Politics, Religion and Shopping

[Shimmershadow]

By a somewhat roundabout method, I got to thinking very heavily today about how I use my dollar as my voice, and I was wondering how other Geeks see things on this matter. I'm feeling a bit guilty as I do enjoy my Noodler's Inks, and I plan on buying more, but I don't exactly cotton to Mr. Tardiff's politics, or the fact that he uses his product as a soapbox. It's certainly his right to, I'm not disputing that. However, I'm the sort of person who will not shop at Hobby Lobby or Wal-Mart because I find their politics and practices abhorrent; I won't eat at Papa John's because I think John Schnatter is a wretch. (Also, I live in NJ, and eating chain pizza is grounds for execution.) These are great big chains though, and they carry lots of different products that can be gotten elsewhere (aside from the pizza of course.) Noodler's is a tiny, tiny business, and although I can get a whole lot of ink colors elsewhere, some might not be dead-on, some might not be as colorfast, etc. It's a good product at a good price. Not for nothing, I've heard that Mr. Tardiff himself is everything from a "bit of a character" to "FBBSC", and I've known more small shops owners and crafters who fall on that spectrum than you can shake a stick at, and while they might be awkward-to-definitely nuts, they make awesome stuff. They just aren't terribly likely to be taken seriously outside of whatever it is they produce.

What do you think? Do you speak your mind with your spending? If you do, where you draw the line, if at all?

(Please note: I'm not interested in turning this into a Red v. Blue smackdown or debating personal politics; I don't care what your personal politics are. I am curious as to how you shop with them. Worm can opened!)

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

Uh...ok

[snedwos]

I don't have a problem with his politics since I don't view them as abhorrent, merely incorrect. Unlike Hobby Lobby, for example.

[johnus]

If a person is in business and let their politics or religious stands known, then their gain or loss of business is of their own doing.
I see it as an issue of Ego rather than Conviction.

[snedwos]

If a person is in business and let their politics or religious stands known, then their gain or loss of business is of their own doing.
I see it as an issue of Ego rather than Conviction.

I think he would agree with you. And yes, I'm pretty sure his ego wouldn't fit in my pocket...

[pengeezer]

I'm one that doesn't shop at Wal-Mart because I've known people that have worked there
and have described to me the (un)organized chaos that results from an "I-don't-care" attitude that
trickles down from the top(at least Target seems to be more organized and friendly). I have no pro-
blem w/Nathan and Noodler's inks,except that I get an occasional ink that is too saturated and bleeds
profusely when it hits the paper.


John

[oldstoat]

Well on this side of the pond, I won't buy from Primark or Matalan because their exploitative attitudes to the workers in the third world who produce their goods. I won't but Israeli produce because I find Israel's attitude towards the Palestinians horrible. I won't buy battery-farmed eggs, chicken or pork.

Whether I'd find any individual CEO's politics sufficiently offensive to stop me buying from their company....I don't know. If they were open supporters of the BNP, I wouldn't buy, but otherwise I mihght not object.

[scrivelry]

There is shopping that has the potential to change big things, and the shopping that doesn't, and I think probably voting with your dollars can be a different issue depending on which.

If you don't like the politics of the owner of a one-person business, the question is is your support by buying his product making him more able to promote his agenda. I could be wrong, but I sort of think Mr. Tardiff is going to do exactly what he is going to do and I doubt the number of people who buy Noodler's inks is ever going to be enough to materially change the things he can do, so I doubt one is causing any great harm in buying them, whether they agree with him or not. In practical terms, not an issue.

In terms of a large business, such as Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby, there is more of a possibility of changing the lives of more t people by some kind of economic protest if enough individuals participate, so if there is a large protest going on against a big company, and you are against their policies, going along with the protest has a practical impact. One person not buying stuff at Wal-Mart has no practical results, but Wal-Mart being big, it has news value, news media picking up on a protest and spreading the word, people getting on board - this can have an accumulating affect that can lead to change.

The effect on yourself of lending any financial support, however slight, to something that you disagree with is a different story. If you feel like a sell-out for buying Noodler's inks, then perhaps you are being more true to yourself not buying them - if you think it makes you a bad person to buy at Wal-Mart, you probably shouldn't shop there, and this is a matter of being true to your values, rather than a matter of hoping that voting with your wallet will change things. If you want the world to change, it does make logical sense to begin with yourself, and if you do not, you can hardly expect the world to change.

A big problem I have is that when you look at everything - and I do mean everything, where is there any peace? How many companies are there that do not exploit something in a way that some thinking person might consider objectionable? How many of those are only able to exist because of a class of people who have excess money, in which case, how did they earn that money? Those things which are most useful to society are often the worst paying, and those things which cause great harm are often cash cows.

I find a lot of disconnects in modern virtuism. Nothing is perfect, no one is perfect, and even if they were the definition of perfect varies from one person to another more than, probably, it ever has before in human history. You take your picks. You do your best. You go with your biggest issues in the biggest way you can, I suppose, and you live with the rest.

[Ernst Bitterman]

By a somewhat roundabout method, I got to thinking very heavily today about how I use my dollar as my voice, and I was wondering how other Geeks see things on this matter. I'm feeling a bit guilty as I do enjoy my Noodler's Inks, and I plan on buying more, but I don't exactly cotton to Mr. Tardiff's politics, or the fact that he uses his product as a soapbox....

What do you think? Do you speak your mind with your spending? If you do, where you draw the line, if at all?)

I'm of a similar mind to you, in the specific instance and on the general topic. I've not set foot in Walmart in at least a decade, and I've spent more than is fashionable on a Lamy 2000 because a local shop carries Lamy (or rather THE local shop, so far as FP availability goes), despite having the sort of income that suggests shopping wherever the prices are LOOOOW and not buying FPs at all beyond just one. I think it is an analog rather than a binary activity, though. The equation is something like: IF {behavior I find objectionable} < {certain arbitrary limit} AND ({product quality} + {product value} - {product mark-up}) + {relative smallness of operation} > {different arbitrary limit} THEN go ahead and spend there. Since there's some wobble in my arbitrary limits, I might find myself in certain borderline cases to go ahead one day but balk the next.

Also, to the specific: while in many cases I don't agree with the Tardiff position (but not all, I find with some self-directed amusement), I find the fact that he doesn't conceal his opinions is a mark in his favour. He must know there's some people who will say, "I cannot give someone who thinks that any money!" and to let it be known that he thinks like that regardless at least shows conviction in the stance. I might not accept his stance, but I also know that it is sometimes very hard to choke back the declaration of position (there's a thread or two in this forum that proves my own inability). It's ego and conviction, I'd say, and at least it's out in the open.

I doubt it is a serious consideration, up to a certain point; with a big enough market, the people who flee from your monstrous politics will be replaced by those who embrace them. That certain point would be something like "BigStorE CEO Wally Pessimel announces proud support for NAMBLA, marches in parade." Short of that, though... I'll wager Hobby Lobby's sales haven't changed much from the previous levels.

I'm still not shopping at Walmart.

[pengeezer]

There is another facet to consider--so many companies have been bought out by others
that one may not like that interlocking directorates that have been formed. As such,it becomes confusing
to figure out who controls what anymore. If there is a company one is against,a little digging is in order.


John

[LagNut]

I won't shop at Walmart myself. But the ironies of this is not lost on me. A relative whose pension would not exist if he worked there does, partially because he is on a pension.

With Mr Tardiff, I will still buy from him though he is so out to lunch in his political beliefs I'm amazed he can string two sentences together. By the same token, I know a lot of folks who are in the same strain. And they are otherwise on the ball.

The critical difference to me is I don't see Nathan actively destroying unions as part of his business plan.

And this is from someone who grew up not a fan of unions.

Somehow, the destruction of our middle class turned me. Unions aren't perfect, but they are necessary in a capitalist society, and I do like capitalism.

[GING GING]

Well on this side of the pond, I won't buy from Primark or Matalan because their exploitative attitudes to the workers in the third world who produce their goods. I won't but Israeli produce because I find Israel's attitude towards the Palestinians horrible. I won't buy battery-farmed eggs, chicken or pork.

Whether I'd find any individual CEO's politics sufficiently offensive to stop me buying from their company....I don't know. If they were open supporters of the BNP, I wouldn't buy, but otherwise I mihght not object.

If Israels enemies put down their weapons there will be peace. If Israel puts down her weapons, she will cease to exist.

[Scrawler]

I don't know anything about politics and religion and largely don't care what goes on in people's heads. That said, I do everything I can avoid spending my money in Pakistan, and as of a couple months ago, have terminated all contracts with India until they sort their rape culture out.

[Scrawler]

. . .<snip> I've heard that Mr. Tardiff himself is everything from a "bit of a character" to "FBBSC", and I've known more small shops owners and crafters who fall on that spectrum . . .<snip>

What is FBBSC?

[snedwos]

I don't know anything about politics and religion and largely don't care what goes on in people's heads. That said, I do everything I can avoid spending my money in Pakistan, and as of a couple months ago, have terminated all contracts with India until they sort their rape culture out.

See, I admire the sentiment, but I also wonder if the best way to help India move forward as a nation is to hurt their economy. As India becomes more affluent, I believe it will become more liberal as citizens (both men and women, bit especially girls and boys) get access to more and better education.

The only way of ending rape culture is education, not punishment.

The more Indians who can afford the internet, the more Indians will be exposed to new ideas. That does of course also mean more access to rapey porn, but every silver lining has a dark and brooding cumulonimbus...

[Scrawler]

I don't know anything about politics and religion and largely don't care what goes on in people's heads. That said, I do everything I can avoid spending my money in Pakistan, and as of a couple months ago, have terminated all contracts with India until they sort their rape culture out.

See, I admire the sentiment, but I also wonder if the best way to help India move forward as a nation is to hurt their economy. As India becomes more affluent, I believe it will become more liberal as citizens (both men and women, bit especially girls and boys) get access to more and better education.

The only way of ending rape culture is education, not punishment.

The more Indians who can afford the internet, the more Indians will be exposed to new ideas. That does of course also mean more access to rapey porn, but every silver lining has a dark and brooding cumulonimbus...
This is not about punishing India. My small boycott will do nothing. This is about getting a message to the more influential and wealthier citizens that we do not approve of what is permitted in their country, and they if they wish to be regarded as worthy and honourable business partners, they need to be addressing this issue openly.

[Shimmershadow]

. . .<snip> I've heard that Mr. Tardiff himself is everything from a "bit of a character" to "FBBSC", and I've known more small shops owners and crafters who fall on that spectrum . . .<snip>

What is FBBSC?

Full-Blown Bat-Shit Crazy.

[Scrawler]

. . .<snip> I've heard that Mr. Tardiff himself is everything from a "bit of a character" to "FBBSC", and I've known more small shops owners and crafters who fall on that spectrum . . .<snip>

What is FBBSC?

Full-Blown Bat-Shit Crazy.

Wow. First time I have heard that people think he is insane. Well I don't care, any more than I care about van Gogh being a nutter, I still like his paintings.

[stevekolt]

Yeah, we pretty much avoid spending any of our hard earned money with any companies etc. that we actively disagree with, and will not support, or pay to see any movies/shows by entertainers/actors that do the same.

[princessmaryam]

Yeah, we pretty much avoid spending any of our hard earned money with any companies etc. that we actively disagree with, and will not support, or pay to see any movies/shows by entertainers/actors that do the same.

Many times i buy online but, never seen before customer friendly policy like lootlo :)

[stub]

I was in the kitchen once with my hands full and my comp-u-tron was playing some YouTube silliness and it automatically went to the next thing in the cue, which was some long podcast with Tardiff and I am not gonna lie, it totally turned me off. Badly.

I would still buy his ink, if there were any available that I liked here but I also find his labels goofy and tacky and yeah. no. Seems like an okay guy but I have a real allergy to his particular brand of politics. I have purposefully gone out of my way not to know more. I really want to be supportive of a small homegrown hand crafted entrepreneurial type and unlike Walmart he isn't a huge empire squashing the little guy, he is the little guy but the vehemence the hawkishness of it is an enormous turn off.

[dneal]

Oooh, a necro-thread!

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because of the way they exploit illiterate cows in their advertisements.

[Scrawler]

Oooh, a necro-thread!

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because of the way they exploit illiterate cows in their advertisements.

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because I have never seen one and would not know where to find it.

[TSherbs]

By a somewhat roundabout method, I got to thinking very heavily today about how I use my dollar as my voice, and I was wondering how other Geeks see things on this matter. I'm feeling a bit guilty as I do enjoy my Noodler's Inks, and I plan on buying more, but I don't exactly cotton to Mr. Tardiff's politics, or the fact that he uses his product as a soapbox....

What do you think? Do you speak your mind with your spending? If you do, where you draw the line, if at all?)

I'm of a similar mind to you, in the specific instance and on the general topic. I've not set foot in Walmart in at least a decade, and I've spent more than is fashionable on a Lamy 2000 because a local shop carries Lamy (or rather THE local shop, so far as FP availability goes), despite having the sort of income that suggests shopping wherever the prices are LOOOOW and not buying FPs at all beyond just one. I think it is an analog rather than a binary activity, though. The equation is something like: IF {behavior I find objectionable} < {certain arbitrary limit} AND ({product quality} + {product value} - {product mark-up}) + {relative smallness of operation} > {different arbitrary limit} THEN go ahead and spend there. Since there's some wobble in my arbitrary limits, I might find myself in certain borderline cases to go ahead one day but balk the next.

Also, to the specific: while in many cases I don't agree with the Tardiff position (but not all, I find with some self-directed amusement), I find the fact that he doesn't conceal his opinions is a mark in his favour. He must know there's some people who will say, "I cannot give someone who thinks that any money!" and to let it be known that he thinks like that regardless at least shows conviction in the stance. I might not accept his stance, but I also know that it is sometimes very hard to choke back the declaration of position (there's a thread or two in this forum that proves my own inability). It's ego and conviction, I'd say, and at least it's out in the open.

I doubt it is a serious consideration, up to a certain point; with a big enough market, the people who flee from your monstrous politics will be replaced by those who embrace them. That certain point would be something like "BigStorE CEO Wally Pessimel announces proud support for NAMBLA, marches in parade." Short of that, though... I'll wager Hobby Lobby's sales haven't changed much from the previous levels.

I'm still not shopping at Walmart.

I like your equation! Although I would add more variables in...

[TSherbs]

My use of dollars lately has become to purchase and consume less and less. When my last son is through college, my wife and I are going to seriously downsize (and our house now is under 1800 sq ft) and become even more Spartan. I don't care much about the politics of business owners; I don't ever inquire into it in the same way that I don't know my plumber's politics. He lives in my town; I respect his work and kindness; I could not care less about his politics in the same way that I don't care about the politics of the person next to me in the church pew or doctor's office. But we can and should all live on less (I am speaking broadly here as an American, where we consume more per capita in energy and resources than anywhere else on the planet). THAT I am trying to do something about with my money, so to speak--by working to resist the the suggestions of the marketing strategies of virtually every purveyor of goods: "you need to buy this to improve your wellbeing or happiness." Um, I think not, thank you. In fact, saying "no" to "more" or "new" or "replacement" can feel pretty darn good for one's wellbeing and happiness!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Gus Speth, a US advisor on climate change said “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

[Scrawler]

Gus Speth, a US advisor on climate change said “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

Selfishness and greed are important survival characteristics that have directly lead to the current ascendancy of our kind. Those who accumulated food and resources tended to survive at the expense of those that did not. To make the next evolutionary step, and maintain such high population levels we need to change into a cooperative animal. However, if we can achieve that we will change our fundamental nature and cease to be what we are. These characteristics are so ingrained in our make up that we are bound to follow them until the next logical step, which is extinction. But life is tenacious and even if it takes tens of millions of years after the destruction we have wrought, life will reassert itself in new forms.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Gus Speth, a US advisor on climate change said “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

Selfishness and greed are important survival characteristics that have directly lead to the current ascendancy of our kind. Those who accumulated food and resources tended to survive at the expense of those that did not. To make the next evolutionary step, and maintain such high population levels we need to change into a cooperative animal. However, if we can achieve that we will change our fundamental nature and cease to be what we are. These characteristics are so ingrained in our make up that we are bound to follow them until the next logical step, which is extinction. But life is tenacious and even if it takes tens of millions of years after the destruction we have wrought, life will reassert itself in new forms.


So, you agree then.