People just have this knee-jerk reaction where because ethical consumption doesn't solve the core problem, they go to the opposite extreme of "just do whatever."
Well, voting ain't gonna fix things, but if someone comes in here talking about voting for Kamala, they'd still be called a lib. For the average American, not even living in a swing state, buying a single carton of Sabra is going to have more tangible material impact than their vote. Neither has the potential to actually solve things, but it's important to have a correct party line in one case but not the other?
I brought up the example of someone not giving up chocolate even as they're doing a publicity campaign against the company, and I guess people might see that as a "gotcha." But the point is that it breaks through this knee-jerk reaction. "Ethical consumption doesn't solve things so just do whatever - unless it directly undermines a cause you're organizing for." Is that the only exception, or is there a more general standard we should be considering?