Good reason to boycott Amazon

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHRISTINE77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CHRISTINE77

Guest
Has anyone heard of their new program “Transparent” about a transgendered father?

Here is a snippet about it:

*Soloway created the pilot Transparent for Amazon.com, which became available for free streaming and download on February 6, 2014 and was part of Amazon’s second pilot season.[5][6] The show stars Gaby Hoffman, Jay Duplass, and Amy Landecker as siblings whose father (played by Jeffrey Tambor) reveals he is going through a significant life transition.[7] On the new web-based TV viewing experience: “The socialist in me welcomes the kind of democratization these platforms are bringing to our creative community and the viewing public. I feel like I’m part of this creative revolution, like an Arab Spring—but let’s call it an Auteur T.V. Spring—sweeping across the land.”[8]

The pilot for Transparent was picked up by Amazon Studios.[9][10] On what transparent means to her: “Transparent stands for gender freedom for all, and within that freedom we can find grays and muddled purples and pinks, chakras that bridge the heart and mind, sexiness that depends on a masochistic love or a sweeping soul dominance. In particular, Transparent wants to invent worlds that bridge the binary: Genderqueer, Boygirl, Girlboy, Macho Princess, and Officer Sweet Slutty Bear Captain are just a few incredibly confusing, gender-****ing concepts that come to mind.”[8] The show is “about sex and intimacy, about a family inheritance of a woman being born. They get this new mother from their father’s female self.”[11]

Soloway wrote the role Gaby Hoffmann plays in Transparent for her after seeing her performance on Season 3 of Louis C.K.'s show Louie.[12]

The full season of Transparent premiered on September 26, 2014 in the binge-watching-friendly mode where all ten episodes of the series were made available at once,[13] although Joe Lewis, Amazon Studios’ Head of Original Programming, told the Television Critics Association panel. “I don’t think of it as binging, I just think of it as a five-hour movie.”[13]

Production[edit]

Solloway has said that she hopes to use the series to explore ideas of gender identity through a “wounded father being replaced by a blossoming femininity” and that she pictured Tambor as Mort / Maura when writing the character.[4]

As part of the making of the show, Soloway enacted a “transfirmative action program,” “favoring the hiring of transgender candidates over nontransgender ones.”[9] This meant that “20 trans people had been hired in the cast and crew, and more than 60 had been employed as extras.”[9] She also hired “two full-time transgender consultants to steer her away from any pitfalls.”[9] All the bathrooms on set are gender-neutral.[14] In research for the show: “Our work has been influenced by our consultants, well-known transgender cultural producers Jennifer Finney Boylan, Rhys Ernst, and Zackary Drucker. On our coffee table at work we have the Trans zine Original Plumbing, as well as every book ever written about being trans. My favorite is Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.”[8]*

All I can say is EWWWW
 
Why do people think that boycotts are the answer to everything? I remember boycotts my whole life against major corporations and none of them have ever had any measurable effect. I happen to like my Amazon Prime membership with free 2nd day delivery for $99 a year and really see no reason to quit it because of something as trivial as a stupid tv show.

If you don’t like the show, don’t watch it.
 
Without getting into the boycott debate, Amazon Prime is my wife’s best friend.
 
Amazon Prime + Amazon Smile is too much for me to give up over some show about deviants. I’ll just not watch it.
 
Why do people think that boycotts are the answer to everything? I remember boycotts my whole life against major corporations and none of them have ever had any measurable effect. I happen to like my Amazon Prime membership with free 2nd day delivery for $99 a year and really see no reason to quit it because of something as trivial as a stupid tv show.

If you don’t like the show, don’t watch it.
No one is claiming boycotts are the answer to everything. Also, the primary purpose of a boycott is not necessarily to effect the corporation. Some people just want to avoid as much material cooperation with evil as is reasonably possible. The original poster should be encouraged and not rebuked.
 
Amazon is also where I buy my beautiful Bibles from; it’s hard to beat their prices.

Reject the bad, retain what is good. Boycotts are useless and for as long as Amazon aids me with my Catholic books, I’ll keep buying from them.

Only direct cooperation with sin is forbidden. Remote cooperation is not, and thank God for that.
 
Amazon Prime + Amazon Smile is too much for me to give up over some show about deviants. I’ll just not watch it.
Same here.

I’m curious about the Church’s position on transgenderism (if that’s a word). I’ll have to search the forums, as I’m sure it’s been discussed. One of the individuals I support at my second job as a group home counselor identifies as transgendered–biologically male, but says he’s female. I have trouble giving it credence, as it seems to me to be just one of many, many delusions he expresses.
 
If it weren’t for Amazon, where would I get all my cheap stuff?!
 
Why do people think that boycotts are the answer to everything? I remember boycotts my whole life against major corporations and none of them have ever had any measurable effect. I happen to like my Amazon Prime membership with free 2nd day delivery for $99 a year and really see no reason to quit it because of something as trivial as a stupid tv show.

If you don’t like the show, don’t watch it.
Tru dat.
Besides, I love their new Amazon Smile program, where part of each of my Prime purchase goes to Catholic Relief Service.
 
No one is claiming boycotts are the answer to everything. Also, the primary purpose of a boycott is not necessarily to effect the corporation. Some people just want to avoid as much material cooperation with evil as is reasonably possible. The original poster should be encouraged and not rebuked.
We have had a lot of trouble with wanting to boycott an entire company, affecting families often over something that was an action taken, often in private, by one employee.

Also, what about all the good Amazon does? If you boycotted them, would they even know why you were doing it?

To me, it’s gotten out of hand. On CAF, we once even had a boycott of a boycott!

The main ones we affect by boycotts are probably the families of those who lose their jobs, probably not the ones higher up, anyway.

Unless there’s a really good reason, I don’t think it should be handled that way. It hurts too many innocent people far removed from the decision.

I used to be involved in protesting a lot, but I came to see that there were other, probably more effective means, to work on today’s problems, generally.

I’ve gotten a lot of Catholic books and videos off of Amazon. What of that? Others on CAF say the same. So, are we to “throw the baby out with the bath water?”

If we boycotted Amazon, then in all fairness, we’d probably need to boycott all these other libraries, bookstores, and video stores. Otherwise, we would be targeting Amazon, unfairly, for one video. Why Amazon? Aren’t others also distributing it, promoting it, and materials like it?

I think somebody just has it “in” for Amazon, wants to harm them, and is using one piece as rationalization to do this.

If your library carries a book/video you don’t agree with, do you boycott them? Do you boycott WalMart if it carries a book you don’t approve of?

If we did this, it would be hard to even keep track of.

Personally, I’ve learned to pick my fights. I don’t have the energy to fight everybody, and I wouldn’t want to, even if I could.
 
Boycotts do nothing to change a company. I think it is good though to avoid organizations that push ideas that are contrary to your own worldview. A while ago I heard an advertisement thanking/praising people for all the good they do by purchasing their product. By purchasing their product they considered you a partner in their fight against whatever they were fighting (I can’t recall what it was). The question is whether you want to be associated with that organization.

That said, I am not going to cancel my prime account over a program they are showing. I definitely won’t watch it though. I have no desire to watch something about transgenderism.
 
We have had a lot of trouble with wanting to boycott an entire company, affecting families often over something that was an action taken, often in private, by one employee.
I don’t know what you are talking about.
Also, what about all the good Amazon does? If you boycotted them, would they even know why you were doing it?
It’s up to the boycotter whether they want the company to know. Like I said, some just want to personally boycott to avoid material cooperation with evil. As far as the good Amazon does, that’s irrelevant because the company has no demands on one’s money.
To me, it’s gotten out of hand. On CAF, we once even had a boycott of a boycott!
Abuse does not proscribe use.
The main ones we affect by boycotts are probably the families of those who lose their jobs, probably not the ones higher up, anyway.
Again irrelevant. Just as giving money to Amazon is remote cooperation with evil and hence, not obligatory, so one can’t really make one responsible for getting someone fired for not giving them money.
Unless there’s a really good reason, I don’t think it should be handled that way. It hurts too many innocent people far removed from the decision.
Avoiding even remote cooperation with evil is a sufficient reason.
I used to be involved in protesting a lot, but I came to see that there were other, probably more effective means, to work on today’s problems, generally.
We are not called to be effective, only faithful.
I’ve gotten a lot of Catholic books and videos off of Amazon. What of that? Others on CAF say the same. So, are we to “throw the baby out with the bath water?”
Nobody has claimed a boycott is obligatory, so this is irrelevant.
If we boycotted Amazon, then in all fairness, we’d probably need to boycott all these other libraries, bookstores, and video stores. Otherwise, we would be targeting Amazon, unfairly, for one video. Why Amazon? Aren’t others also distributing it, promoting it, and materials like it?
No, because there is no obligation to divest of every remote cooperation with evil, rather we ought to when it is reasonably possible.
I think somebody just has it “in” for Amazon, wants to harm them, and is using one piece as rationalization to do this.
With no other evidence, this is rash judgement.
If your library carries a book/video you don’t agree with, do you boycott them? Do you boycott WalMart if it carries a book you don’t approve of?
It depends on how egregiously they did so.
If we did this, it would be hard to even keep track of.
There’s no obligation that we have to.
Personally, I’ve learned to pick my fights. I don’t have the energy to fight everybody, and I wouldn’t want to, even if I could.
Yes, and the original poster is picking theirs. So be it.
 
On CAF, we once had, think it was a spaghetti boycott.

Then, there was also a counterboycott boycott, (can’t remember if it was that same time or a different one)!

I’m just saying, I think it has gotten to be too much.

Boycott all ya all want, but I don’t think it’s Christian to be boycotting pretty much everybody and trying to get others to do the same, thinking it’s going to somehow help matters.

It’s like in the US how people are sue happy. They want to sue people really over nothing. Even a lot of people who don’t deserve to be sued have been sued. I don’t find this constructive or the Christian way of handling it. I don’t find it effective, because it’s been so overdone of late.

If we saved boycotts for real, legitimate issues, it would be one thing, but they have been used frivolously, and now they no longer are being used the way they should be.

Someone gets angry over an employee not making their coffee right one day, person goes online, tells everybody to boycott them for that.

I just find it to a point it’s excessive.
 
I believe boycotts should be used sparingly for very serious matters. If we use them all the time for small and big, it’s like someone who swears every other word, thinking it’ll draw attention to him, but because he does it all the time, after a while, people begin to ignore him.
 
I don’t know what you are talking about.
What am I talking about? When you boycott, say, an airline, it means a lot of people, in mass, are not buying their service.

It can cause branches of the company to shut down with bunches of jobs being suddenly lost, affecting mostly families.

Some companies can’t withstand a boycott, go under, go bankrupt. Before you encourage people to go out and boycott, I’d ask them to make sure they had a very good reason. Why? Because, a lot of innocent people will be hurt, breadwinners losing their jobs, possibly needing to locate or go on some form of public assistance.

The cause needs to be not only justified but worth all that suffering the boycott will cause.

I consider a boycott more like a last resort, should not be undertaken at all lightly.
 
I also don’t consider it “irrelevant” that breadwinners that had nothing to do with said decision will probably lose their jobs. It is very relevant. We need to consider the full ramifications of our actions ahead of time to know whether the strong negative impact on families will be justified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top