I'd like to have a respectful and nuanced discussion about Adam and the Chick-fil-A video/pod.
The CFA video surprized me. Not because he was venturing into politics, as some people have complained about. While the CFA controversy was politicized, the CFA video was about the ethics of eating CFA in 2023. And he's delved many times into the ethics of eating certain foods or using certain food related products.
What surprised me was that, to date, he has virtually always come down on the more progressive / left wing side of such issues - and this time he didn't.
I think we could probably all agree that:
Overall Adam seems like a relatively progressive and more left wing than right sort of guy (at least in his public persona).
It seems safe to guess from the comments in this subreddit and the fact that we are here voluntarily that most of his audience would be broadly similarly progressive and more left than right on social issues.
Adam being a smart guy who's clearly aware of his demographics and audience comments is probably aware of this.
I mentally play a drinking game when I'm listening to his pods: (mentally) drinking every time Adam light heartedly self flagellates for being a white man and every time he tries to head off negative/pedantic comments with a "and before you send me an angry DM saying...".
So I was especially surprised to see him present a take that he would know would alienate some of his audience and at least run against the grain for a lot of of his audience. And on that level I admire him for making it.
Still, the whole video I was thinking: why is he doing this?
I suspect the answer is: because he LOVES the taste of CFA and wants to justify to himself and the world his choice to keep eating it.
Now as long as that hasn't caused him to present lies or overlook inconvenient truths then that's perfectly fine.
I'm "an outsider" as Adam describes not living in the south and never having eaten CFA. Before listening to this my view was CFA = extreme Christian homophobic bad.
An important point that Adam makes that I agree with is that the point of a boycott is to effect change. If the boycotters get what they want (regardless of whether the target was happy to do it) then the boycott should be lifted. If it's not then the next company that is boycotted will have no incentive to change.
The core factual claim in the video Adam makes is that for a time CFA directly funded anti-LGBTQ groups but as a reaction to consumer backlash in around 2019 it stopped (except for possibly some isolated oversight examples or more morally complicated examples). It seems from links posted in this subreddit that claim appears true but the Cathy family still personally donate their money sourced from CFA dividends to those kinds of abhorrent groups.
Adam deals with that by saying if you don't buy things from company's whose owners/board members are A-holes then you won't be able to buy anything.
I think that's a reasonable position to take. It's up to all of us where we set our moral bar on these kinds of thing and if eating at CFA in 2023 doesn't sit right with you morally then you should boycott it. But I think we should be honest with ourselves about it: is it just that you know a lot about CFA and the Cathy family and you've not looked into the ownership structure and owner's moral views of other company's whose food/gas/clothes/appliances? This isn't an argument that if you can't solve all issues at once you shouldn't solve any. It's an argument that we should recognise that in the pantheon of morally complicated companies, perhaps CFA in 2023 is not the most appropriate target of a boycott.
As for the comments that Adam Ragusea has sold out or is promoting homophobia: if he's not progressive enough for you then everyday life must be pretty tough.
Meant with love.
