Right? I thought that looked like some serious ideological, “but hurting business is too far!”-brainrot.

But the article is actually really confusing to me:

One in five Americans plan to turn their backs for good on companies that have shifted their policies to align with Donald Trump’s agenda, according to a new poll for the Guardian.

That means ~20% plan to boycott themselves, which is not necessarily the same as supporting a boycott. Participating != supporting. Not supporting would e.g. also potentially mean attacking people like the person with the sign in the article photo, or ruining a Thanksgiving dinner with a huge family argument. While supporting can also mean “I support the movement, but for this and that reason, don’t participate myself” (that may be due to genuine dependence on some boycotted things, or just lack of motivation, or a feeling of not knowing how to, etc.).

Then the article goes on with a quote:

When 20% of Americans are permanently changing their consumption habits and nearly a third of boycotters say they’ll hold out indefinitely, convenience may no longer be the decisive factor companies think it is.

Again, that seems like 20% are actively boycotting, which is actually a pretty big number for a movement like that.

But then, there is another conflicting number just one paragraph away:

When asked about the boycotts that have been making headlines over the last few weeks, 36% of Americans said they are or will be participating.

So, wait, what? Why are the numbers so significantly different?

Last month, a Harris poll found that 31% of Americans have reported similar goals to “opt out” of the economy this year in light of the changing political climate.

Wait, that is yet another number, where are the 20% coming from even?

Also, I swear, maybe I am imagining it, but I think the article changed while I was typing this, because I remember wanting to structure an argument around them later using the “support” wording again, but now I can’t find it any more. Maybe I was misreading, that happens to me at times, but it wouldn’t be the first time a news outlet has changed an article while it was already live without a notice.

To anyone not wanting to click, here is the neat graphic with some more demographic info from the article:

I’m probably in a different percent that thinks it would be rather difficult to execute given the sheer number of companies in partnership with the agenda.

So, reality check: in large parts of the US, particularly outside of major metro areas, there’s one (1) big store in reasonable distance. And sometimes it’s a “big” Dollar General, which means the community is dying, because that chain is a fucking vampire (Their model is to charge a a smaller amount of money for far less of whatever product they’re selling, so it ends up being wildly more expensive per unit volume. This almost always kills all the other stores in the area, because when everyone’s extremely poor and often not fantastically educated, they see cheaper and think “I spend less money” instead of accounting for the per-unit/volume pricing. So it’s a chain intentionally set up to make uncritical people think they’re saving money, but they’re actually being taken to the cleaners every single time they walk in).

Not making excuses for people who don’t give a shit - just pointing out that there are a LOT of places in the US where there literally isn’t any choice in the store you get your general household goods at.

The headline is wildly misleading.
20% will continue to boycott companies permanently and 33% indefinitely, that support Trump now.

They forgot to account for the rest of the world which consumes more US goods than the American consumer

It’s just a poll.

In reality the true number is even lower.

It really highlights the problem with Democrats. There’s this segment of this demographic that just fucking sucks and needs to die out (I see them as old, mushy people getting upset about words and trying to tell other people they can’t buy big sodas).