Consumer Boycotts

[Desertrose2023]

I posted the BDS list in the supporting Palestinian businesses thread and recent discussion on another thread re the backlash against Zara got me wondering how many others are participating in consumer boycotts linked to the conflict in Gaza (and the occupation in Palestine) or for different reasons.

there are a number of brands I’m boycotting usually for a mix of reasons, political, environmental and social. Interested to hear views from others.

Disclaimer: to avoid any misinterpretation or twisting of my words - I do not support any acts of violence or vandalism or boycotting based on religion/ethnicity.

all the ones on the BDS committee list

https://bdsmovement.net/

in addition to a few others (sample below)

Starbucks: overpriced shit coffee and they recently sued their union for tweeting in support/solidarity with Palestine.

Zara: I stopped buying stuff following the controversy of their head womenswear designer making disgusting anti-Palestinian comments. The reports of slave labour (Uyghurs and in Brazil) plus the recent tone deaf ad campaign was the final straw. Plus trying to be more conscious re reducing how much ‘fast fashion’ I buy anyway.

Nestle: a history of unethical corporate practices plus including ownership of an Israeli food company with production in OPT.

I definitely recall about 10-15 years ago that socialist groups were distributing leaflets about Starbucks being a Zionist enterprise and that it was originally opened for the purpose of raising money for Israel. It also said that the name originated from 'Bucks for the Star', and there was a call to boycott it (and I know that many did). Google does not corroborate either of these, other than the CEO winning awards for establishing good US-Israeli relations. So yes, the boycott is definitely much older than 7/10, although perhaps not on the same scale.

Right, so if people currently boycotting cannot find that info on Google, then it's agreed that the current boycott is about Starbucks objecting to a pro-Hamas social media post using their logo, info about which is all over Google.

I did just look at twitter about the boycott and found someone very confused that Starbucks weren't on the BDS list. Yeah, because it's a stupid reason to boycott Starbucks, unless, of course, you really want people to be allowed to use company logos to support terrorist activity.

So when people post triumphantly about Starbucks losing money because of this boycott, it just makes me think how many bandwagon-jumping idiots with no critical thinking skills there must be in the world.

Why do people get so worked up about other people boycotting a company? Chill out. Who cares?

Noblegiraffe really cares about Starbucks, maybe she has shares in Starbucks. I mean it’s quite a leap to suggest boycotting Starbucks is supporting terrorism.

I'm not sure I've ever even been in a Starbucks...

The reason people are boycotting Starbucks is because Starbucks objected to their company logo being used on a pro-Hamas, pro-7th October terrorist attack social media post.

So either those people are actually oblivious to that reason and are jumping on a bandwagon of boycotting Starbucks without actually looking too closely at the details, or they think it is worth boycotting a company because they objected to support for terrorism.

I know I just don't know why it bothers you so much.

So much that I’ve posted on an internet forum about it? I think you overestimate the effort required there.

Don’t you find it concerning though, that the result of these people being lied to is thousands of people losing their jobs? Quite concerning in an election year where the stakes of being lied to and blithely going along with it are very high. Teaching people critical thinking skills and media literacy appears to be ever more important. Obviously we saw this before with Brexit.

The whole purity spiral and cult thinking aspect is interesting too.

@noblegiraffe people don't understand how franchises work. Same with Macdonalds. The boycott was started due to the posting of pro Hamas propaganda and the companies reaction to it.

Imagine the response if some on here thought it was affecting Israel. The happiness! Unfortunately though it's affecting mostly indian migrant workers in Middle Eastern countries (the people who do the hospitality roles)

@headstone I have second hand embarrassment for you regarding that post about @noblegiraffe. Goes against everything I thought about you.

People are always picking when it comes to boycotts. Virtue signalling at its worst. Israel is at the forefront of tech and medical innovation. People won't be scrambling to give up their iPhones and cancer treatments.

Oh you care about people being lied to? Interesting. I'm surprised you seem to still support the state of Israel if honesty and truth are important to you.

regardless of whether boycotting Starbucks is wrong or right, as an example, it does send a message that your company could be targeted in a similar way with reagrds to boycotts, especially since it's had an effect on sales to a significant degree.

So those companies supporting or co-operating with a genocidal, apartheid regime will hopefully think twice about their ongoing relationship with Israel.

@millionleaves it's owned by a Kuwaiti family. No relationship with Israel. Redundancies in Middle East.

That will teach them!

@stomachamaleon I'm not advocating for or against boycott of starbucks, but it does send a message to other companies in general though doesn't it?

I don’t. HTH.

That lies and misinformation can seriously damage your brand?

I wasn't sure. That's why I said "seem", but sorry if I misrepresented you.

Uhuh. If you were so unsure perhaps it would have been more prudent not to post snide digs and instead engage with what I was actually saying?

@noblegiraffe You miss my point. Any boycott in support of Palestine that is working (not just Starbucks in particular) sends a message to all companies.

Hopefully all companies are going to think twice before getting involved with an apartheidal genocidal regime.

Regardless of whether that particular boycott is wrong or right.

I am sure some other companies have seen what is happening to companies being boycotted over Palestine and thought twice about their business activities as a result.

Israel is starving a population and people honestly care about Starbucks and pretend it’s about the poor migrant workers. At the end of the day Arabs live coffee and if they are not spending it in Starbucks I’m sure they will be spending it in a local coffee shop and helping the local economy. As for the initial post from the Starbucks union, I believe they said solidarity with Palestinians ( not with Hamas) . It came after the attacks so I can understand it could be subject to interpretation, but I wouldn’t call it pro Hamas. It could just mean they knew in advance what Israel was going to do to them. However the owner was a Zionist, I’m not sure about the current links but the coffee is shit and no doubt locals in Kuwait might have decided in light of recent events they prefer spending their money in better independent coffee shops.

Well your posts to date made me assume you were a supporter of Israel, but as I said I'm happy to be corrected.

I don't agree with your point on this and I didn't feel like arguing about it. I honestly don't care enough to get into it. I take part in the boycott as much as I can and I boycott Starbucks because they have a history of union busting but it's not something I get too worked up about so I'm not minded to argue about it here. People can do what they like. It's none of my business where someone buys their coffee.

I really do not believe some peoples boycott of a huge multinational like Starbucks for 4 months has directly caused the loss of this amount of jobs. I would have thought their business was more robust then that. More likely it is being used as an excuse to off load staff.

I would have thought that shutdown of Starbucks branches will lead to locals shopping elsewhere for coffee and likely help smaller local businesses.

Well your posts to date made me assume you were a supporter of Israel, but as I said I'm happy to be corrected.

Are you one of those who assumes that anyone who posts against antisemitism must be pro Israel?

As for the initial post from the Starbucks union, I believe they said solidarity with Palestinians ( not with Hamas) . It came after the attacks so I can understand it could be subject to interpretation, but I wouldn’t call it pro Hamas

They said “Solidarity with Palestine” on a retweet of a picture and text celebrating the Hamas bulldozers breaking into Israel to conduct the October 7th attacks.

I don’t think that’s subject to much misinterpretation. The appropriate response would have been to apologise massively and delete the tweet, not to organise a global boycott of Starbucks for objecting to their logo being on it.

I don't recall reading you condemning Israel's actions. But I don't read every thread so maybe you have.

Noblegiraffe It’s a bulldozer breaking down a wall (which actually breaks international law). It seems that is what they are supporting and not the deaths/rapes that later became apparent. However It is subject to interpretation as I said. There is also worker s conditions/rights which is also an issue.