I have a bit of a different question for you today, /fa/.
About a year ago I decided to boycott a certain brand - Levi's. The reasons for this are not relevant to my question.
Anyway, I owned three pairs of Levi's jeans at the time. Originally I was going to just throw them away but I liked them too much to do that, so instead I just removed all the tags and patches, removed the stitching from the back pockets and replaced the buttons to ones that didn't have a Levi's logo.
Basically I made them so 99.9% of people on the street wouldn't be able to tell that they're Levi's brand jeans, and continued to wear them as I would regularly.
Now my question is this: I'm still boycotting the brand, and I intend to do so for the forseeable future - am I a hypocrite for continuing to actually use/wear the jeans in spite of the alterations I've made to them rendering them unrecognizable as "Levi's"?
It's really not relevant and I can see it leading to a lot of shitposting if I tell you.
Well I do use the product, I just haven't bought anything Levi's since then and I removed all the tags/advertisement from the jeans. T-That's OK, right?
Removing the patch, tab, and arcs from a pair of Levi's doesn't really make them less noticeable, but this is more of an ideological thing—you're saying you can have your cake and eat it too. That's not okay. If you want to boycott a brand, fucking boycott the brand. If you like the jeans more than whatever reason you've drummed up to boycott them over, then that reason isn't good enough for you.
>It's really not relevant and I can see it leading to a lot of shitposting if I tell you.
Smells like you're part of that group that boycotted Levis for "supporting homosexuals"
That's actually a good point, anon. Very well, looks like I'll be binning them after all. I'll probably have to burn them or slice them up because I don't want anybody using them under any circumstances (i.e. any homeless tramps that fish them out of the garbage or whatever).
It's because they ran an ad that features a black guy kissing a white girl, and I don't support that shit at all.
Finally, another anon like me!
I've been on a boycott of Levi's jeans for going on six years now. One day, I was watching my favorite cleric speak on television, when a Levi's ad came on. In the ad, they featured young, American women wearing tight jeans, not covering their faces, showing their ankles, and - get this - even driving cars!
I'll give you an example: Vegans can still wear leather and fur-made clothes if they bought them before becoming vegan, if they buy it from thrift shops or get them as a gift, as they aren't actively contributing to fur and leather market.
This is the same. Don't throw them, but don't buy more. With brands the thing changes a lil' bit, because even if you get a pair via gift or whatever, you're marketing the brand, so i guess what you've done with their signature features is the correct answer.
Not bait at all. I'm perfectly normal with a decent job and healthy social life, I just don't support interracial relationships of any kind (not just bm/wf) and don't want to give my money to companies that do.
Why is that so bad?
Firstly, you're making /pol/ look really stupid if you're thinking of burning a pair of jeans you already bought. Also, if you were really boycotting them you would have burned them firstly instead of altering them. 3/10 bait, I honestly doubt that you visit /pol/ because you're too beta for them.
>if they buy it from thrift shops or get them as a gift
No not really.
Thrift shops still add to the problem, either by promoting leather or by contributing to the resale value.
As with gifts, don't accept them. Be nice about it, but if you have values its a virtue to stick by them, not make excuses.
Good move op. I've boycotted a lot of brands because of the same thing.
It's not that I have anything against interracial dating, it's that I think it's gross for a company to bait people into buying their clothes using trendy liberal imagery in their marketing.
Let's not pretend that's not what these companies are doing. I don't see many ads with white guys kissing black girls, it's usually the opposite.
its not a good question, its a pretty stupid one. whether or not you take off the labels and alter them so that they are unrecognizable, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that you are buying levis, and you are giving them money. so you are essentially not boycotting them at all.
Do you understand what a boycott is you fucking idiot? If you're giving them money its not a boycott, you're just pretending like you aren't wearing Levis when in reality you're too much of a pussy to stick by your beliefs and not support a company that you dont even like.
A boycott is an organized action by a group to refuse to do business with a company for political reasons. You are not boycotting Levi's, you are just one single person who doesn't want to buy things from a company and they are not at all hurt by your actions or even aware of your motivation for it.
GODS WORK ANON
Must really suck for you though because tons of brands do that
Why would you have a problem with race mixing, OP? Perhaps you are projecting your own sexual inadequacies onto an Other, with a black man being the first vessel available.
There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.
You are a backwards motherfucker if you think race-mixing is a problem. If you don't like it, go fuck off to Nazi Germany you eugenicist fascists.
I don't buy Levi's because they're anti-gun as fuck and I won't support that, even if they're only losing a hundred bucks a year from me.
OP is still a faggot coming from a hardline libertarian.