It is practically a boycott though, since a purpose of a boycott is to avoid something that is unethical. With veganism you’re refusing to purchase (or obtain in other ways, but 99% of people purchase) products that involve animal exploitation. For BDS you’re refusing to purchase products that involve Palestinian exploitation. For most others you’re refusing to purchase products that involve other forms of human exploitation like slave labor, like with the chocolate industry, battery mining, sweatshops, etc. (Nestle being a common example)
At best, a boycott is part of veganism. Vegans obviously also don’t personally kill animals to eat, or kick puppies, or have cock fights. Not supporting those things financially is a consequence of that stance, not it’s sole purpose.
The reason it seems like a boycott is simply because for the average city dweller, buying animal products is simply the main way they interact with this form of oppression.
To try an analogy: Imagine most/all men actually not assaulting or raping women. But, 99% of them pay for others to do that on their behalf, three times a day. Feminism would look a lot like “just a boycott” to these people simply because consumption is their main point of exposure/support of anti-feminism.
No, a boycott is withholding purchase to get a company to change. For example most people observing BDS would have no problem buying mcdonalds if they are no longer part of the occupation. The problem isn’t the product but how it’s obtained. With vegans the problem is the product and no amout of “free range” or “no chick killing” is gonna have us buy dairy or eggs.
It depends on the vegan and other circumstance I suppose. I would on BDS grounds and that even a vegan bigmac still supports one of the largest cow murdering corporations there is. I don’t understand the point of a “vegan” bigmac and having mcdonalds not be part of the palestinian or cow genocide means it would functionally be a completely different entity bearing only the name due to historical reasons. Like Nintendo the playing cards company and Nintendo the videogames company.
Yes, the goal of a boycott is to encourage/force change through economic means. BDS buying Israeli olives would require either the olives somehow be fully separate from the entire rest of the Israeli market (which, if the target is not McD specifically but the meat industry as a whole, a vegan bigmac would fit) or about the same level of change to Israel as McD becoming vegan only. It’s roughly analogous, is the point.
It is practically a boycott though, since a purpose of a boycott is to avoid something that is unethical. With veganism you’re refusing to purchase (or obtain in other ways, but 99% of people purchase) products that involve animal exploitation. For BDS you’re refusing to purchase products that involve Palestinian exploitation. For most others you’re refusing to purchase products that involve other forms of human exploitation like slave labor, like with the chocolate industry, battery mining, sweatshops, etc. (Nestle being a common example)
At best, a boycott is part of veganism. Vegans obviously also don’t personally kill animals to eat, or kick puppies, or have cock fights. Not supporting those things financially is a consequence of that stance, not it’s sole purpose.
The reason it seems like a boycott is simply because for the average city dweller, buying animal products is simply the main way they interact with this form of oppression.
To try an analogy: Imagine most/all men actually not assaulting or raping women. But, 99% of them pay for others to do that on their behalf, three times a day. Feminism would look a lot like “just a boycott” to these people simply because consumption is their main point of exposure/support of anti-feminism.
No, a boycott is withholding purchase to get a company to change. For example most people observing BDS would have no problem buying mcdonalds if they are no longer part of the occupation. The problem isn’t the product but how it’s obtained. With vegans the problem is the product and no amout of “free range” or “no chick killing” is gonna have us buy dairy or eggs.
The product is “food”, the problem is animal abuse. Would vegans have a problem with buying a vegan bigmac?
It depends on the vegan and other circumstance I suppose. I would on BDS grounds and that even a vegan bigmac still supports one of the largest cow murdering corporations there is. I don’t understand the point of a “vegan” bigmac and having mcdonalds not be part of the palestinian or cow genocide means it would functionally be a completely different entity bearing only the name due to historical reasons. Like Nintendo the playing cards company and Nintendo the videogames company.
Sure, but that more or less also goes for Israel.
Olives from pissrael or spain are still olives. A “vegan” bigmac is a different product from the “original”.
Yes, the goal of a boycott is to encourage/force change through economic means. BDS buying Israeli olives would require either the olives somehow be fully separate from the entire rest of the Israeli market (which, if the target is not McD specifically but the meat industry as a whole, a vegan bigmac would fit) or about the same level of change to Israel as McD becoming vegan only. It’s roughly analogous, is the point.