#among people who aren't boycotting

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

In case you haven’t yet listened this week,Sidetracked is very relevant to your interests. Taylor and Harry in one show.

This is a week (maybe two weeks) old, but I definitely did listen. I'm always listening when Nick's talking about Harry - and even more when he's not talking about Harry (or when I imagine that he's not talking about Harry).

However, the title this week threatens eurovision content - and Nick is there with Mesh. I may have to reconsider everything.

[icanseethefuture333]

There is a lot of misinformation regarding the boycott for Palestine right now and I wanted to do my best to educate people who were unaware.

There is the BDS movement and Palestinians have said that this is the boycott list we should be ultimately focusing on. "The BDS movement uses the historically successful method of targeted boycotts inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the US Civil Rights movement, the Indian anti-colonial struggle, among others worldwide."

Starbucks is not apart of their boycott campaign and although yes, there is other boycott lists that people have supported, we need to listen as allies for Palestine and follow this movement instead. The reason most people are boycotting Starbucks was for the fact they sued their union and have been illegally shutting down these unions by not allowing employees to protest or to show support for Palestine in their stores. The issue is (supposedly) not because Starbucks funds Israel, there has been no apparent sources for this. Palestinians have not referred Starbucks as a zionist company, however, due to their mistreatment of their staff and not allowing them to be Pro-Palestine, it is exactly why their company has been boycotted. Although, boycotting Starbucks is not benefitting Palestinians, but it will benefit the Starbucks' Union & employees. If the BDS movement adds Starbucks to one of the 4 lists, then please proceed with following their instructions.

The reason why its not helpful for boycotting companies that aren't on the list is because it defeats the purpose of a targeted boycott, it is disorganized. The more people focus on a smaller number of brands to boycott, the larger the impact will be.

As for McDonald's, it is considered a Organic Boycott Target: "The BDS movement did not initiate these grassroots boycott campaigns but is in support of them due to these brands openly supporting Israel’s genocide against Palestinians".

On this website it will also state that some companies need pressure, not boycotting. Google is one of the pressure and non boycott targets. For example, as a university student, it is necessary for me to use Google because my student account system automatically requires us to use Gmail. You are allowed to use these non boycott targets, but should not endorse them. "We have not, on strategic grounds, called for a boycott of these brands and services, instead we strategically call on supporters and institutions to mount other forms of pressure on them until they end their complicity in Israeli apartheid."

The goal for pressuring and boycotting is for companies to stop being complicit in the genocide of Palestine. If a company retracts it's statement and goes from Pro-Israel to Pro-Palestine, this is a good thing and that is the result that Palestinians want. We can still actively avoid and boycott these companies for moral reasons, but for wanting companies to be "canceled" or end it's business, is not what Palestinians are asking us to do. These larger businesses have the necessary funds & pull to help support Palestine and we have to keep pressuring them to be on their side.

It is also important to not center boycotting around celebrities, influencers, and athletes or treat it as if it's a trend. It is not for you to make you feel better about yourself. Or to attack other people as well. Being outraged in a person's comment sections for having a coffee cup that isn't even from Starbucks is not serving Palestinians justice. Only boycott and pressure these companies with the intention of supporting Palestinian lives and for their right to receive their land back.

Also please be aware that there is other countries experiencing genocide such as Congo, Sudan, and more. It is best not to apply the same methods from Palestine movements to these countries, but instead find sources that are factual and boycott lists that will help these countries' specific needs.

[scumlafeccia]

to be fair, if people who don't support something decide to boycott an event based on audience opinion, then the ones who won't boycott either 1. support the boycotted element or 2. don't think it should be boycotted, so the fact that the said element turns out to be popular among the audience doesn't surprise me too much, since people who have any strong(ish) opinion on the matter simply aren't watching

[tardistimeladyyeah]

Not voting does not equal boycott, it equals negligence.

Some Pro-Palestine people are pro "boycotting" the election/voting third party. We need to tell them that they are making the situation worse and that they aren't helping anyone.

I saw something on here last night, something about saying "free Palestine" when there are millions and billions of people in the world who also aren't free. Where's the support for Haitians? Where's the support for Syrians? Where's the support for Ethiopians? Where's the support for people with uteruses in the United States who are being forced to give birth or get close to death or even die because like 100 white men in their state said "aBortiOn iS aGainSt mY reLigIon aNd iT's mUrdEr" and decided to get between the patient and the doctor? Where's the support for LGBTQ+ people in the United States and around the world who are being persecuted for being themselves? Where's the support for teachers who are being called pedophiles for doing their jobs (among so many other things that we need to fix about the teaching profession)? There are even more groups of people who are suffering that need support. How can we help them?

Put people in office who will listen. Put people in office who will fight for the things their constituents care about. Fight for the things you care about by voting for the person who aligns closest to your views.

The world has problems. That's how it works, unfortunately. It is tempting to focus on one issue and run with it. However, there are other issues that will come back to bite you or others you love if you don't fight them.

Just vote.

In a lot of states, you can register online or if you can't, some states will let you fill out an online form, print it (don't have access to a printer? See if your library can help your print it), mail it in, and then you should be registered if you receive your voter ID card (or however else your state tells you you're registered). Some states even let you register same day, HOWEVER NOT ALL STATES DO! In fact, some states require that you're registered by a certain date to vote in certain elections. Vote.org has all of the information on how to register in your state and they can help you get an absentee ballot if you need to vote before election day.

This election will be rough. We're in a bit of a "honeymoon" period with Harris that may or may not last through November. Harris is a solid candidate. It's important to note that there will never be the perfect candidate, but she is so much better than Trump (who said we won't get to vote if we elect him again. If that doesn't scare you then I don't know what does). We can't make this another 2016. We can't lose because of Stein voters splitting the vote in swing states.

This is not the election to sit out for ANY REASON. If you are eligible to vote, You. Need. To. Vote.

All the Kamala haters out there still arent grasping that Trump exists. "Kamala supported Israel!" Yeah? So does the entire Republican party, including Trump. Who do you think is going to be more open to changing that- the one who supports a ceasefire and a two state solution or the one who says Israel should "finish the job"?

"Kamala is a cop!" Ok? Have you actually seen what she did as a prosecutor? How she protected LGBTQ rights even when the law told her to do otherwise? Have you forgotten that Republicans are ready to legislate LGBTQ people out of their rights as soon as they have the power to, including Trump?

"I want to vote for a better candidate!" The delegates have already been assigned. It is not possible with our currect election system for any other candidate to win the election. If you wanted a better candidate, you either should have voted for them during the primaries, or they weren't popular enough to win regardless if you did vote for them during the primaries.

With so much at state and so little time left in the election cycle, we need to focus on surviving this election, stacking Congress with Democrats, and then we might actually have success protecting the right to abortion and the rights of LGBTQ people, and possibly even doing something positive for Palestine. That isn't going to happen with Trump, that isn't going to happen if you vote third party, and that isn't going to happen if you don't vote. We are guaranteed to get some new, hopefully better candidates next election cycle.

Not voting isn't a boycott. It just guarantees that your voice goes unheard and makes it more likely that your rights and the rights of vulnerable people will be taken away.

[kimtaegis]

i'm terrible with words, so i'm gonna quote some things that made me reflect and that i honestly agree

"You often see fans and celebrity-obsessed users fall into the same patterns for global movements as they do for stan wars - strategies to get your favs trending online or on the charts, tabloid tactics to disparage a celeb's competition with old receipts, and other engagement strategies are all fair game to fight for the oppressed. But I think we have to remember the goal here. Is it real change or to clock who is on the "right side?"

"Why are we reducing palestine sufferings to boycotts and competitions among celebs when real people are dead? Why are we pressuring K-pop artists? It's true that they have big platforms for the better reach and donation but are they actually gonna change anything when they didnt have actual control? People who actually needs to be pressured and addressed are local leaders and world leaders WHO CAN ACTUALLY MAKE CHANGE AND SAVE LIVES. Some people use this moment as "at least my favs speak up" "if my favs can speak up why cant your favs" so they can feed their egoistic self, flaunting your favs are "good people" so you can wave your moral flags. You just want to feel "save" stanning them. The goal isnt for celebs to speak up, boycotting and donations, while they can actually help, the ACTUAL goal is CEASEFIRE- for politicians and leaders to stop israel, stop supporting israel and stop funding them."

and also... all these years as their fans, we know that they support a cause like this, bc it's what a good person would do, and they are good people. we don't need to have "proof", this isn't about them, they are singers who love what they do and they save many many lives and help so many people doing their jobs. i keep thinking about namjoon's lyrics in RPWP. that was also a message for us, you know?

and i think that sometimes we forget that twitter is a bubble. i would have no idea about the boycott for McDonald's (and other brands) if i wasn't online there every day, always knowing what's going on. this never even showed up in the news on TV in my country, not even once. and the members aren't chronically online, they've never been like that, ever since 2013. people around me don't talk about that. so yeah.. He probably doesn't know, even if it feels absurd for some

sorry if this got long... since you're open to it, it's just my opinion and i'm not trying to change yours T-T if you don't want to answers asks about this anymore, you can also ignore this

well definitely thank you for being polite and not using a weirdly mean and aggressive tone when talking about your opinion, I appreciate it!

I totally agree with the first statement, it feels so freaking pointless to even argue about this lol, it’ll literally change nothing and that energy can for sure be used for better, more helpful things.

the second one is a little trickier because while I agree that the whole ego-trip thing is being a huuuuge issue in music fandoms for ages, and now more than ever when it’s about actual human lives and threats, I do think that big artists speaking up does indeed make a difference. and it would be amazing for them to do that precisely because politicians don’t do shit to help. raising and donating money would totally increase if they encouraged it which would save so many lives. hell I’m also not a politician but I still try to do everything I’m capable of to help, as little as it may be in the big picture.

what makes you a good person, though? just saying you are? no, you have to actually do good things. that’s my opinion. I also don’t think that having knowledge about what’s been going on only happens when you scroll through twitter. My expectations might be too high here but I’d hope people go and educate themselves because they wanna do the right thing. also, I hate to say it, but of course the news won’t tell you about boycotts etc, literally every countries’ leader is kissing isreal’s ass (the reports about gaza here are unwatchable wow) 🙃 just because people don’t talk about it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I simply won’t believe they haven’t heard anything about it. we’re nearing a whole year of this, and so many years before that.

if they’re not speaking up so be it – everyone, them included, has to follow their own moral compass and decide if what they’re doing is enough for their consciousness to be at ease. it certainly won’t change what I try to contribute

[rosecoloredknight]

BOYCOTT FOR PALESTINE

FOA (Friends of Al-Aqsa) have organized a boycott in support of palestine.

Here are the key companies to boycott:

HP (Hewlett Packard) provides hardware and services for the Israeli Prison Service and the Israeli police who enforce apartheid on Palestinians within Israel.

Coca-Cola operates on stolen Palestinian land by having a factory in Atarot, an illegal israeli settlement. These Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Coca-Cola is defying international law.

Israeli produce should be left on all shop shelves. When shopping always #CheckTheLabel to make sure you don't accidently buy any produce labelled from 'Israel'.

PUMA sponsors the Israel Football Association (IFA) and the Israeli national team. The IFA manages several football teams in illegal Israeli settlements, built on stolen Palestinian land.

We encourage all our supporters to focus on boycotting these 3 companies and to #CheckTheLabel on produce, to be more effective in ending Israeli apartheid. We aren't saying other companies aren't complicit, but we need to be targeted and strategic to make a boycott successful, just how we have been in the past with South Africa.

Please help to spread the word.

Anon,

You are speaking to deaf ears in terms of having me side with one over the other.

I'm for the innocent lives taken by both sides.

I hate hate so much that innocent people got killed, are getting killed, and are going to keep getting killed in the name of "God", ideologies, liberation, preservation, among other long-winded nonsense proclamations.

I SUPPORT THE INNOCENTS WHO ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS.

Nothing more.

I'll reblog this for other people to be aware of your references and in case they support one cause over the other.

[yesthatssadirichardslove]

Golden Globes are back on TV, but are reform efforts enough?

NEW YORK

Without a TV show, starry red carpet, host, press or even a livestream, the Golden Globe Awards were in chaos last year after scandal broke over lack of diversity, accusations of sexism, and ethical and financial lapses among members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.

Once known as Hollywood’s biggest, booziest party that regularly drew 18 million television viewers, the doling out of statues was reduced to a 90-minute private event with no celebrities present at the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

Winners were announced on Twitter, often without specifying what project a person had actually won for.

What a difference a year can make.

After dumping the telecast in the aftermath of a damaging expose by the Los Angeles Times, NBC will put the battered 80-year-old Globes back on the air Tuesday under a one-year deal, as opposed to multi-year contracts of the past worth tens of millions of dollars.

A wave of celebrities plan to attend, along with star presenters and funnyman host Jerrod Carmichael after the embattled controllers of the Globes dug deep into the work of implementing top-down reforms.

There’s now a strict code of conduct, refreshed bylaws, a ban on gifts and new rules on accepting travel and other perks from the industry. Contentious news conferences were dumped, and the pool of awards voters was expanded beyond the 87 Los Angeles-based foreign journalists who once ruled the organization.

But are the powerful publicists, studios and other stakeholders who boycotted in protest satisfied with the changes? And are those changes the beginning — or closer to the end?

“It's, by far, not over,” said German journalist Helen Hoehne, who took over as president of the HFPA a year and a half ago. “We always said when we started this journey that it would be ongoing and that it would take some time.”

Kelly Bush Novak, CEO and founder of the A-list public relations firm ID, said more must be done, but she supports steps taken so far.

“We came together ... to ensure the future of the Globes, in step with our culture and our shared values as an industry, and we see commendable and seismic progress,” she said. "I’m optimistic that the work will continue.”

Still, Novak acknowledged not all stakeholders are on board ahead of Tuesday's broadcast, despite sweeping changes aimed at restoring the luster of the Globes.

Last year, publicists like Novak banded together to battle the HFPA, and studios that included Netflix and WarnerMedia cut ties with the organization after the LA Times raised questions about corruption and a range of bias issues over race and sexual orientation.

None of the 87 Hollywood Foreign Press Association members was Black and the group had not had a Black member since at least 2002.

Now, after an effort to increase and diversify its ranks, 199 people decide who gets a Globe, a mix of 96 HFPA members and outsiders from other countries brought in to dilute the power of the old guard. Membership eligibility was expanded from Los Angeles to anywhere in the United States.

Heading into the telecast, Globes voters stand at 52% female, and 51.8% racially and ethnically diverse, including 19.6% Latino, 12.1% Asian, 10.1% Black and 10.1% Middle Eastern. Voters also include those who are LGBTQIA+. In all, 62 countries are represented.

The governing board was expanded from nine to 15 and includes three Black members, two of whom vote on rules and other matters but not awards. Overall, the organization now has six Black HFPA members and 14 Black international Globes voters who aren't members.

Perhaps the most significant change: The Globes were purchased by billionaire Todd Boehly, who also owns the Beverly Hilton, Globes producer dick clark productions and the Chelsea soccer team. He's shifting the voting body from its founding nonprofit status to a for-profit model, pending approval by the California attorney general. He plans to preserve the HFPA's charitable work with a separate nonprofit entity.

A hotline managed by two independent law firms was opened, with complaints investigated by outsiders. A chief diversity officer was hired, and mandatory racial, sexual harassment and sexual orientation sensitivity training was put in place, required for any HFPA member casting Globe votes.

Michelle Williams, nominated for her turn in “The Fabelmans,” is among dozens of stars panning to attend Tuesday.

“It feels to me like the community as a whole has decided that this organization has really done a lot of work to reform themselves and that we can support change, like we can hold people accountable and then we can support them as they continue to journey in their path towards being a better organization,” she said.

Added Judd Hirsch, nominated for the same film: “We'll be there. We'll give them another chance.”

Dumping news conferences at the center of insensitive questions posed to talent who felt obligated to show up helped cool off some critics, but not all.

“I can’t speak for everyone. There may be some reluctance to participate," Novak said. “We must acknowledge the past and will never forget the damage done. Manifesting a new future requires it.”

Brendan Fraser, nominated for his performance in “The Whale,” will not be there Tuesday. In 2018, Fraser said he was groped by Philip Berk, a former HFPA president who is from South Africa.

Berk was expelled in 2021 after calling Black Lives Matter “a racist hate movement.”

“I just hope that we can regain his trust over time,” Hoehne said of Fraser.

The same, Hoehne said, goes for Tom Cruise. Last year, he returned his three Golden Globes in protest. With a best picture nod for his long-awaited sequel “Top Gun: Maverick,” he was snubbed for best actor this year.

Under Boehly's leadership, HFPA members will earn $75,000 a year as his employees, as opposed to current stipends closer to $5,000. They'll vote on nominations and winners among films and television series submitted for awards consideration. They'll write for the organization's website, and organize other projects, the LA Times said, citing a confidential employee memo it reviewed.

The 103 new voting non-members recruited with the help of the National Association of Black Journalists, Asian-American Journalists Association and LGBTQIA+ organizations will not be paid, setting up a two-tier structure aimed at eliminating the taint of financial compensation as more new recruits come on board.

Outraged industry stakeholders had called for the overall Globes voting body to be closer to 300. Other reforms are aimed at battling the perception of influence peddling.

As eventual paid employees, members will be subject to firing without cause. They're now required to sign a code of conduct every year covering job performance, decorum and ethical behavior.

The 80-year-old group had been stuck in its ways, Hoehne acknowledged.

“We needed to question a lot of things. We needed to look at these bylaws and say, OK, how can we make them better? How can we modernize the association? We had never really done it and not addressed it,” she said.

Although the new pay structure has not yet been implemented, over the past year the HFPA has pushed out several members it accused of violating its standards.

One was accused of forging signatures on Internal Revenue Service documents, another case related to sexual harassment and a third involved fabricating interviews that never occurred, according to an HFPA spokesperson.

Boehly himself acknowledged the future is uncertain.

“I have nightmares where it doesn’t work too, you know? I get it, you can’t convince all of the people all of the time of anything,” he told the LA Times. “We know we have to add value and we know that we have to be part of the solution.”

[horce-divorce]

You don't have to do anything else necessarily... They are inescapable, and that's kind of part of the discussion. If you're acknowledging that issues are inescapable, but that we can talk about them- or at least leaving room for other folks to do so- that's the doing that you need to do. Which is the point you're making. Making it so that the affected/marginalized parties can talk about issues in media and be taken seriously, not dismissed offhand as snowflakes or wokescolds or whatever.

I realize that a lot of people DO try to make it about 'if you watch XYZ you're terrible,' and sometimes the issue is vile enough that consuming the media itself is a red flag. (And that line could be different for everyone as well.) Regardless, you can absolutely consume problematic media w/o defending it.

Honestly I think a lot of the "how could you watch this?" Type of sentiment comes from people who are the most affected. They often are in a position where they cannot separate the art from the artist, and(as an artist myself) I'd argue that we should not do that, and that it's not actually remotely neutral to do so. I feel strongly about JKR bc I'm trans, but I know cis people can't feel how I feel, and to them her behavior is not a personal slap in the face. But I still feel like 'how can anyone tolerate her??' just knowing what I know.

But, everyone hasn't known what I've known, and not every fight is your fight, and that's ok too. 'how can anyone still consume this?' is kind of like 'why isn't anyone talking about this?' The frustration is valid, but everyone can't know/do/care about every single thing. we choose the things that are close to us for a reason.

Maybe a bad comparison, but it's like putting the onus on consumers not to buy trash, instead of pressuring corps to stop dumping it directly into the ocean, when the majority of that pollution doesn't come from consumers at all. That doesn't mean it's ok for us to litter, though, and we can still pick up trash when we see it sometimes, even if we weren't the ones that left it there.

As consumers of media we aren't responsible for whether it's problematic or not... But we can always leave room for that discussion.

As long as you're not making it more about your feelings or how like, you thought wonder woman was good so you don't get where the fuss is coming from... Then largely I really doubt anyone cares what you watch. I mean, I personally would argue that Gina Carano and Gal Gadot both ceased to be sexy the precise moment I found out how they are politically (maybe bc Gina's politics put my life in direct danger lol), but if you don't feel that way, I... honestly don't get it lmao, but I really don't care as long as you're not trying to defend them, or deflect and only focus on how hot they are.

These discussions are not really about whether youre bad for consuming bad media (or they shouldn't be). The media you consume is not the scale on which your deeds will be weighed. It's the various brands of junk food on the shelf, and there's plastic going in the garbage whether you buy chips or salad.

these discussions are supposed to be about people in positions of power and privilege, how they use that, and whose behavior among them we choose to excuse. Holding fashy people to a higher standard is something we have to do as a culture to overcome those ideologies and to stop rewarding them (ie with fame and fortune).

Boycotting media is merely one of the tools to do so; discussing why we did that is one of the other tools. As long as you're not impeding those discussions or otherwise promoting the material in direct spite of said discussions, you're probably fine. it's a lot more important to let palestinians talk about what's happening to them and why seeing WW84 everywhere is so traumatic, than it is to focus on whether the visual fx and score were top tier or not, for example. watch the movie if you want, just understand the context and why folks might be offput by a positive review. It's a "read the room" kinda deal. It doesn't require separating the art from the artist; just your own expectations vs what you can realistically accomplish.

A few people mentioned Gal Gadot’s politics and how that made them uncomfortable watching WW84. 

I understand and I think that is totally valid. 

Personally, I honestly can’t figure out what to do or think about problematic people in the things I watch. It seems like problematic people are just… inescapable. Mandalorian has Gina Carano. Who I had a crush on for a long time. From back when she was on the short-lived American Gladiators reboot. Then she started tweeting and I had to take a trip to DisappointmentVille. A ten year celebrity crush down the drain.

It just seems like you can’t watch anything without some shitty person being involved. It’s also hard to keep track of all the shitty people and it would be exhausting to do vetting on everything I watch to make sure everyone involved isn’t shitty. 

And I need to watch things to keep me distracted. Like, that is my number one method of keeping my mental health in check. 

And it absolutely bothers me sometimes. 

But I don’t know what I could possibly do about it. 

And I don’t think *not* watching things with shitty people would do anything except make it harder for me to find things to distract me. Boycotts rarely work. They still put Mel Gibson in movies for Christ’s sake. It seems the only shitty person that was successfully yeeted from media was Roseanne and I’m sure in a few years she’ll have a comeback tour. 

At this moment in time, I separate the art from the artist. I try to acknowledge that people are shitty when they are shitty and that elements of movies are shitty and that hopefully by the community pointing them out, content and people will eventually get less shitty over time. Which, that may be a little slow-going, but I do think that is happening. 

That’s as much as my brain will allow me to type right now. Hopefully some of that was coherent. I think it was. But I really feel crappy and my mind is a foggy mess so I don’t trust it right now.