website to verify them. I will try to select a slower option, depending on what the options are - i.e. if the options are free same day or free next day delivery, I'll just go with next day. Nothing so important that I need it delivered the same day. Or if my Amazon day delivery is 2-3 days away, I'll just go with that, not because I plan on buying anything else before then but just so their algorithm registers it as "not urgent".

[noxiousdog]

So far, the only person making personal attacks is you.

I'm going to take a step back here.

I have found in life that sometimes colorful language is required to get someone's attention. We tried using rational discussion. We tried logic. You doubled down. So I used a colorful phrase in the hope that it would make you pause and take a moment to actually read and understand the discussion. I intentional chose words that were not an attack.

But if you found that choice of wording offensive, then I'm sorry. It was not meant as an insult, but as a commentary on the lack of progression of the discussion at hand. And clearly only served to distract from the discussion.

I didn't find it all that offensive, as my issues are not with you (or Blackhawk), so no harm done.

Re: Blackhawk - It's at least 7 and that's being generous because this community is pretty large and only a tiny portion voted.

[Kraken]

I forgot to mention Goya. Kind of sad about that one, as their black beans in particular are somewhat superior to store brand. But this made them toxic for me.

[Hipolito]

Another business I boycott: BP. Whenever I need gasoline, I never enter a BP. (And when someone else is driving, and they're about to pull into a BP, I say "Um, can you not?")

Not that there are any good fossil fuel companies, but I think BP is scuzzier than most.

[noxiousdog]

Another business I boycott: BP. Whenever I need gasoline, I never enter a BP. (And when someone else is driving, and they're about to pull into a BP, I say "Um, can you not?")

Not that there are any good fossil fuel companies, but I think BP is scuzzier than most.

Dunno if it makes a difference to you, but they were the first major to actively pursue net zero by 2050.

[malchior]

Another business I boycott: BP. Whenever I need gasoline, I never enter a BP. (And when someone else is driving, and they're about to pull into a BP, I say "Um, can you not?")

Not that there are any good fossil fuel companies, but I think BP is scuzzier than most.

Dunno if it makes a difference to you, but they were the first major to actively pursue net zero by 2050.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe any O&G companies statements to this effect. The industry may have very well adopted the platform to fight a delaying action. And I consulted for one of the biggest ones for 3 years. They are diversifying their businesses but it is hard to imagine a business model that allows them to transition and have the sort of revenues they have with oil/natural gas.

[noxiousdog]

Another business I boycott: BP. Whenever I need gasoline, I never enter a BP. (And when someone else is driving, and they're about to pull into a BP, I say "Um, can you not?")

Not that there are any good fossil fuel companies, but I think BP is scuzzier than most.

Dunno if it makes a difference to you, but they were the first major to actively pursue net zero by 2050.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe any O&G companies statements to this effect. The industry may have very well adopted the platform to fight a delaying action.

They are setting themselves up for a hell of a shareholders lawsuit if they're lying.

[malchior]

Another business I boycott: BP. Whenever I need gasoline, I never enter a BP. (And when someone else is driving, and they're about to pull into a BP, I say "Um, can you not?")

Not that there are any good fossil fuel companies, but I think BP is scuzzier than most.

Dunno if it makes a difference to you, but they were the first major to actively pursue net zero by 2050.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe any O&G companies statements to this effect. The industry may have very well adopted the platform to fight a delaying action.

They are setting themselves up for a hell of a shareholders lawsuit if they're lying.

Highly doubtful. They lied and lobbied against climate change for 40 years without major consequence. They still have major influence/run our energy policy. They still prevent meaningful change to combat climate action right now - looking squarely at how they're leveraging Manchin right now.

[noxiousdog]

Highly doubtful. They lied and lobbied against climate change for 40 years without major consequence. They still have major influence/run our energy policy. They still prevent meaningful change to combat climate action right now - looking squarely at how they're leveraging Manchin right now.

That's a pretty broad brush you have there. Makes it really tough to have a conversation.

I'd say this. I think there's a reason so few of them have declared net zero. There are consequences when you tell shareholders your plans.

[malchior]

Highly doubtful. They lied and lobbied against climate change for 40 years without major consequence. They still have major influence/run our energy policy. They still prevent meaningful change to combat climate action right now - looking squarely at how they're leveraging Manchin right now.

That's a pretty broad brush you have there. Makes it really tough to have a conversation.

I suppose but it is meant to just point out that this isn't an idea that really has any grip in reality. They've been lying about this for decades and so far pretty much nothing happening on the shareholder front. Multiple governments have struggled to hold them accountable on this. They are just too powerful.

I'd say this. I think there's a reason so few of them have declared net zero. There are consequences when you tell shareholders your plans.

A statement about a 30-year out goal usually doesn't have a material impact on the stock. Also, when do the shareholders swoop in to hold them accountable ? When they haven't made progress in 5-years? 10-years? 15-years? When is it about the lying? Again the shareholders haven't done it yet and BP and the whole industry has been lying a lot. The real problem is it is next to impossible to show what the damages are.

[LawBeefaroni]

Highly doubtful. They lied and lobbied against climate change for 40 years without major consequence. They still have major influence/run our energy policy. They still prevent meaningful change to combat climate action right now - looking squarely at how they're leveraging Manchin right now.

That's a pretty broad brush you have there. Makes it really tough to have a conversation.

I'd say this. I think there's a reason so few of them have declared net zero. There are consequences when you tell shareholders your plans.

Failing to execute on promises has consequences? That news to TSLA. And AMZN and [dozens of other blue chips]. And quite frankly, BP too.

[Alefroth]

7-11. I'm not taking any chances.

[malchior]

7-11. I'm not taking any chances.

[Carpet_pissr]

Pussy.

A little infected taint cyst blood never hurt anybody!

[Blackhawk]

Pussy.

A little infected taint cyst blood never hurt anybody!

[noxiousdog]

Failing to execute on promises has consequences? That news to TSLA. And AMZN and [dozens of other blue chips]. And quite frankly, BP too.

Difference between promises and significantly changing your business. If TSLA said they were going to stop making electric cars and move to ICE or hydrogen, there would clearly be consequences if they failed to deliver.

And actually, yes. Most of the time when a company fails to deliver their stock price is hit and if the error is great enough, there are lawsuits.

I share y'alls skepticism. The American Petroleum Institute just said they were going to fight a bunch of Biden's climate stuff. bp is a member. They have publicly disagreed with the API, and they have dropped other organizational memberships over lack of climate change action, but they are still a member of the API.

edit: My real point is that of all oil majors to boycott, bp seems to be at least trying to act on climate change if that makes a difference.

[malchior]

I won't say BP is the best on this but even so this is like saying they are the best of a bunch of bad apples. I consulted inside one of them for 3 years beginning in 2018 and through 2020. I saw that particular company make major moves to buy green energy companies to diversify. They all know the risk. However, they don't have a clear path to the same revenues in a green world.

That informs my realpolitik view to some extent. Let's assume BP or Shell or Aramco haven't made major diversification targets in 5 or 10 years. Maybe instead of being 25% they are 10% on the road to there. We don't think they'll be using their considerable war chest to stymy change? The most practical view is that we need to apply constant pressure to change course. It'll take national scale efforts at this point to make a dent in this problem. They are in a position to continue to stop all climate change policy discussions in the United States at least and entrench their own positions. That's the problem in a nutshell. So my opinion is we can't let up on even the best of them.

[Alefroth]

Pussy.

A little infected taint cyst blood never hurt anybody!

I'm trying to imagine what someone who isn't following the Draz Drama would think after reading this.