Cards Against Humanity Drops Box Supplier Over Tea Party Affiliation

[JonB]

Cards Against Humanity Drops Box Supplier Over Tea Party Affiliation

Apparently, ULINE's CEO donates a lot of money to the Tea Party.

Cards Against Humanity creator Max Temkin has "THAT'S INSANE!" [http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/20/5219806/max-temkin-against-humanity] when confronted with some Uihlein's positions. Uline did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/453596756585238528]

High profile CEOs causing political disputes with other, differently principled companies has been in the news recently because of that same CEO's resignation. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133392-OKCupid-Asks-Firefox-Users-To-Support-LGBT-Rights-Switch-Browsers] Both OKCupid and Mozilla have faced backlash for their actions in the public arena, and it's possible, though unlikely, that Cards Against Humanity will face the same or similar responses.

Either way, Temkin didn't seem that broken up about it.

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/453598591702298624]

Uline inc. is one of the largest shipping materials providers in the United States. Cards Against Humanity [http://cardsagainsthumanity.com/] self-describes as a game that is "as despicable and awkward as you and your friends."

Source: Twitter [https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/453596756585238528]

Permalink

 

[balladbird]

I wasn't sure how to feel about the whole Mozilla ordeal, but this is much more straightforward. It's the right of any individual to do business with whoever they please, or not, for whatever reason pleases them, so good for Mr. Temkin.

For my part, I agree with him. The tea party is up there with Libertarianism and Objectivism as a political movement whose appeal is completely lost on me.

 

[Darkmantle]

I wasn't sure how to feel about the whole Mozilla ordeal, but this is much more straightforward. It's the right of any individual to do business with whoever they please, or not, for whatever reason pleases them, so good for Mr. Temkin.

For my part, I agree with him. The tea party is up there with Libertarianism and Objectivism as a political movement whose appeal is completely lost on me.

Well the only difference with the mozilla situation is that consumers got to make the choice to continue using or not, it wasn't another company doing it. So why does that matter? Do people not have the right to be informed about the companies they deal with?

 

[balladbird]

Well the only difference with the mozilla situation is that consumers got to make the choice to continue using or not, it wasn't another company doing it. So why does that matter? Do people not have the right to be informed about the companies they deal with?

They absolutely do, and I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't switch browsers/be informed of the political views of the person in question, and act based on that knowledge.

The reason I had mixed feelings on the Mozilla ordeal was because three parties were involved, and I hadn't followed the events closely enough to have an informed opinion on the matter.

 

[dyre]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

 

[FalloutJack]

Showing the world once more that Cards Against Humanity has a bigger blacker CENSORED!

So, does this constitute taking the supplier to Boston and pushing him into the water?

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

This is getting damned ridiculous. "Ooh, they CEO of Industry Inc. drinks the blood of orphans whenever he vacations in the country where that's perfectly legal. I'm not doing business with them anymore, even though most of the employees there are honest, hard working (insert your nationality of choice here). And I'm going to jam my views down everyone else's throats" It would have been better if they did this in secret and only mentioned it if someone asked why the boxes had International Paper in fine print somewhere instead of Uline.

Everyone needs to realize that both parties (not just in America either) are overflowing with crooked cunts that just want to expand their bank accounts and their buddy's. Publicly the Democrats are supposedly for the lower classes, but I assure you that all those senators and upper House members get paid more than what a family of 4-6 needs to own a house and live in it while saving for 2-4 college tuitions, along with their cushy corporate board membership that pays for the yacht and third summer home. They also work together on bills that give them more money and power. They bicker when it's on an issue that might affect their approval rating in their district, and some issues can cross party lines often.

Instead of just making an simple announcement of a change in business for political reasons, maybe these companies that don't like the CEO of other companies donating to anti-gay right laws and the GOP should also tell people about a candidate they can soon vote for which is unlikely to be totally corrupted by greed and the thought of be holier than thou.

Hell, the CEO of International Paper, John V. Faraci, also sits on the board of United Technologies Corp. (a defense contractor among other things)and Citigroup International Advisory Board and Wikipedia also says "In September 2009, CNNMoney listed Faraci as number four on a list of the five most overpaid CEOs." You traded one rich bastard for an even richer bastard. I'd can bet he influences more than the Uline CEO. This is worse than the calling out on the newly christened (but has still been on the board for over a decade) CEO of Mozilla who did something 6 years ago that he might regret before he ever was considered for CEO.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

It would have been better if they did this in secret and only mentioned it if someone asked why the boxes had International Paper in fine print somewhere instead of Uline.

You do realize that one of the entire points of a boycott is that the people that you're boycotting understand why you're doing it, right?

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

It would have been better if they did this in secret and only mentioned it if someone asked why the boxes had International Paper in fine print somewhere instead of Uline.

You do realize that one of the entire points of a boycott is that the people that you're boycotting understand why you're doing it, right?

They could have told Uline why they didn't want to do business with them anymore without being drama queens and going on twitter. I don't like the tea-party deal either(that shutdown was just to waste tax dollars while fighting Obamacare). But, there's almost no way to escape these corporations without going feral.

 

[Baresark]

Well, that's cool I guess. Does anyone care who their box supplier is? I mean, were they gonna lose business because of their box supplier? I say that if it will, then by all means, change suppliers. But if you are choosing a company based solely on the owners want to donate their own private money to whichever organization they want, that seems stupid to me. But you have the right to do business with whoever you choose. No one can deny that.

 

[Kameburger]

It would have been better if they did this in secret and only mentioned it if someone asked why the boxes had International Paper in fine print somewhere instead of Uline.

You do realize that one of the entire points of a boycott is that the people that you're boycotting understand why you're doing it, right?

They could have told Uline why they didn't want to do business with them anymore without being drama queens and going on twitter. I don't like the tea-party deal either(that shutdown was just to waste tax dollars while fighting Obamacare). But, there's almost no way to escape these corporations without going feral.

Well as a start up this is supreme PR for them. They need to pretty much publicly blast this or else it's pretty pointless. It's win win, and a perfectly fair use of speech and while its the kind of more aggressive story than I'd prefer to read on a Wednesday morning, the free market libertarian in me can't help but support it.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

Meh. As a free-market conservative, I have absolutely no problem with this. Unlike the Mozilla situation, the company isn't being more or less threatened by a protected class, forcing them to throw their CEO overboard/he decides to leave so as to not have the company destroyed, this is a simple case of one company not doing business with another company. However, as someone who lives in the People's Republic of Illinois (and in a suburb of Chicago, no less...yes, cry for my wallet), it's kind of funny that Temkin is so worried about doing business with Illinois biggest conservative donor. That's like being the only teetotaler in a drunken frathouse. Illinois has no chance of turning red any time soon, even if Uline's CEO donated a billion dollars.

 

[Kuredan]

It's one thing to say "I don't like your stance on X as it violates my principles. I'm afraid we can't do business." It's quite another to be a puerile brat and complain because someone is in another political party than you. As much as you may disagree with "The Tea Party", that covers a broad spectrum of beliefs. If you want to extend it to "Well I don't like anyone on that spectrum", it gets even more childish. You might as well just say "I don't like anyone who doesn't believe the same as me" and be done with it. It's yet another example of partisan politics intruding into everyday lives. So long as people think they have a monopoly on 'The Truth' we're going have dumb problems like this, with news stories to follow.

What really bothers me is this kind of behavior borders dangerously on thought crime. Never mind a person's ability to do their job, if you disagree with them, as a person, you somehow have the right or obligation to oppose them and get them fired or some other action that harms their livelihood. It's one thing to say "I will not frequent their business." It's another say "No one may frequent their business."

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Hm, so that's why I'm getting all the calls lately for the conservative Tea Party Republican folks. I was wondering why the sudden increase and who was bankrolling that effort in a pretty solidly Democrat state. Good to know.

And for everyone saying this is entirely ridiculous - in the US at least - this is what happens when the Supreme Court rules that money = speech. It's not just a legal stipulation for donations, it's going to filter down into all the ways we do things - an idea is pervasive like that.

 

[frizzlebyte]

It would have been better if they did this in secret and only mentioned it if someone asked why the boxes had International Paper in fine print somewhere instead of Uline.

You do realize that one of the entire points of a boycott is that the people that you're boycotting understand why you're doing it, right?

They could have told Uline why they didn't want to do business with them anymore without being drama queens and going on twitter. I don't like the tea-party deal either(that shutdown was just to waste tax dollars while fighting Obamacare). But, there's almost no way to escape these corporations without going feral.

I agree with this and all the other comments like it.

The issue I have with these little fits is not the decision, but the dramatic WE WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHY WE'RE CHANGING BOX COMPANIES!!!11!1!!GEVKAIMEIBBQ!!!

Hmm, doesn't everyone else look small from up here on our moral high-ground?

I mean, if you want to do that, go right ahead, but what I fear is that this is just another example of partisan politics gone insane, which is something that people claim to be against.

It's a hell of a good bit of publicity for Cards of Humanity, though.

 

[Vivi22]

I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

If you don't want to give money to people who will turn around and give money to fight for causes you don't believe in or find morally reprehensible, then it's not stupid at all. And don't even kid yourself into thinking that that isn't something that happens when you willingly do business with and give your money to people with beliefs you don't agree with.

Whenever possible, people should be voting with their wallets and letting people know why. Money is about the only thing corporate assholes understand.

 

[Vivi22]

What really bothers me is this kind of behavior borders dangerously on thought crime. Never mind a person's ability to do their job, if you disagree with them, as a person, you somehow have the right or obligation to oppose them and get them fired or some other action that harms their livelihood. It's one thing to say "I will not frequent their business." It's another say "No one may frequent their business."

This entire paragraph is a load of crap considering no individual has the power to prevent others from using a service, product, or frequenting a business that they disagree with or which is run by someone they disagree with. Only government can do that, and if a CEO doesn't want to get fired for what they do in their personal life, they'll make damn sure that what they do doesn't impact their business.

Also, you're understanding of what constitutes thought crime, or even crime based on this statement, seems wonky to say the least.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

What really bothers me is this kind of behavior borders dangerously on thought crime. Never mind a person's ability to do their job, if you disagree with them, as a person, you somehow have the right or obligation to oppose them and get them fired or some other action that harms their livelihood. It's one thing to say "I will not frequent their business." It's another say "No one may frequent their business."

Number of people referencing 1984 without understanding 1984: 141550678+1

The government has literally nothing to do with this at all. It is well within the rights of a business to avoid another business due to political disagreements, and nobodies saying "you can't frequent their business" but rather saying "don't frequent their business if don't agree either". There is nothing forcing people to support these boycotts, they just do if they feel strongly about the boycott to begin with (i.e. free speech).

Your point on the Tea Party also kinda fails when you consider he was more objecting to the donations to the Tea Party as a political platform and less the spectrum of conservative ideas. The Tea Party does have a set of core beliefs and it is perfectly valid (as you say) to refuse business due to one of those core beliefs.

 

[Vivi22]

Unlike the Mozilla situation, the company isn't being more or less threatened by a protected class, forcing them to throw their CEO overboard/he decides to leave so as to not have the company destroyed

I wasn't aware that asking people to boycott a company based on the CEO's political beliefs constituted a threat from a protected class. If he wanted to stick it out he was welcome to. Clearly the board didn't like the attention his beliefs and actions garnered.

As a self described free-market conservative, I'd think you'd be better at recognizing the free market at work. Though if you are a conservative in the true sense of the word, I imagine your problem is less to do with a perceived break down of the free market, and more to do with the free market working against someone who donated to something you agree with.

 

[mattaui]

Just looks like a standard marketing tactic to me, and it makes perfect sense.