Had no idea a boycott was happening.

  • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    My wife told me we are boycotting, so lets do this!

    I have 3 trans friends and as a super straight middle aged privileged all to hell white dad, fuck these corporate assholes.

    • SippyCup@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      My wife lives at Target. She’s already found other places to get the essentials.

      40 days.

      Fill a target online shopping cart with every day items, stuff you would buy every week or every month, and abandon it. Nothing big or expensive, standard shit.

      Do that a few times.

  • spacesatan@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I work at the Target warehouse that supplies the northwest, should be interesting to see if this actually noticably changes our daily product volume. gonna hazard a guess at no probably not.

    Works for me though, I’m mostly here for the tuition benefit and I don’t lose benefits eligibility unless we dip below 20/hr/week average which I can’t imagine happening.

  • JWBananas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Damnit, how am I supposed to boycott Walmart now? By paying twice as much for everything at Kroger?

    • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I suspect you’re missing the wood for the trees there - are there any local vendors or farmers markets?

      Yes, they are undeniably more expensive, but it is satisfying as fuck paying slightly over the going rate to poke some big company in the eye, even if it is barely felt at the individual level.

      • tonylowe@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Without sounding accusatory or negative in any way, it’s important to remember that this may be coming from a position of privilege. There are folks who won’t be able to participate in this boycott. It’s for those with the means to do so.

        • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          No I appreciate being checked. It’s always good to be given multiple views on things and I appreciate your view. Thank you.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, I wouldn’t assume that the local vendors and farmers are less likely to be supporting Trump.

    • The Pantser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Shop at Aldi if you have one locally or Costco.

      Aldi is not US based and Costco has been the least evil of the big chains. But definitely Aldi first.

  • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It couldn’t come at a worse time for the company

    Neither could their capitulation to Trumps bigoted rhetoric.

    As I got a lot of flak and eye rolls from my liberal a few years ago when I, as a queer woman, would criticize their Rainbow Capitalism. But Target is not an ally, they never were. They are simply a corporation that got some easy publicity in liberal spaces by showing the bare minimum decency.

    Fair weather allies, aren’t.

    • WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Target is under more pressure than companies like Walmart, John Deere or Tractor Supply, because Target went further in its DEI efforts, and it has a more progressive base of customers than those competitors.

      This is wild move for a company on its arse anyway.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s why it’s our responsibility as consumers to align their shareholder interests to doing the right fucking thing. Boycotts and other consumer action are part of their calculations on what the shareholder interests are, so a large population of informed consumers who vote their conscience with their wallet will provide pressure to do the right thing.

  • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Putting a time limit on a boycott undermines the boycott.

    Saw this with the Loblaw’s boycott here in Canada, it was very ineffective because they can just wait it out.

    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      From the point of view of the boycotter, having a time limit helps mentally.

      I think more people are ready to think “just buy somewhere else for a bit”. If it becomes “forever” might seem daunting.

      My two cents, not sure if this is the real reason.

      • iowagneiss@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s my thought as well. A one day boycott like the “no shopping day” does literally nothing, but 40 days can reform habits. To the extent practicable, I’m doing all my shopping at Costco now. I generally eat a lot of the same things, so bulk quantities aren’t that big of a deal to manage.

    • Wilco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, just don’t shop at Target.
      It’s strange that people forget that businesses like Target getting rid of DEI also gets rid of many disability act initiatives. There should be more outrage than just a boycott.

  • vladmech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Been boycotting them since my local one let ICE use their back parking lot to stage up and detain folks

  • TechAnon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why are people boycotting a company that tried and took a step back due to backlash instead of supporting them when they tried?

    • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I shopped there nearly exclusively because of what they had been doing. Now that they’re embracing fascism, I’m not.

      • TechAnon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Source on embracing fascism? I jumped from Amazon to Target because Bezos and friends were sitting together at the inauguration.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The article certainly outlines a few reasons:

      1. Target “embraced” the idea of rolling back DEI policies more than many companies, furthering its weird cultish “belonging to the bullseye” internal culture.
      2. Target’s customers are more progressive than Walmart, John Deere, or Ford, so more of them actually care about what the company is doing.
      3. Target previous embraced DEI more than other companies. Them previously doing so and then promptly shedding it seems that their corporate culture is one of quarterly gains rather than giving a shit about anybody. While that’s true for pretty much all publicly traded corporations, see point 2.
      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Target throwing themselves at Rainbow Capitalism is one pile of evidence that points at their movement being on the whim of the dollar as opposed to strong corporate ethics

    • Azal@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That is the part that pisses me off so much about this. Yes. Target capitulated. Yes, Target needs to be told that’s not good.

      BUT WALTONS FUND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION!

      This can’t be said enough, yet we can’t get a days boycott on them for fucks sake!

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because if you propose that, no one is actually going to do it.

        Doing something is always more impactful than shooting for everything and ending up doing nothing. This is a great example of a smartly thought out mass movement; it has a specific goal, and a clearly defined set of terms. Remember, you can always expand or extend. It’s far better to get a small thing moving than try to build a big thing that you never finish.

        • comfydecal@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          100%, perfect is the enemy of good. But it makes little logical sense to give any of these corporations any money or data

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            If you’re on the highway, need a coffee, and Starbucks is the only thing around, buy the Starbucks.

            If Amazon is the only place you can buy that thing you need, buy it from Amazon.

            There are plenty of times when the bad option is the only good option. If we teach people that boycotts have to be all or nothing - if we get into this mindset that a single latte means you’re an evil monster who supports genocide - we just engineer a state of despair.

            But if we encourage people to reduce rather than cut out, we set an easily achievable goal. And that means it’s a goal that a lot more people will strive for.

            If you want to cut out every big corporation entirely from your life, that’s an admirable personal goal, but not one that seems easy or achievable to most people.

        • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Also, 40 days is long enough that some people are going to change their shopping habits on a more permanent basis. Creating even a longer impact on Target.

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t get why anyone complains about fixed term boycotts anyway. You can just add another 40 days if Target doesn’t get the message. It’s not like you’re signing a contract or something. Boycotts are a negotiation, and in negotiation you always leave yourself wiggle room.

            People love to get into this “Only the biggest possible action and nothing else” mindset, and then never actually take any action at all.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              The one day ones are fairly pointless, but 40 is good. Give it a month and if nothing changes then you have a bit more time to try to extend it.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Further, a lot of dirt poor people literally rely on Walmart because Walmart was successful at gutting every other business out of their already dirt poor areas. That was literally Walmart’s business model to undersell the competition until they were the only game in town, it’s how they got so huge so fast. Large swathes of the South are like that. There’s a reason they teach their employees how to sign up for food stamps.

      • Gerudo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Better than these one day protests that LITERALLY do nothing. At least a 40 day boycott would hit a fiscal month, vs a single day outlier protest.

      • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m definitely with you on that in spirit. I would starve if I actually practiced that across the board. I figure if we start from the top down, maybe we can get the co-ops to come back. Our neighborhood co-op grocery closed down not too long ago, and all that’s left are national chains.

        • errer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think it’s fair to commit to reducing your purchasing from these large entities significantly. By design, these companies have made it basically impossible to get certain products except from them, so do what you need to do in those cases. But you can get a lot still from alternatives.

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m a huge advocate of what I call “soft boycotting.” You don’t have to all or nothing this stuff. If a million people reduce their spending on a company by only ten percent, that’s just as much damage as ten thousand people dropping them entirely. And it’s a lot easier to get a million people to reduce their spending by a little than it is to get ten thousand people to go cold turkey.

            Remember, perfect is the enemy of good. A small action taken is worth far more than a big action only imagined.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      There is supposed to be a weeklong boycott of Amazon this month, I forget the exact date.