[blck]

I think in prior times when we didn't have all the information we have available at hand: sure that's fine.

But what if your orange juice brand of choice was actively contributing to the destruction of the environment, lobbying politicians to make them exempt from environmental regulations, and destroying competition in nefarious ways?

That's an extreme but if that's information you have and you still support that orange juice brand then you are supporting everything that is public knowledge about that brand.

[defen]

If 95% of the people at the company don't care, but you're the person who won't stop bringing up the need to change orange juice vendors, to the point that it's disruptive and annoying to the 95%, maybe they don't want to work with you any more. And maybe it's not the right company for you, either. Why would you want to work with a bunch of people who are indifferent to environmental destruction when there are literally thousands of companies out there who actively embrace your orange juice opinions?

[lazyasciiart]

If 95% of the company doesn't care then you should change orange juice vendors. Making it turn into an ongoing issue would be a very strong sign that people at the company care very strongly about keeping the current vendor. Which means that perhaps you should leave, but you should leave because people are actively opposing your politics and not because that 95% is not political.

[defen]

By "don't care" I mean they don't perceive the current situation as a problem, and they view the cost of switching vendors to be too high. But either way, yes.

I think one problem with the concept of "everything is political (including supporting the status quo)" is that it provides no principled mechanism for determining what counts as "too far" (costly) for any given political cause. The nice thing about having a dictator (CEO) in this regard is that it provides a fixed point.