Garrett Hecker

Do NOT shift your beliefs about what “normal” is. The norms are the same. You’re not crazy. This—all of it—is not normal behavior.

So here’s my theory:

DOGE is cutting all this “fraud,” but not posting receipts.

At the same time, U.S. is starting a crypto fund.

He is going to put all the money he “cut from the budget” into the crypto fund and then defect to Russia with the only key to the money.

It’s a heist.

Is Phoebe short for Amphoebean?

Yeah, I’m accepting the things I cannot change, but no one can stop me from being really loud and annoying constantly about those things

So whatever the next boycott is, it has to come with a narrower scope and a clearly defined goal.

Boycotting Amazon for one day to “not buy from Amazon” is no different than any other day that you didn’t buy from Amazon.

Boycotting Amazon Prime until Jeff Bezos sells Washington Post is a protest with a goal and a possible end date.

The boycott was also too short to have any real effect.
How long should a protest last? Until the demands are met.

A boycott needs to have a goal and it ends when that goal is met.

Anyway, one main reason the boycott didn’t have any effect was because it was too broad in scope.

Decimate that line of revenue for the company. Use its competitors and don’t worry about if you don’t like them either—you’re coming for them next. This is a long game.

Instead of boycotting “all major corporations,” how about target a subsidiary of a subsidiary of that corporation? Instead of boycotting Amazon—a major global conglomerate with a variety of products—boycott Amazon Web Services. Or Prime Video.

To succeed, a boycott must be narrowly targeted at a single corporation, product, or service. And, more important than anything, the boycott must have a GOAL!

“Don’t buy from Amazon” is not a goal. A boycott should effect policy change. How do you want Amazon to change? What are your demands?

When the goal is “all or nothing,” the outcome will always be the same: nothing. A protest that is too broad in scope will never meet its goals.

Even targeting commodities or services is too broad. Example: Boycotting “eggs” just means egg sellers will raise their prices on people not boycotting eggs, which cancels out the lost profits from the boycott and hurts egg consumers.

Same thing goes for boycotting “SUVs,” “fast food,” etc.

A boycott that is too broad in scope spreads its effect too thin. Targeting everybody means nobody is a target.

If everyone just says, “don’t buy from any major corporations,” then the only effect is that corporations will have a mid-tier profits, raise prices, and cancel out the boycott.

Wondering why the recent boycotts didn’t work?

A lot of reasons. But the main two: (1) too broad in scope, and (2) too short in duration.

Cheers to inconveniences that work out in my favor! More of those, please!

AND YES, AGAIN, THIS INCLUDES THE NATIONAL PARKS ONE.

Dun-Dun-Dun-Noooooo
Dun-Dun-Dun-ItDoesntttttttt

The Jerry Springer Show audience had peak Greek chorus energy.

A movie called The Consortium in which economic conditions force an underemployed assassin to be a go-getter, switch business models and pitch kills to multiple stakeholders who can each partially fund the hit that would otherwise be unaffordable to them individually.

Hot coffee: Yes! Fuck yes! This rocks!

Iced coffee: This is like drinking a snowflake! Incredible!

Room temperature coffee: Am I drinking from a toilet in hell?

Looking for old followers from classical music twitter and law twitter

I’m here and I’m never going back!

Being an adjunct is surreal, because, to your students and to many of your colleagues, you are no different than any other faculty member

But, there are moments, some surprising, when your status is unavoidable, and they are always uncomfortable (at least, that is how I tend to find them)