Celebrities are lining up to boycott North Carolina over recent legislation considered as "hate" towards one sector of society. Similar threats were expressed few weeks ago over Mississippi's state flag also seen as "hate". I am not suggesting either are not "hate", but as often the word is invoked politically and popularly, it remains a strong even extreme word by definition, though by frequent usage the effectiveness tends to wane.
Consequently, I am curious. Where is the same moral will to attach "hate" or at least "foul" to US bombs and drones in foreign lands amid endless war-making, killing with no regard for collateral damage. Was it "hate" when hospitals were bombed. Was it "hate" when homes were droned. Was it "hate" when innocent grandparents, parents, students, children, or newly born infants were killed. Is it "hate", for these atrocities continue without transparency, without restraint, without end in sight. Yet celebrities, fans and people at large bicker over restrooms and flags, far exceeding any attention (if any) given to the aforementioned collateral damage still ongoing.
I find the boycott horribly inconsistent to any notion of morality (for "hate" implies immorality), because it is quite easy to forego a very small market share (ie. North Carolina, one state of 50), compared to a whole empire if to forego similarly per endless imperial wars.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment