[orwin]

I think the environment in which you grew up have an impact on that kind of choices. We were told basically all our life, especially during the socdem "third way" era, that we should vote with our wallet if we weren't happy. And the moment we started earning money, we started doing that. Then the same idiots who kept saying "vote with your wallet" suddenly started crying about "cancel culture".

My generation was taught to vote with their wallet more than the previous ones, and probably it is the reason behind Tesla declining sales. Some of use are voting him out.

PS: And by the way, people who ever said "vote with your wallet" or something of that effect like "consumers have made their choice", and _then_ complained about cancel culture, and not made the link themselves are idiots.

[alvah]

“Voting with your wallet” has absolutely nothing to do with “cancel culture”. Lost in translation?

[orwin]

Cancel culture is basically boycotting, unless it's different in the US?

To be more precise, I thought cancel culture is what you get when you boycott in a high information, attention economy. I used to boycott lactalis. I'm now able to find all of it's offshot brands, that I now boycott too. They have a few years ago, pushed a paid promotion to national influencers. I blocked them and all their channels. I am voting with my wallet and my attention.

Unless i missed the point of 'cancelling', isn't it just that boycott and block?

[alvah]

Not buying from companies you disagree with is massively different from trying to get people sacked or otherwise remove their source of income (e.g. Roseanne Barr, JK Rowling, Brian Leach, Christian Webb)

[orwin]

The only example I know is JK Rowling, and so far the only actions I saw against her are not going to see the new movie, not buying her books and refusing to buy her game. Isn't that boycott for you?

[alvah]

Why don’t you look up the ones you haven’t heard of? Celebrities are more cancel-proof in some ways than the average Joe.

[orwin]

Because you could tell me, you say it's something other than boycotting or people being mean or the internet, what was done exactly? Someone protested their presence at their work? Some people refused to work with them (which, to be clear, is close to boycott but is not, and so i would have to amend my conception of "cancel" which is "call to boycott" to "call to boycott and ignoring them at work")? Or was there assassinations, physical aggression, or even agression toward stuff they own?

Because in the mid 80s, Lillian bettancourt purchased a manor in Brittany, a few years after an oil spill that devasted the coast and fisheries. Some locals associated her with her shares in Total, and in Loreal (which she owned and was a beneficiary of a refinery the tanker was going to). They filled her pool with liquid manure, and oyster farmers/regular farmer managed have one of their tractor break down every day on the only road access to her new manor for a bit ore than a month (never the same one). This is what i would call very mean, and should be avoided. If the persons you talked about did not suffer a tenth of that, frankly, they ought to toughen up and stop complaining.

[steveoscaro]

Not really that different

[alvah]

Not buying from a particular company is "not really that different" to trying to get an individual fired or otherwise cut off their source of income? Wild take.

[Lanolderen]

You're most likely right. I grew up in eastern europe where essentially up until around my birth/shortly after the fall of communism there was nothing to buy outside of necessities anyway so "vote with your wallet" wasn't a topic really. You even needed connections to get basic construction materials like sand, wood and cement. The lesson for my generation was "Study so you don't (have to) work.".