Boycotting

Another thing causing Trump voter tears is the realization that the "Obamacare" slated for destruction is the same Affordable Care Act that has required coverage of preexisting conditions.

I literally saw someone reply on that issue that Obama should not have branded it as "Obamacare":

https://x.com/KurtsViews/status/1859274662808834476 

President Obama did not do that. The Tea Party called it that to turn people against it. The press went along with it, but it worked because of racism (and dominator culture).

So, yes, I think some naming, blaming, and shaming is in order for the lies, the ignorance, and the bigotry. While I do not aim to be cruel or hateful, there is going to be some real discomfort for people coming to grips with the harm they have done, and that is necessary.

It may also involve unemployment.

Today's post is inspired by some conversations about canceling subscriptions to The Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos did not allow them to print an endorsement for Harris. At least 250,000 people canceled. That is higher than their total number of print subscriptions, though their digital base is larger.

They were not the only paper to do so. The Gannett- (also USA Today and some large Florida papers) owned Detroit Free Press did not offer an endorsement, though Michigan and Detroit were important areas. The billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, also withheld an endorsement. 

There have definitely been people canceling their LA Times subscriptions. I have not seen any numbers on Detroit Free Press cancellations, but I have seen notices that you can't cancel without calling and giving the number, so it at least seems like people have been looking into it.

(The New York Times endorsed ending the Trump era without ever mentioning Harris by name or acknowledging any of her accomplishments, but I will get to them tomorrow.)

There is a lot of room for media blame, but I have only seen The Washington Post getting defenders saying that it will hurt the people who work there without hurting Bezos.

You will hear from time to time that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. There are ways in which that is true. 

Personally, I have decided that I don't ever need to buy from Amazon again. Looking at KN95 masks, I did find another source: Wal-Mart. Big improvement! I guess it's better because as far as I know the Walton family does not own any media sources.

I also sometimes think about writing books again. I do not know an equivalent platform for self-publishing to Kindle Direct Publishing. A lot of the charities and people in need I know use Amazon wish lists. I get that there are complications; but this is a choice that feels right to me, so I am sticking to it.

It may not be right for everyone. What we are certainly not going to do is try and force people who rely on those deliveries and prices to uphold your ethics. You make moral choices for yourself, based on your beliefs and resources. Trying to make everyone else conform is dominator culture again.

Writing about boundaries yesterday, the primary deciding factor in ending contact has not been about causing hurt to the other person, but about giving myself protection and peace. It might hurt them -- and no, I generally don't find that to be a bonus -- but the priority is my well-being.

So, cancelling subscriptions to a news source that is manipulated by a billionaire may in fact hurt people who don't make very much money and might not be terrible people. 

There have been people who have resigned in protest, or written things that could get them fired. That is their principled stand. 

There are also people who have stood by as journalists of color have been cut, or not allowed to write on issues that they knew best because they were considered biased, and accepted that. Maybe it is okay if some of them lose their jobs. 

It is certainly not required that you pay for the continued production of this billionaire-biased publication.

Will it hurt Jeff Bezos financially? I am not sure that is even possible. That's one of the worst dilemmas of the massive consolidation of wealth that characterizes our time. Not only does it squeeze more and more people more tightly in the bottom, it makes it very difficult to exert any pressure against those in power.

However, for all the things that they have, billionaires have remarkably fragile egos. A lot of people unsubscribing might hurt his pride.

I actually would consider that a bonus, if not a primary motivation.