Wayfair (a website) Is Being Criticized For Selling Stuff
Wayfair, a home furnishing web site is being threatened with a worker and consumer boycott for selling camping cots to Homeland Security for the detention centers.
What the hell?
Do you support such thoughts?
'Shut down the concentration camps': Wayfair employees walk out, hundreds protest
Social media democracy. Hey Wilderness this is your mantra; "Bread and Circuses" Everyone with a keyboard can make a social impact. My gawddd.... somebody please turn on the lights.
Come on folks, is this really how you think democracy should work? Social media will be the death of America. How damn cynical, and, apocryphal is that message.
Rule by hashtag and "likes" Amen brother, may God's mercy be upon you. 'Cause reality sure as hell isn't going to be on your side.
GASo, why are you so worked up about social media in this specific issue. The link you share is all about employees, a letter they sent, a walkout/march?
I am worked up because there were other links - from social warriors, that reiterated the thought. Demonizing a company for selling beds. Sheesh!
The specific issue is secondary to the point of, where as a society, we place our priorities.
GAPriorities...
Some people want a company to sell beds, some don't want a company to profit from children's suffering...
That's democracy in action, my friend.
". . . profit from children's suffering . . ."
Yep, that's democracy alright.
Are the companies that sell food or medicine to the detention camps guilty of profiting from children's suffering too?
GAThe people that prefer a company not to sell cots or beds to the government for the shelters to get people off the floors due to it promoting human suffering. While they fight what they feel the good fight ultimately people are sleeping on the floors. Their thought process seems nonsensical?
I think it sheds a poor light on their protest, to me they look foolish, as they really just did not consider the true problem. The reason beds are needed... Men, women, and yes children need these beds.
I would have no problem with these workers protesting any of the multitudes of problems that are occurring in the border facilities but in my opinion, their protest against Wayfair made no sense. I am with GA there was no reason to demonize Wayfair for selling beds
Are you shocked that customers have recognized they can affect change via social media, or shocked that they are wielding it in relation to a cause you don't think is worthy, or both?
"Shocked" wouldn't have been my word choice Don, I support the concept of consumers voting with their wallet.
Like you, I am hesitant to make an assumption, but you have left me to guess what cause it is you asked me about. Given the topic, I would assume that "cause" would be one against the detention of children. Or could it be the one against inhuman treatment of children?
I see both of those causes as worthy, but don't see their application to Wayfair's action. So . . . apparently, the answer is neither.
GACompanies (in general not necessarily Wayfair) have been using their economic might to lobby government and organize against the interests of ordinary people in different ways for years. Whether it be to ripping-off consumers, harming people and the environment, or exploiting workers. Consumers using social media to exert influence on companies is not necessarily a bad thing. "Let the market decide" is the maxim often used to criticise government intervention. Isn't this the market deciding?
The court of public opinion is seldom worth much, for it depends on ignorance and emotion far more than fact. This is a case in point, for there cannot possibly be anything wrong with selling mattresses to the government for criminals to sleep on; the option is to sleep on concrete.
But facts and reason don't count; only that Wayfair has been implicated in the "horrific treatment" (read: criminals are not set free) at the border."The court of public opinion is seldom worth much, for it depends on ignorance and emotion far more than fact. "
You mean the type of "ignorance and emotion" displayed by pearl-clutching, fear-mongers bleating that the country is about to be destroyed by all the half-starved, dehydrated families crossing the southern border? When you show me the "facts and reason" that supports such xenophobia, then you can claim to care about such things. Until then, your comment is little more than hypocrisy masquerading as a valid viewpoint.Right! The mob is always well informed and their claims and actions are always well reasoned and based on factual data.
Needless to say, I will disagree with this statement. Including the idea that millions upon millions of additional people entering the country will cause no harm. Is their temporary state of dehydration the determining factor there - if they haven't drunk enough water it means it takes no resources to support them? This, just as I said, seems to support the idea that the mob depends on emotions (dismay and horror at the plight of people walking across the desert to violate the law) and ignorance of what it is actually costing us to support those millions. It certainly is not based on facts and well reasoned conclusions!Look at you trying to sound reasonable. I know your views on immigrants wilderness. I've seen you express them many times. Those views consist of almost nothing but "ignorance and emotion". For evidence I offer every comment in every discussion we've had on the subject. In every single one, you have ignored fact after fact that does not support your narrow view, and provided "evidence" in the form of links to right-wing blogs and other questionable sources. So forgive me if I don't buy your sudden distaste for ignorance and emotion. Prejudice and fear-mongering against vulnerable people is not only ignorant it's literally xenophobic. The fact you subscribe to that, while at the same time condemning others for supposedly not relying on facts and reason, serves only to highlight the hypocrisy. That hypocrisy makes your opinion on the subject of "ignorance and emotion" less than valid.
Perhaps if you actually read those "right wing blogs", checked them for truth and thought about what was being said you'd understand the gravity of unlimited immigration a little better.
Until then I don't expect you to read anything that doesn't agree with your bias.You're proving my point. You implore me to embrace "truth and thought", but in the same sentence promote right-wing blogs as a reliable source of information about immigration. Those sites are mostly written by and for xenophobes and conspiracy theory loons. So your concern about "bias" is nothing but a charade.
It's true, I am biased, but mainly towards reality. Something you are not comfortable with. You find the lies spread by right-wing blogs and trumpeted by the likes Hannity, Limbaugh and Jones reassuring, because they reinforce your own prejudices and narrow views. You and all the others bleating on about how immigrants are going to end civilization as we know it, wrap those prejudices around you like a security blanket. And when that bubble of fear looks like it could be punctured by actual, indisputable facts, you simply switch off. I've seen it again and again.
So you're free to promote your right-wing blogs, but I am also free to point out that the views emanating from them are mindless, xenophobic, trash. Thank you for clarifying the source of your hateful views on immigrants though. I appreciate it. It means I can be sure to assign those views the credibility they fully deserve.
It seems it's becoming very easy for some in our society to philosophize any given situation, even such a humanitarian crisis. But this one takes the cake... It seems pretty clear that these workers that chose to protest Wayfair for the sale of beds or cots to the government are using the suffering of others that are in a crisis. It would equate to not supplying the people of Flint Michigan with water to prevent them from drinking water with lead in it. Protesting the water company, and demanding the water system be fixed before buying water... I would seem this unch have little to no common sense. They want to seem like bleeding hearts caring about having detainment facilities but it's clear they care nothing for human beings that are in a situation that is a humanitarian crisis. It's shocking to me that anyone can see any value in this form of protesting.
It should not shock me our Congress cared little about the crisis for many months they sat on it, many stating there was no crisis.It seems to me that the biggest thing of interest to these "bleeding hearts" is to denigrate and demonize President Trump. That they have let it sit for months (or years, given the photos from the Obama era) is set aside in the hopes of being forgotten...so they can pretend it is all about Trump and Oh My, what a terrible, evil person he is! We'll set aside and forget that there "Is no crises at the border" for the same reason.
Those people are no more than pawns in a political game of "Get rid of Trump!". When we have liberals aiding caravans of them, then turning around and decrying what a terrible thing it is that they're here, well, it becomes obvious just what is going on.Yes, it is clear many were aiming their rath at president Trump. It mazes me how narrow-minded this bunch was to the fact that at this point beds are needed, who the hell cares who sell them to the Government. It also bugs me that this crew showed zero empathy, only slanted political hate. Where is our society headed?
No (rational) person cares who sells the beds. Only that as much fuss as possible is raised, and that Trump gets the blame for decades of neglect.
Of course there are some irrational people out there...Well, you realize wilderness, that the reason these detention centers (now proclaimed to be concentration camps by some) are there is because most of the folks trying to get into the country on the southern border are brown? You realize this, right?
So selling beds to the Feds is an act of racism, of injustice and bigotry!LOL That's about the level of reasoning being used. Yes, I've been accused of hating anyone brown because I don't like people breaking the law or using us as an easy way out of poverty.
That comment is part of a 6 comment thread. Taking one comment and presenting it out of context is at best ill-advised, at worst duplicitous.
In particular my comments to wilderness related to the hypocrisy that he should criticize others over depending on "ignorance and emotion" over fact. If you had exchanged the number of comments I have with wilderness over the years on the subject of immigration, you'd know why I consider that to be hypocritical from him.
So before you insert your thoughts into a discussion, I suggest you take the time to appraise yourself of what it's actually about. A simple review of the exchange wilderness and I would have told you it was less to do with this particular protest and more to do how hypocrisy reduces people's credibility and simply makes them look two-faced.
That's a lesson you would also benefit greatly from.I added my opinion and made it quite clear. 'It seems it's becoming very easy for some in our society to philosophize any given situation, even such a humanitarian crisis. "
phi·los·o·phize
/fəˈläsəˌfīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
speculate or theorize about fundamental or serious issues, especially in a tedious or pompous way.
Your last six comments certainly showed you were philosophizing on a very serious issue.Funny how wilderness is so concerned for "truth and thought" but doesn't mind promoting right-wing blogs, despite the xenophobic garbage they pump out daily. And it's funny how you are eager to criticize me for pointing out that contradiction, but are strangely silent about the fact the government continues to break the law by punishing asylum seekers and putting them in concentration camps.
"hypocrisy
/hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
synonyms: sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue"
Hi Don, I did say I agreed with the concept of consumers voting with their wallet, (another way of describing this social media thing), but my discussion was specific to the Wayfair example. Do you think their actions fit your explanation of possible valid scenarios?
GAThey want the camps shut down. From the story you linked to:
"Solidarity with Wayfair Workers! Shut Down the Concentration Camps!"
Trying to disrupt the supply chain that enables the camps to remain open makes sense relative to that stated goal.Would you support such disruption--for the same purpose and reasoning, if the companies involved were food and medical supplies, vendors?
It appears, (that is conditioned on an inference drawn - not direct statements of support), by your comments that you support the workers' protest because their goal is to protest the detention camps policy.
In this case, the protest amounts to preference that would have the detainees sleeping on the floor.
Would you remain supportive if the protests were against vendors of food and medical supplies? Or have I misread your comments and you are not supportive of the Wayfair workers' protest?
To avoid confusion, I too support the workers' Right to their protests, but I think my comments have made clear what I think of this particular protest.
GAWho said I supported the disruption?
I'm taking a page out of your playbook GA. I am neither confirming nor denying my support for the action. I'm just looking at the logical consistency of it.
The stated goal is to shut the camps down. Disrupting the supply chain is consistent with that goal.
(the view from the top of this fence is amazing by the way. I can see why you like it up here).You only took 'half a page' Don. I must direct you to my caveat that the "support" I noted was only an inference drawn from the context of your comments.
Also, you are a bit behind the times. I jumped off the fence, (relative to certain legal assertions), when the Mueller report came out.
As for those other vague character assassination topics, I was never on the fence. I am solidly in the camp that they are a political and power-holder gambit.
To you "logical consistency" point, I am not sure I understand. I feel I was consistent in my support of the workers' action as a concept of consumers' voice, but my criticism was of the wisdom of that particular 'voice'.
Of course, the next question is; Do you support the shutdown of the detainment centers? If so, then you must also support the disruption of food and medical supplies to the camps. But, I don't think you would support that. I know I wouldn't.
A follow-up question would be where was the support for the disruption of these detainment camps when those first 2014 images became public. Of course, I am speaking of the caged images from the Obama administration.
Were there any protestations of the supply chain then? Why not?
You look for logical consistency Don, wouldn't the answer to that last question also demand an explanation of "logical consistency"?
My fence post seat is long gone Don. There are still issues I am undecided on, the legality of many of these current topics is one area, but the "get Trump" mentality and efforts of the 'powers that be' is not one of them.
GADon't keep us in suspense Gus, which side did you finally fall off of?
Suspense can be a good thing Randy.
You heard a strange noise and slowly reach for the basement door. Just as you grasp the doorknob . . .
GA
I'd never have guessed you've come off the fence. Are you sure you haven't just leaned a bit more to one side? I guess you know you, better than anyone else.
I mean logically consistent in a technical sense, as in the action follows the stated goal. It's not a value judgement..
Do I support the shutdown of these modern day concentration camps? I support the rule of law. Using detention (and squalid conditions) to penalize asylum seekers as part of a deterrent, is against the law.
Would I support the disruption of the food supply to one these camps? The food supply is not being disrupted. And the people taking this action seem smart enough to know that causing a fuss at Wayfair will not have any real impact on the prisoners in the camps (if only getting these places shut down were that simple) but it will bring about lots and lots of publicity.
In fact their actions and the resulting publicity (including this thread) may cause someone to research the conditions in these camps and take some other action in support of the group's goals. I think there actions is probably more about that.
2014? Whataboutism is wasted on me I'm afraid. If it were demonstrated that the conditions of these places were exactly the same in 2014 as they are now, that would not absolve either administration of responsibility. It would also not change who is currently accountable for the government's actions, and who is in a position to act now to rectify the situation. But if you'd like to start a campaign criticizing the previous administration for previously doing something the current administration is doing is right now, feel free, though I don't see the utility in it.
"Were there any protestations of the supply chain then? Why not?" I have no idea. There are a myriad of reasons that may be the case. There isn't a secret network of all The Liberals sharing insider information. You have access to the same information I do.
If you'd like to know why I personally believe the Trump administration deserves more criticism than any other I have known, it's because this administration is engaging in a sustained attack against the country's democratic systems (and therefore the Constitution) in a bid to remove the protections they provide, mostly because they serve as a barrier preventing it from dragging the country to the far right.
The moment you can honestly say the previous administration did the same, is the moment I will accept comparisons with recent administrations as valid.Holy cow, I have lost my comment reply twice now, what the hell!
Here is the Reader's Digest version of the first two efforts. My apologies for shortchanging your comment, but three times would be too much. I am now coping my comment to the clipboard every couple lines. Sheesh.
First let me address your last:
"The moment you can honestly say the previous administration did the same, is the moment I will accept comparisons with recent administrations as valid."
You know that is something I cannot do. Pres. Trump's policies, (and I think, the Progressive activists' efforts), have exacerbated the problem, so both hold ownership to the current conditions of the camps. They would be a lot less crowded if Pres. Trump followed Pres. Obama's "Catch and Release" doctrine, (is that a defensible policy?), but that policy was not an equitable one in my opinion. So I am not unhappy that Pres. Trump changed that policy.
The fence seat I abandoned was the previously mentioned one that the Trump we see was the Fransico D' Anconio of Atlas Shrugged fame.
Your explanation of "logically consistent" isn't the interpretation I took from your previous comment. But I think that is an inconsequential matter.
If, the detention camps, (your concentration camps), were the only available solution under the rule of law, would you then support them? Short of Pres. Obama's Catch and Release' program I don't see any other choice for handling the mass influx of illegal immigrants. Do you?
What if the detention was the "rule of law," (and I think it currently is), can you see an alternative to the conditions being squalid due to the unprecedented numbers? How does a 100-bed facility handle 5000
without becoming "squalid," even with an administration's best intentions?
We can argue whether the intentions of the Wayfair employees boycott letter was a smart calculated move, or whether it was a social media mob response. I am not convinced of your perspective.
On the whatabouism reference, you are right it is a weak point to offer, but . . . whataboutism wasn't the point of my Obama administration reference. My point was that I believe this current controversy is an anti-Trump agenda-driven issue. Two wrongs do not make a right, and you are correct, it doesn't matter who's administration participated in the situation--as it exists, the problem highlighted by current controversy is a problem that must be owned by the current administration, but, these conditions existed prior to Trump, why weren't they the obscenity then that they are now?
That is not "whataboutism," that is a reference to hypocrisy.
We are far down this tangent Don. My OP was about the social media aspect of the Wayfair issue, not whether Trump or Obama were the owners of the problem. You say there is no ". . . secret network of all The Liberals," but, the public media and social media platforms adoption of perspectives cast doubt on that thought.
GA"I have lost my comment reply twice now, what the hell!"
I feel that pain. I almost lost my comment before posting also. In my case, the browser closed for no apparent reason. Thankfully I was able to restore the tabs I had open.
"Pres. Trump's policies, (and I think, the Progressive activists' efforts), have exacerbated the problem, so both hold ownership to the current conditions of the camps"
I don't understand. Are you suggesting a group of ordinary people who want to close down modern day concentration camps, are as as equally accountable for the conditions in them as the president of the country? If so, that will need some explaining.
"They would be a lot less crowded if Pres. Trump followed Pres. Obama's "Catch and Release" doctrine, (is that a defensible policy?), but that policy was not an equitable one in my opinion. So I am not unhappy that Pres. Trump changed that policy
It's not "Obama's" catch and release doctrine. That's a myth perpetuated by right-wing news media. I'm surprised to hear you resorting to that. Catch and release was started under Bush. Also, in practice, it continues under the current administration. So I assume you will revert back to being unhappy about it.
https://www.politifact.com/ohio/stateme … ch-and-re/
"What if the detention was the "rule of law," (and I think it currently is), can you see an alternative to the conditions being squalid due to the unprecedented numbers?"
From whatboutism to what-ifs? Come on, GA. Penalizing asylum seekers by deliberately keeping them in squalid conditions as a deterrent is against the law, and it's morally wrong.
What if it were not? Then the government would still be failing to comply with its own standards. The National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search says: "Detainees should generally not be held for longer than 72 hours in CBP hold rooms or holding facilities". People are being detained much longer than that.
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … ct2015.pdf (p.14)
But if it's what-if scenarios you want, how about this. Instead of transporting tanks to Washington at a cost of $870,000 per tank to massage the presidents over-inflated ego, what if that money were used to provide toothpaste, soap, clean clothes, access to showers, and suitable accommodation for the asylum seekers (including children) who are currently being denied those things.
https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default … Jul19_.pdf
"We can argue whether the intentions of the Wayfair employees boycott letter was a smart calculated move, or whether it was a social media mob response. I am not convinced of your perspective."
I honestly don't know. Has anyone asked what the activist's response would be if Wayfair donated the cots, so was therefore not profiting from other people's misery? As I said, despite what you think a secret All-Liberal network of insider information doesn't exist. I have access to the same information you. Unless such a thing does exist and I;m just a bad liberal. That's always a possibility. And by calling it a "mob response" is your intention to dismiss and denigrate people taking action over their concerns about government-run concentration camps? Because that's how it comes across.
"I believe this current controversy is an anti-Trump agenda-driven issue . . . these conditions existed prior to Trump, why weren't they the obscenity then that they are now?"
Of all the things you might suggest are an anti-Trump agenda issue, this is not one of them. While it might be true that conditions in these facilities could never have been described as good. They are no longer merely bad, they are worse than appalling. The government's own Inspector General has condemned the conditions as dangerous. Read the report for yourself:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1
When you demonstrate conditions in these facilities were just as appalling under previous administrations, I might be willing to accept your equivalence. Until then, this "hypocrisy" argument sounds like a weak excuse for immoral actions by the current government."When you demonstrate conditions in these facilities were just as appalling under previous administrations, I might be willing to accept your equivalence."
Look at the pictures that accompany rants about how evil Trump is in the matter of detention centers. Then notice that those photos are from 2014, not current. Pretty good proof, I'd say.Don, your response sent me on a search for more information. You are right, I was, (and am?), ill-informed regarding Pres. Obama's 'Catch and Release' program, (as well as Bush and Trump's).
And, after a full evening and half a day of looking I am still only at the doorstep of a more informed opinion, so I will get back to this subject in a bit.
If you haven't already seen this report; Judicial Rulings Ending the Obama Administration’s Family Detention Policy: Implications for Illegal Immigration and Border Security, I recommend you give it a look.
Because it is a Senate Committee report chaired by a Republican; after two readings I am still following information confirmation sources, but . . .
Here is one Summation section worth chewing on:
"To inform the Committee’s problem solving process, the majority staff presents the following findings drawn from the Committee’s bipartisan oversight:
A. The Flores reinterpretation requires DHS to “catch and release” apprehended families at the southern border, incentivizing more illegal immigration. The number of family unit members apprehended by CBP since FY2012 has increased by a staggering 864 percent, and the problem is only getting worse: In the first three months of FY2019 alone, the number of family unit members apprehended was reportedly 75,805, compared to 107,212 in all of FY2018.
DHS dating back to the Obama administration and non-partisan watchdogs at GAO have testified that migrants are aware of U.S. immigration policies, such as the current policy of “catch and release” for apprehended families. ICE officials briefed staff that migrants believe that they will be released and provided with a notice to appear if they are apprehended at the southern border with a child.
Migrants also understand that they will have the opportunity to live and work in the United States once they are released. According to ICE officials, defensive asylum applicants—those applying after having been determined ineligible for asylum by USCIS or placed into removal proceedings—are eligible to receive an employment authorization document after 180 days. Once living in the United States, alien children can enroll in public school90 and families can access other social services such as emergency services through Medicaid.
This catch and release policy for apprehended families creates strong incentives for adults to enter the United States illegally with children, risking the dangerous journey to the United States. In its arguments before the district court in 2015, the Obama administration provided testimony from a Border Patrol agent that:
I know this is a different direction than the topic of the conditions of the camps, but I think it is a more worthwhile effort.
GAI'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It's a matter of public record that the Bush administration not only started the practice, but even coined the term "catch and release" in relation to immigrants (which is a bit demeaning in my view because it's a term that's used to refer to fish, but that's by the by).
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18 2005, Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security under Bush:
"In FY 2005 alone, the Border Patrol apprehended over 160,000 non-Mexican nationals. Only 30,000 of these illegal entrants were removed from the United States. The rest will be released, either under bond conditions or on their own recognizance . . .
Let me reiterate this point. When a non-Mexican is caught trying to enter the U.S. across the southwest border today, he has an 80% chance of being released immediately because we have nowhere to hold him . . .
This practice of 'catch and release' acts as an enticement for additional border crossers." (my emphasis)
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/me … _18_05.pdf
The Bush administration vowed to end "catch and release".
It couldn't, because it didn't have enough facilities to hold everyone. The same issue was faced by the Obama administration, which continued the practice. The same issues is faced by the Trump administration, which continues the practice.
Regardless, calling catch and release "Obama's" policy is (intentionally or not) extremely misleading.
Again I'm not sure what purpose the quote from the Border Patrol Agent serves, but in relation to the comment that "detention has historically been effective at deterring". That may be the case, but using long periods of detention punitively against asylum seekers as part of a deterrent, is against the law.
But it seems the Trump administration have taken it even further still. Not only is it using detention punitively, but it's also deliberately using the conditions of detention as part of the deterrent, and therefore punitively also, which again does not meet the country's legal obligations.
Again, if you can point to anything that suggests the previous administration likewise used the conditions of detention as a punishment, then I'd accept that as a valid point. Until then I can only see reference to the previous administration as another example whataboutism. Sorry of this entirely misses you're point, by I can't see what you're getting at here.We do seem to be having a hard time communicating Don.
My point was simple, I found I was ill-informed about the Catch and Release program(s) - regardless of which president it is being applied to. I only started with "Obama's Catch and Release" because that was the statement I had made that started this tangent. I then also noted that condition, (being ill-informed) applied also to Pres. Trump and Bush.
Does that help the clarity of my point, the point that I was ill-informed?
The only aspect of my comment that was specific to the Obama administration was the report's conclusion that it was the Court's new Flores interpretation, (that occurred during Pres. Obama's time), that promoted the increase in families and minors numbers arriving at our borders. The CBP officer's statement was tied to that. It was not a condemnation of the Obama administration. Neither was the mention of the timing of the new Flores decision.
I didn't see, and none were intended, any references or inferences to the whataboutism of pointing to Pres. Obama's actions relative to Pres. Trump's in my response.
Hell, I even closed noting that my response was a "different direction" from what we had been discussing. Perhaps you read what you expected in my response instead of what was written?
GA
Stopping the sale of beds is hardly disrupting the supply chain. A bed is a luxury not a necessity. The outrage and press coverage in the weeks leading up to Wayfair selling the beds to DHS was that there were not enough beds and that there were people sleeping on the ground. It seemed pretty obvious from that statement, that the goals of those outraged was to ensure simple luxuries were provided to the detainees. Now in comes the Wayfair employees trying to stop the sale of beds to DHS. This protest is completely counterintuitive to the goal.
I work in an industry where I've had this problem.
People don't seem to understand how purchasing works. The vendor and/or merchandiser is not responsible for who buys their product. They merely offer it for sale. If the Dept. of Homeland Security wants to buy Wayfair's cots, that has nothing to do with Wayfair.
If a Nazi buys a cot from Wayfair, that does not make them a supporter of Nazis.
Now, if Wayfair actively went out and solicited the Dept. of Homeland Security because they saw and opportunity and offered a discount; etc. then maybe there's an objection.The consumer can boycott away - nothing wrong there. Those working for Wayfair may find themselves out of a job, and with good cause.
But the hoopla over Wayfair selling cots that'll be used to address the conditions in the detention centers, which have caused many to redefine the centers as concentration camps, is a little weird. Do you want the situation addressed or not?
What a head scratcher.
I saw this. My first thought was they should let them stay out. Lock the doors and hire staff that understands if they want to determine who to sell to they are welcome to start their own company.
As to an attemp at a public boycott, they will have to determine if they want to cave in. I mean, seriously. The inhumanity of selling beds so people can sleep above that floor. The inhumanity is just mind boggling.
Just a message to all the "Nationalists" around here: Most immigrants come to America to work hard and pay taxes not to FLEECE elderly individuals out of their life savings at DEFUNCT "Trump University" like the 2 winners above have been accused of, so if anyone should be "CAGED" in a concentration camp maybe they should start with these 2 weirdos:
These "so called "Detention Centers" are being defined as unlawfully criminal "Concentration Camp's" by many Americans, not unlike the facilities of nazi germany: These locked up children and or parents will SUFFER from Trauma Symptoms and even worse the rest of their lives if they actually survive: Any company who participates in this ABOMINABLE Activity by supplying any type of product to these jails should be BOYCOTTED to the Maximum Degree:
Related Discussions
- 54
Hugo Chavez Leads the Way for Barack Obama-PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
by AnnCee 14 years ago
President Chavez is creating a parallel bank, health and education programs, and a parallel to CNN - Telesur. The left-wing theory of creating parallel powers to break down and end the old order is taken to new breathtaking heights. The parallels are working - illiteracy has been exterminated and...
- 13
Oh My Accusation's Of More Weaponization Now Social Media
by Sharlee 12 months ago
Do you care about freedom of speech at all? Can a Federal agency coordinating with social media companies to effectively censor "election-related speech." be compared to something one might expect in a communist country? Is our Homeland Security Agency now on the weaponization list,...
- 21
Should Search Engines and Social Media Police Their Output
by ga anderson 6 years ago
Looking at the claimed biases of Google and Facebook, should these sites police their output for "Fake" news and such similarly labeled publishing?One caveat: Assume it is a "given" that "bot," (anybody's bot), output should be policed.For context of the biases...
- 19
Free speech and offensive language. And, views differ. Take a peek.
by Tim Mitchell 3 weeks ago
What is offensive language to you? Is it words or can it be ideas too?What is offensive language in a public setting from a small gathering, on the streets, at the fair, in a classroom, or on the internet - publishing an article, social media, a podcast, or a YouTube?{For example I don't you cuss...
- 46
Armed and Ready to Overthrow the Government if Trump Loses in 2024
by Faye V 2 years ago
Are they serious? I don't know whether I should take this as a sensationalism or something to pay attention to? I usually expect better from Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/2021/12/31/mil … 60953.html
- 40
Okay, a sincere inquiry why be a Liberal or Conservative?
by Tim Mitchell 2 years ago
To begin the discussion and keeping it simple a quick peek at Oxford Dictionaries says:Conservative (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.Liberal relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights,...