Nadenu wrote:
I don't know that people are actually *told* to boycott something and then they follow along like sheep. It's more like, someone some where suggests it, people agree, they suggest it, more people hear and agree, it picks up steam, etc. And I would consider millions of people unsubbing from WoW a boycott. Even if no one suggested it.
Also, IMO, a boycott can occur with just one person. It won't be effective for the most part, but it might make that one person feel better, haha.
Jophiel wrote:
Even if you're not changing something, that doesn't mean you wish to be a part of it. You're not going to make CFA's management any less anti-SSM but that doesn't mean you need to give them your dollars either so they can spend them on causes you disagree with.
So a boycott can simply be a way to say "do not like" and nothing more? That's very interesting. It's nothing like what I've ever experienced here, though, which might explain why I'm having a hard time understanding it.
I looked up boycott (boykot) in my Danish dictionary (oh yeah) and it says:
Quote:
bevidst undgå at samarbejde eller deltage i en politisk eller forretningsmæssig aktivitet med et land, en virksomhed el.lign. fx som pression, som protest eller pga. uenighed
Translated: purposely avoid cooperation or participation in a political or commercial activity with a country, a business or the like, e.g. as pressure, a protest or due to a disagreement.
I guess that's what you've been saying, it just never occurred to me that a boycott would have no purpose other than to bring awareness to a situation. A boycott here is almost always done with the purpose of reverting or preventing a change. One of our unions is currently boycotting a restaurant because the owner withdrew from that union and joined another. The boycott's goal is to change his mind about it (it will probably end with the government stepping in and deciding, likely in the owner's favor since he's protected by free will). Likewise, Iran, or some other country over there, boycotted our export of chicken or whatever it was, because of the Mohammed picture thing. Their goal was for us to apologize, or prosecute the artist, or something (who cares?).
It might also be that the entire situation is pretty far from what you'd experience here. Homosexuality is generally very accepted in our country and I don't think there are any serious organizations working against that (it would be a bad place to start such a business). As such, this entire thing is pretty distant from anything I've ever experienced.
When I hear the word boycott, though, I can't help but translate it to Danish, and the Danish word implies a purpose (protest, pressure and disagreement implies coming to a common understanding here). In a case like with CFA, you obviously can't change the CEO's mind, so the purpose of the boycott would be for him to apologize publicly. I guess. Like I said, I don't think I've ever experienced anything like it.
We love our gays.
(Realizing this could be misunderstood, I'm not saying you don't, just that we do.)
In before Aeth links to bi-curious Denmark from SATW. Edited, Aug 4th 2012 7:05pm by Mazra 
(Realizing this could be misunderstood, I'm not saying you don't, just that we do.)