I like this:
I just had Chick-fil-A for breakfast in Chicago today. Business seems unaffacted. Hopefully it stays that way. They have the best fast food Chicken nuggets and lemonade.
But if that dude wants to say unfashionable things, and walk the trends of yesteryear - he is simply asking to go the way of the gramaphone, - in the dustbin of history.
Being reactionary is a quick way to social irrelevancy /asocial behavior, and being unproductive. It's impolite and cultural suicide foranything other than niche markets, which even than must always face the fact that they are at the whims to the laws of actual social behavior.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
What makes that unfashionable? It seems to me he is clearly in the majority, and this may even be a boost for his business.
According to Gallup, the nation is split 50/50 on gay marriage at the moment.
There might be a lot of supporters who go there for awhile to thumb their nose at liberals and the white house, but it may or may not last long enough to boost sales. And then the other 50 percent will probably discontinue going there.
And who knows if 60 percent or 70 percent Americans won't support gay marriage in 5-10 years. Given that it raised from 37% to 50% in only 6 years. And from 40% to 50% in only the last 3 years. The trend towards gay marriage acceptance clearly seems to be going upwards.
"That dude" can say whatever he wants. As long as he keeps doing business smartly and providing the best fast-food on the market, I don't see him having dificulties.
"The other 50% will probably discontinue going there"?? Are you serious? Do people *really* have that much dedication to this issue? You said yourself, the boost from today will likely be temporary, then things will go back to normal. Why would the same thing not be true for the boycotters?
Seriously, there's not much commitment to anything in the US besides sports and beer. Oh yeah, and the "two" political parties. lol.
What? Marriage equality? You better believe it, it's one of the most important fights for civil liberty in our time, and one where we might be able to actually have some significant victories in the near future. I never understand why so many libetarians and self-proclaimed anarchists discount or laugh off this issue.
That's not to say that the various mayors who have said they'd illegally use permiting and other methods to effectively kick the chains out of the city shouldn't be condemned. But at the same time, the family that owns Chik-fil-A is donating money to groups that lobby to use state power to continue to oppress gay couples.
I think he means that many of the 'slactivists' online that post on Facebook or Twitter about how disgusted they are with Chik-Fil-A are just doing so as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. We have been conditioned to treat ideas that conflict with the ideal PC society with external revulsion while not having legitimately deep ties to the issues. It's just the next Kony 2012 'let's bocott/denounce something to feel like we're part of a movement!'.
And Chik-Fil-A donates money to anti-gay lobbies? The problem is the lobbyists themselves and the system that maintains this backwards relationship, not Chik-fil-A. They're delicious.
"That dude" can say whatever he wants
In so much as he is powerful enough to.
To say things that make actual relevant people upset is stupid and reactionary, unless you have the power to stand up to it and change the fashion to suit your needs at the moment. If he fails, it's bad business. Speaking ineffectively against relevant socila trends is not custom, it is asocial maladaptive nonsense and gibberish.
That said. Thus far the Chick-Fil-A does not seem to be affected. I eat there 4 times a week and nobody cares. It may very well just be election year culture war BS. And being that Chicago is liberal and the Chick-Fil-A is new here, it just happened to open in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kind of funny.
"Slactivism" is the key here, because that's exactly what the opposition is. Just from memory, I believe some 30 plus states have outlawed gay marriage by popular vote, including California, and in some of the states that have voted on this issue the resulsts were a landslide. And I'm supposed to believe that these activists are going to carry on a lifelong boycott, yet they couldn't even drive their lazy asses to vote on the issue? No, the opposition to Chick-Fil-A will quickly subside.
However, I do believe the support will continue. Why? Because in a few months from now this will no longer be about gay marriage. It will be about who has the best chicken sandwich. This free publicity brought what I think will be a lot of new lifelong customers, who first ate at Chik-Fil-A to support tradtional marriage, but will stay at Chik-Fil-A for the food. This liberal media outrage will backfire.
It's harder to do something -- eat at a restaurant for some 'principle' using money -- than to not do something: like boycott something. Plus, no doubt you're going to hear jokes about it forever, ala the time Jack n the Box had e coli. I think this restaurant is not as big or ubiquitous as the others so I doubt most people have ever even been to one. I want there many times a week in college, and i had no idea my money was serving Jeebus. I always thought it would be too healthy for most people, since nothing on their menu will make you fat tub of crap like much of the menu at mcdonalds or bk.
You're trapped, though. Eat at KFC, you then make hippies and PETA mad.
I think this restaurant is not as big or ubiquitous as the others so I doubt most people have ever even been to one.
I think Chick-fil-A may be big in parts of the south. Where I am from (the Great Lakes) there seems to be one per metropolis, if that. And the Chicago one is brand new. And when I spent time in NYC, I don't think they had one.
My guess is if they are down South, and that is the majority of their business they can last with such comments until the reactionary elements down south get bred out to a significant degree and they are forced to adopt a more progressive language. If it was that much of a fashion faux pas that was said in the more relvant parts of the USA to end it's business up here, it may be eliminated quickly.
If such a comment weremade in NYC or Southern California, I bet the restraunt would be closed within a month, and it would have been asking for bigger national trouble. The company should feel lucky they made the comment in the relatively more apathetic / less activist Chicago
@vive la insurrection
"Speaking ineffectively against relevant socila trends is not custom, it is asocial maladaptive nonsense and gibberish."
He didn't speak against anything. He didn't say anyone, customer or employee, would be denied entry to any restaurant if they held another opinion. He was speaking to Christian media, saying things that Christians say. That's not asocial, maladaptice, nonsense, nor gibberish. It's quite expected. Anyone who is surprised, shocked, or upset at what he said is being disingenuous at best. Since the company began, just about everyone has known it's a "Christian company."
@LogisticEarth, I'm not discounting or laughing off the issue. I am genuinly cynical about people's motivation and dedication to issues. If people were as dedicated and motivated as you seem to suggest, the country wouldn't be in the crappy condition we find it in today. I don't think in a few weeks that anyone who had eating at this brand as a habit is going to stop.
I'm living in the South, where there is a Chick-fil-a near most big neighborhoods. I personally doubt the uproar will do much damage to the company in the long haul. Tonight, as I understand it, there's a significant number of people eating there to demonstrate their support. Some against gay marriage, and some just pro free speech. Hopefully more of the latter, but unfortunately my in laws definitely seem to be cheering him on for his beliefs. So much for the cross section of Southerners I have access to.
Chick fil a puts out a decent product for fast food, and I patronize them. I guess my sandwich buys him the ability to be a big jerk publicly, but it's his right to do so.
@Lady Saiga: Why does holding a very old belief and expressing it to others who hold a similar if not identical belief make him a big jerk? Even in public, why would expressing that belief, which half of the nation identifies with, make him a big jerk?
It's quite expected.
But it had unexpected consequences, because he did a poor job in calculating the advantage of that statment. Maybe it was dumb luck, maybe it was something else. It doesn't matter, all that matters is the results.
Frankly, I don't have a horse in the race on the issue. I do however realize what is flat out retarded to say because it is unfashionable to relevant people. If I was in a position to make profit, I would try to distance myself from openly reactionary causes. Like it or not, supporting anything on Fox news is a suicidal position if you are thining nationaly, internationaly, or in the long term.
A good global styled capitalist would probably take up causes like "organic food", yoga, environmental causes, vegan menues or whatever - if they felt like they had to show off activist styled causes to attract people over the world...not yesterday's fashions. Conservativism (which is merely yesterday's fashions), especially when taken to a "nationally conscience" level is self defeating and stupid, poor capitalism. You can go "retro" as a quick marketing campaign, but not ideologically conservative.
"When in Rome..."
I am obviously not speaking "logically" to any significant degree. This is just a vague "ideal type" conversation to help understand the general picture as to what is going on, and how there is a certain "logic of success" involving institutions, customs, and fashions that dictate relevant social behavior
There was a long line in front of Chick-fil-A today, and the news was angry about it.
Let's put aside if the specific guy in question is an idiot.
Many things Christians, or any group, say among themselves are stupid. Just because it is said among themselves, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
Also, because it is held by many people, doesn't mean it isn't stupid either. Many people will run to this populism selectively, while at other times chastizing the populace for 'shaking their fist at God' or some other such hokem.
I don't have a horse in the issue on Gay rights / marriage or whatever the hell the comment was. The issue simply isn't my concern in any fathomable way.
I do hope that Chick-fil-A won't get shutdown in Chicago, or anywhere else that I go....because they taste veryvery good. And I will "support" them by spending my money as I have done before 2-4 times a week.
Thinking that somethign is "stupid" is quite subjective. You can't just assert that an opinion or belief is "stupid" unless there is a fact behind it, unless you just want to use ad hominem and not provide cogent arguements to support your assertion. Saying "I think 2+2=5" is indeed stupid because there is an objective contradiction based in fact.
Where is the objective foundation that a preference for heterosexual marriage is factually stupid?
By the way, my question was what makes him a jerk, but I'll bite.
Thinking that somethign is "stupid" is quite subjective
I think your going to have to get used to the fact that these "cultural commentaries" are going to be full of very broad generalizations. Hopefully all people realize these things can't be logically "proved" or stated to very effective degrees - because this is all merely "subjective" type statments.
That said, I think it can be taken from his statement that what closed esoteric groups say to each other is literally gibberish, or intentionally obscure, when put under any form of language that can actually point to anything. In that case it is "stupid", in so much as it is trying to make a factual truth statement. It's a social signaling device, not a truth statement. Reactionary ones are the most amusing, actual social ones are ones that we should strive for if we wish to go anywhere of relevance (e.g. buying a piece of art or social cause that will be noticed as "correct").
If it is just telling people saying "Chocolate ice cream, Nike shoes, and beethoven is good, and we should start a social club about it ", so be it, but than were just back to talking about social institutions and the "logic of success".
So in general topics here I shouldn't expect the discussion to be fact based and supported by more thought than "stupid jerk!" >?<
I have to say I'm surprised that a place so concerned with liberty and freedom there would be such ire for a man's opinion and less of it directed at the government's threats to impede his participation in the market.
You've missed the point,
Believe it or not, we are trying to give a fairly realistic analysis. It is certainl going to be better than what you are going to find at most other amature political forums.
What is being stated is that this isn't a "logical topic" in the way you wish it to be.
And in so much as Chick -fil -A dude, or his oposition thinks they are making "truth statments" they are not...and that is a fact. They are statments of custom
After that we can talk about institutions, markets, custom, anthropology, geneology, methodology, consequence, the imperative to act and the "logic of success". This is being responsible while trying to handle the topic in an intellectually honest way.
The opinions don't matter: they are mere "widgets" in any sane way this can be handled in an intellectually honest fashion.
As far as being concerned with "liberty and freedom", it isn't a concern at all - what is a concern is what can and not be said and done intellectual speaking.
"Where is the objective foundation that a preference for heterosexual marriage is factually stupid"
It is not a preference for two reasons: (1) people can prefer heterosexual marriage, while allowing gay marriage for others. In the same way they get married to a woman, while not caring if there are gay people. Or having a baby, but supporting the right to an abortion.
And (2) Christian views are not preferences, but statements that claim to be facts without choice being involved. The word 'heresy' comes from the word for preference or choice (αἵρεσις or aresis), and it is right out in any organized religion.
We're talking about a claim to a fact. IE: God is angered by untraditional marriage. Therefore he is not saying that is, to him at least, subjective. He is saying it is objective that a man in the sky is angry at this country for redefining marriage. You've seen the picture of the huge Jesus looking down on the earth with a tear in his eye.
This brings to mind the debate on a businesses' right to discriminate. (Well, it's not much of a 'debate', since anybody brave enough to advocate it is quickly dehumanized into a white-hooded cross burning troglodtye ogre)
Many progressive types who frequently entertain utilitarian social planning schemes tend to associate states rights (here they are partially right, but not in ways they necessarily understand) and decentralization as leading to environments of bigotry where the racist majority would quickly rise to oppress gays, blacks, [insert minority here].
It is of their firm opinion that a society full of bigoted behavior which develops to the extent of systematic oppression a la Jim Crow South, (this requires being totally oblivious to irony), can only arise in societies of total voluntary association where employers and businesses are free to discriminate. If not that, they argue that such environments promote and facilitate instituonalized bigotry.
If you are a minority, the argument goes, (say, living in a rural Southern community) your boycotts and protests will do nothing to avert the prejudices of the majority. You are helpless, powerless, because an unregulated society of voluntary association will end up oppressing you. Therefore, a progressive benevolent elite must lay down the law and regulate the business environment to prevent such majorities from oppressing the few.
The irony of such egalitarianism, that societies of institutional bigotry can only be perpetuated and enforced through government, and that such regulations manufacture new prejudices where there previously were none by dividing society and pitting groups against one another, creating new favored elites to replace the old, is entirely lost on them.
They seem to believe the racist South simply arose from a vacuum, that left to their own devices people will simply turn into batshit racists on their own, certainly requiring no legislated Jim Crow education and indoctrination of government enforced apartheid to instill such beliefs...
But, they say, all it takes is to bring the right minds to power, and we can plan and regulate racism and homophobia away, or at least keep it in check, where in a freer society it would run rampant...
This argument is very powerful and convincing to your college demographic (and many older Baby Boomer liberal types). It is a classic chicken- and- egg fallacy, since they are never able to prove that insitutional bigotry was the result of free unregulated association.
For many however, this is unneccessary, and they might even accept the fact that government did in fact prop up and enforce such bigotry. However, they still insist that 'we cannot go back' and remove such controls since the racists would simply take over once more. This is similar circular reasoning for opponents of non-intervention and pulling troops out of Afghanistan/Iraq/[insert latest nation here].
Very tough to shake people out of this mindset.
The claim "My guess is if they are down South, and that is the majority of their business they can last with such comments until the reactionary elements down south get bred out to a significant degree and they are forced to adopt a more progressive language." is rather moot. I mean how can non-procreative homosexuals out bread pro-natalist rednecks in the south or the US for that matter? If anything as short timeprefence homosexuals (ala Hans Herman Hoppe) will be out bread by the pronatalists southern conservatives.
Hans Hoppe isn't homosexual. And if there is anyone who loves bread, it is Hans Hoppe.
STRAIGHT PUMPERNICKEL ONLY >:O
They're actually from Atlanta, my hometown.
The one by my house was insanely busy/crowded today.
I know I'll continue eating there. But obviously I'm biased.
Bert, how the fuck can a fast food restaurant have a stance at all? Aren't you a methodological individualist? ;)
My post was poorly worded I know and did not intend to claim Hoppe was homosexual but was giving him credit for the time prefrence argument and by bread I mean the past tense world for procreate not the consumable food item.
I think avoiding companies that contribute to causes or with CEOs that hold opinions you disagree with would be nigh on impossible. Probably moreso for people on this forum.
Who funds the anti-nuclear lobby? Who funds the recycle-at-all-costs-even-when-it-doesn't-make-sense campaigns? Who (outside the military industrial complex) funds activist foreign policy? Who lobbies for the drug war?
I imagine a lot of people need to start boycotting some of their favorite products.
Hans Hoppe isn't homosexual.
Please please please somebody use this as their sig. I may have to if no one else will.
bonus points if you use this image as your avatar
Or is that more appropriate to Hans Hoppe is not Bill Cosby?
Maybe Hans Hoppe himself can sign on this forum with the sig Hans Hoppe Isn't Homosexual with the Cosby like picture of himself.
@scottws: The age and/or popularity of a belief do not validate or invalidate it. Since "jerk" has no particularly precise definition, I use it here to mean "person who, against the views of Lady Saiga, advocates rights for one group but not another", but in fact I didn't say the guy WAS a jerk, only that my money would enable him to be one publicly. As a matter of fact, in the original article, I think the statement was "pro-traditional family", not "anti-gay marriage", and so I don't think he WAS being a jerk. Just honest.
OK I got swarmed by activists today.
Suffice to say, activists are and always have been some of the more annoying people to me. It really is a resort of a bored and leisurely classed scoundrel to care about a fucking chicken place. If I were 4 years younger I would have probably blown a gasket, hoisted the black flag, and ended up in county; and after the bail enjoyed meal after meal there out of shear spite - instead of silently and gently pushing one of the multiple activists out of my way who were insistent on blocking my path, so I could finish my luch alone and in peace and quiet by the lake.
Either way, it's still very annoying, and will probably be fashionable until the election season is over.