[CryptoPunk]

Why would you work for a lunch counter with a racist mission? Boycotting is the correct way to combat it. If there's a law forcing lunch counters to segregate, then the problem is in the government, and the correct way to counter that is political activism.

[woodruffw]

The observation is that (1) people are willing to excuse environmental racism as long as they don't feel personally responsible for it, and (2) the environment of business is optimized for ensuring that individual employees do not feel guilty for their small roles in larger wrongs.

It's hard to blame someone who's just trying to get by for taking a job, and I'm not especially interested in levying blame. What I'm more interested in is ensuring that people feel able to lodge their complaints about injustices.

[CryptoPunk]

I don't follow. Can you explain why choosing to not work for or dine at a racist lunch counter, instead of work there and then complain to management about their racism, is ignoring the problem?

People should be political about which missions they support. What I think is wrong is accepting a position at a company knowing what their mission is, and then using one's position at the company to push for a different mission while castigating others in the company for not doing the same. If media reports are correct, this is what happened at Coinbase, as a handful of employees refused to work unless their CEO made a political statement about the issue of alleged systemic racial injustice against black Americans.

As for lodging their complaints about injustice - that's vague. Injustice in the workplace? Nothing in the protocol discourages that. Or injustice in the wider world? The complaints should be lodged with the relevant parties, outside of the workplace.

[woodruffw]

> I don't follow. Can you explain why choosing to not work for or dine at a racist lunch counter, instead of work there and then complain to management about their racism, is ignoring the problem?

It isn't! It's strictly better to boycott than to abide.

The observations are as follows:

* Boycotting is, for a multitude of reasons, not always a reasonable option for individuals

* Companies are aware that some of their best potential talent won't work for them unless they emphasize at least some social good

* It's not especially surprising that people who are attracted by the promise of some social good want more, and are upset or angry when they realize that their company's ethical stances are superficial or self-serving

* Conversely, it's not especially surprising that companies that aggressively pursue "apolitical" positions are the ones that are perhaps the most objectionable: defense contractors, financial companies that benefit from organized crime, &c, and find themselves in the company of employees who actively favor the company's unethical positions

To be clear: it's a double bind for companies, and it's always been one. I wouldn't want it any other way!