Comment by mdasen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mdasen | Hacker News Reader

The Whole Foods CEO wasn't just having opinions. He was actively opining (which spell check assures me is a word) that we shouldn't have a public health care system.

Why should advertisers not advertise on Glen Beck's show? For those who don't know, Beck opined on his show that President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . . I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." That's an opinion as well.

Beck's opinion is, to most, more inflammatory than Mackey's, but that can make Mackey's all the more dangerous (if you're someone who would like to see public healthcare). The fact is that Mackey seems to be a liberal of sorts (in fact, Whole Foods offers health insurance to their employees) and an at least somewhat successful business person (I don't actually know enough about Whole Foods, but they don't seem to be going bankrupt).

So, his words are quite a threat to the agenda of those who would like to see a public health plan. And his words have that much more power because they're coming from someone who seems to have liberal leanings and is running a business that does provide health care to their employees. If someone is advocating for the opposite of what you would like, should you not take that into consideration? We vote with our feet every day. He took action against public health care in trying to change people's opinions through his piece. I know many who stopped buying CDs because of the RIAA's positions.

I will grant that his piece was a lot more thoughtful and measured than many have passed on, but this is an issue that is very contentious and many people feel (I'm not making any judgement here) that his words contribute to a negative impact on the possibility of a public health plan and that the lack of such a plan will have a negative impact on their life. As such, they don't want to spend their money at his business.

"So, his words are quite a threat"

I resent your use of the word "threat" in this context; a threat implies the pending use of force to harm. Are you sure that you want to equate a man expressing his opinion publicly to the promise of inflicting pain?

That's not the only meaning: "a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger". There are economic threats (the threat of bankruptcy), social threats (blackmail), etc. etc.

I think what's important here is that the boycotters perceive the Whole Foods CEO's opining as an actual threat. In the "battle" for ideas, it makes sense that you wouldn't actively support your opposition.

Even so, the word has a devious connotation. There is nothing devious about open speech.

I'm curious: what word would you use?

"So, his words are quite a challenge to the agenda of those who would like to see a public health plan."

It's pretty clear in English that when we say "threat to X" and X is an abstract concept, we don't heave to mean literal force. It simply means it puts the concept in some kind of danger.

For example, "Your capricious coding practices are a threat to the quality of our code base."

You're stuck on the first entry in the dictionary for "threat." The parent was using the second entry: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat

Go ahead, don't spend money on his business.

But there's no need to make a huge deal out of it, as the boycott is doing. Just read the article, and read the 'About' section on their website, and see whether one seems a justified response to the other.

Go ahead, don't spend money on his business. But there's no need to make a huge deal out of it, as the boycott is doing.

From our perspective, perhaps. I don't doubt the people behind the boycott think there is a substantial need to make a huge deal out of it.

But if your business strategy is targeting a specific demographic, you get what you deserve if you go publicly opposing what that demographic overwhelmingly supports.

If you think it's reasonable not to do business with Whole Foods because of the opinions of its management, it's hard to argue that it's not reasonable to tell other people about your decision, or to promote that decision to other people.

Either way, both sides are just tossing words around. This is the norm for political debate, even if no actual debate is happening. It's called free speech. They're allowed to make as large a deal out of it as they want to, even if it's a stupid decision and entirely out of proportion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com