#some ppl will simply not eat if there is no easily accessible food like fast food

[trickstarbrave]

i see some people in the notes saying "don't support any fast food chain actually they are all unethical" and while this is true the purpose of a boycott is not to have a morally 'pure' option. most of the time that is simply not going to happen and abstaining from all fast food, all groceries, etc etc is not viable. most people cannot cook their own food that they grew on their own property (which must also be not stolen from indigenous ppl) with ethically sourced seeds, fertilizer, and soil.

the point of a boycott is to apply pressure to businesses in a coordinated effort to get a desired effect. the point of boycotting mcdonalds is not that it will be done forever because they are now morally 'bad'. the point is that their israel branch was openly supporting the IDF and giving them free food and while mcdonalds headquarters said "we didn't tell the to do that" they didn't punish them for it either or withdraw their support for that branch. but if people continue to apply pressure with the boycott their profits might be hurt so much it becomes impossible for them to continue normal business operations until they speak out against israel's actions and condemn them as well, which will continue to move governments forwards with that goal (because corporations own a lot of politicians. another fun quirk of capitalism).

this is not to say other places aren't doing things that are also unethical. this is just to say the boycotts are for a targeted effort for change, not a moral stance being asked for people to take and acting like it is can often lead to failures of the boycott. part of a successful boycott is having viable, accessible alternatives.