Real leaders needed to battle economic terrorism
Or, how to respond to a consumer boycott
So, Sleeping Giants has been going after Alan Jones’ advertisers. Organisations and initiatives like these are an interesting feature of Leftist politics and Social Justice Warrior strategies.
To be very clear:
I am not an Alan Jones listener and have never been
I have not heard his conversation with the CEO of the opera house
I don’t like horse racing
I don’t like gambling
I am addressing the principle at stake only.
When someone said something that the Left may disagree with, te strategy playbook reads like this:
I mobilise voters/consumers/ people to attack companies associated with that individual. (It could be an employer or advertiser or sponsor etc.)
The economic pressure forces that individual to retract, retreat or apologise.
Victory for our cause.
It may be an effective strategy, but it is profoundly immoral AND it is fundamentally fascist. In fact, I would call economic terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Does that not accurately describe the methods employed by Sleeping Giants?
The SJWs have an underlying premise: Any associate of my enemy is fair target if I can’t get to my opponent. That is, associates/ sponsors/employers etc are guilty by association.
Let’s examine this premise:
Companies (employers, sponsors, advertisers) are nothing but a group of people.
These people typically come from all walks of life.
Rarely would even a handful of people be involved in the decision to advertise/employ sponsor - and 99.9% of the organisation would be oblivious.
The decision to advertise/sponsor is in order to reach listeners/viewers - NOT to enable or endorse the individual.
The impact to boycott/punish/terrorise the organisation impacts everyone who is part of the organisation - every employee, shareholder, supplier etc - a long chain of people.
All of these people are innocent - collateral damage to a cause which they may or may not believe in; but I doubt very much that they would willingly have inflicted the economic pain on themselves for that cause even if they were loosely in agreement. Despite them not necessarily endorsing the person expressing the views, and despite them not even being aware of the decision, they become the victims in a cultural war they don’t even know is happening.
The person they intend to punish (a player in a footy club or Alan Jones etc) are in fact immune to these acts of terror because they are usually already economically independent anyway.
Can you fault any one of the above statements as untrue?
The very simple logic (which the radical Left seems to have difficulty grasping) is pretty clear: if the only people who are getting hurt in the battle are INNOCENT, maybe the means don’t justify the end.
And besides, what about going after your opponent directly - dare I use a traditional expression - like a man, instead of the innocent bystanders? The moral imperative is to play the man, not the ball.
And, by the way, to argue that the actions are necessary in order to ‘deplatform’ the individual you disagree with is still stupid and hypocritical. Most of your ‘actions’ take place on social media platforms - like Twitter - and the very same activists are the ‘eyeballs’ that keeps Twitter alive and viable. Yet Twitter is full of porn peddlers and nazis and pedophiles and anarchists and terrorists - or any number of people they might disagree with. Twitter is the platform that enables these undesirables.
Why don’t they target every advertiser on Twitter? Why don’t they destroy the Twitter platform? Because it would hurt them, that is why. And that is why it is hypocritical.
If Corporate Australia does not want to become a victim of every whim of a group of idealogues, they should collectively have the balls to tell these pressure groups to piss off. But then again, Corporate Australia is not renowned for having balls, so I expect that they will continue to suffer the consequences of their timidity.
And do you know what the irony is? MANY senior leaders will agree with me, but NONE will say so in public. Which raises the question:
Are you still a leader if expediency trumps conviction?