Corporate Complicity in Violence is Violence
Corporate Complicity in Violence is Violence
Q: What are divestment and exclusion targets?
A: The BDS movement works to pressure governments, institutions, investment funds, city councils, etc. to exclude from procurement contracts and investments and to divest from, as the case may be, as many complicit companies as practical, especially arms companies and banks.
Intel is one of several divestment and exclusion targets listed for complicity in genocide by the BNC.
so much this, but now can we apply the same concept to domestic issues? I would love to see a crowd picket, I dunno, fucking Hobby Lobby for killing women with pregnancy complications
unknown, as i don’t think divestments work for companies not publicly traded (edit: looking back at this they probably actually do, the mechanisms are probably slightly different tho!)
you are asking the right questions though :)
I feel obliged to state this: I am very much pro-palestine and pro BDS.
Can I ask why expanding the definition of violence is so important? Why do we have to say intel is "violent" instead of just "intel received a grant from a state that is committing genocide" or "intel financially supports a state that is committing genocide"?
I'm not making a direct comparison but this feels similar to witch hunts where we have people being harassed for being associated with someone who worked with someone who had problematic views. Those witch hunts happen because people equate association with someone who commits an act with committing the act.
Am I literally committing violence if I forget about the boycott and buy dominos pizza? Because I bought a dominos pizza the other day before I heard about the boycott.
idk. I'm ranting, please don't murder me. I'm open to anyone who can explain to me how this benefits the cause.
Expanding the definition of violence to include actions like those of Intel can simply make it easier to communicate and understand the varying degrees of harm involved. Seeing violence as a sliding scale means we acknowledge it's not always a simple yes or no, but rather varies based on context. Calling Intel's actions "violent" highlights the severity of their support for a state engaged in genocide, which might hit home more than just saying they got a grant or financially back such a state.
Concerning your worry about witch hunts and guilt by association, it's important to separate recognizing institutions' complicity from unfairly targeting individuals for minor connections. Your Domino's pizza example doesn't really fit here; no one's saying buying pizza is violent. It's about holding accountable those bigger players who contribute to or enable harm.
Your skepticism makes sense, and it's good to question language and tactics in advocacy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I hope this explanation clarifies why broadening the definition of violence can help the cause.
I appreciate your response.
Do the best you can to be the best person you can whenever you can and you’re doing enough.
If you know better and can act better, do so. It isn’t your responsibility to change the world alone, just do your part where you can.
Eat pizza because life is fucking hard and sometimes we deserve pizza, do your best to purchase it ethically but don’t kill yourself over having to live in the unethical world that you didn’t create.
Do what you can to change the environment around you for the better, but this is your life and the only one you get so don’t live guilty either. Do your best.
Pretty much all microprocessor companies (Intel, AMD, ARM, Apple) have R&D facilities in Israel. For some reason, there are a lot of semiconductor specialists there.