Check out my new blog, My AI Obsession, and the latest post there, I have no prompt and I must scream
So Target, in response to complaints and threats and a few creepy viral videos, has decided to yank some LGBTQ+ merch and Pride Month displays from certain Southern stores. As a spokesperson for the company explained in a press release:
For more than a decade, Target has offered an assortment of products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. Since introducing this year’s collection, we’ve experienced threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being while at work. Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.
Well, good luck with that last bit, because by caving to the threats you’ve made it clear that threats and vandalism work. And that will just invite more of this kind of low-level terrorism from the far right, who won’t be mollified until every last bit of Pride merchandise is removed from your shelves. Or worse.
On his internet show today, professional right-wing demagogue Charlie Kirk made clear that Target’s partial surrender has simply served to put a bigger “target on their back.” Rallying the troops for a continuing offensive, he urged his followers to
keep the pressure on. We need to go after Target in a very serious way. It is time for decent, ordinary Americans who do not believe in radical ideas in either direction to just say I will not allow my kid to be corrupted by this trans agenda and look Target – it looks like they’re caving. They say they’re putting the clothes in the back. I don’t want – I want Target to go bankrupt. I want them to close. I want Chapter 11, okay? …
That’s the only thing they understand is force. Pain is a teacher and the pain of crossing the line to perverting our children and grooming them, it’s going to be a lesson I hope corporate America watches because ordinary America is pushing back. We must push for the bankruptcy of Target. Make it happen everybody.
But of course it’s not “everybody” who is offended by “tuck friendly” swimsuits or Pride displays. Recent polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans–some 80 percent in one poll–support LGBTQ+ rights. And a lot of younger people, 21% of Gen Z according to a Gallup poll, are openly identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
The crusade against LGBTQ+ people is driven by a relatively small number of right-wing influencers and their followers–a loud minority more than willing to resort to threats and violence to push their bigoted cause. They can be beaten, but not if “allies” like Target so quickly surrender to the bullies.
This Pride month could end up being a very ugly one. Far-right activists like the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh want to make Pride “toxic” to American companies.
The more success they have in shutting down Pride month, the more emboldened they will become.
We can fight back against chuds like the guy in the video above by calling Target directly and telling them how important it is for them to stock Pride month merchandise.
The louder we are, the better.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
This is depressing. Not unexpected, but depressing.
You know, the fact that a tuck-friendly swimsuit was designed as such and marketed as such is delightful. Having products like that in the public sphere via a mainstream store is an unexpected way trans experiences get normalized. Reading about its existence gave me an instant dopamine hit. Here’s hoping we’ll see more products like that (assuming a decent quality).
Oh man, I think this is hard. Sure, it’s easy to say “just don’t give in to bullies” when it’s not your workplace getting the bomb threats. If I were floor staff in Target, I don’t know how I would feel about this.
Sorry David but I think it’s completely out of order to blame the victims of terrorism for being intimidated.
You obviously know why they did this.
Do you not think these threats have substance? Or are you going down the ‘suck it up snowflake’ route? Would you prefer Target be one those firms that put profits before the welfare of their staff?
So anyone who capitulates to threats of violence is letting the side down? They should stand their ground?
It’s easy to be vicariously brave sat behind a keyboard. But how about you spare a thought for the workers who have to actually live with the genuine and legitimate fear of being personally targeted?
Come on man; you are better than this.
That’s depressing news. I can see why Target has done what they did, they have the safety of their staff to think about and the ‘phobes are mad (angry) enough to try physical violence.
Target made the right choice.
Even in New York I faced abuse over the “political stances” of the Starbucks where I worked part time (people had very strong feelings about paper cups). I can’t imagine being an employee in
a southern-state Target right now.
What was their alternative? Heavily armed guards in every swimwear aisle? Personalized counseling services for all the low-wage employees facing death threats? Cashiers in Kevlar?
The problem is that terrorism works.
I do think its important to note that Target not only removed displays in some stores, but also removed some merchandise from the online store as well. There was a minor uproar surrounding designs by Abprallen, and those were removed from both the physical stores and online. That the anti-trans backlash is becoming mainstream enough that even fairly unremarkable designs at a major retailer are a flashpoint worries me.
@Alan Robertshaw I somewhat agree with your point. If this hate campaign directly adressed staff members and their safety it’s unfair to simply denounce their reaction as “caving in”. However. Considering that from this side of the pond it looks like corporations have all the power one can imagine in the US, it is extremely shocking, that they will simply end their campaign, remove the items and that’s it.
What about that famed freedom of capitalism? The holy grail of supply and demand? Is it too much to ask these powerful corporations to stand up for their right to sell what they want to sell? What does that say about the US as a whole? I mean personally I see capitalism as a golden calf anyway, I just would never have thought that the US would slaughter it that easily…
And the irony that the same people who are obsessed with cancel-culture using literal terror strategies to practice it is just the cherry on top of this shit cake.
@alan: is this likely to end the threat?
These people will not be stopped until they’re forcibly stopped. Nazis are never stopped by being asked nicely.
@ specialfrog
That is a good point. And now that Twitter appears to have gone full Leni Reifenstal, I can see it’s one that the other side are debating amongst themselves.
Matt Walsh is saying they should continue. He regards a letter Target have sent as doubling down. But other commentators are saying that they will have more success if businesses see that withdrawing items gets rid of the problem.
So they’re now swapping suggestions for who’s next. They seem to have it in for Walmart (pride flags) and Pet Smart (fuck knows).
@alan: PetSmart and Petco have pride related items.
Who the heck does Charlie effin’ Kirk think is radical to the right side of him?!?
I’m not exactly happy Target caved to the far right, but i do think them looking out for their employees safety is a valid concern. Let’s face it, the far right absolutely kills people over this.
Hello.
Strange thing those persons, from a country which openly sell weapons and praise free market, to be against some merchandises because they believe them a threat to their little dirty ass…
Have a nice day.
When you’re attacked, and vulnerable, you usually have two options: protect yourself (and if applicable, others), or strike back. Ideally you would do both, but you can’t focus on both if you’re vulnerable. I would assume that the higher-ups at target decided that they were vulnerable, and that “protect yourself” was the way to go. (“Strike back” in this case would probably be to publicly middle finger them and hire more security.) I would assume that this is less about concern for employees and/or customers and more about the expense of cleaning bloodstains, repairing the resulting property damage, and keeping the affected stores closed for a few months. Of course, they’re not going to say that part out loud.
If I were to be a bit more fair and generous than major corporations deserve, I would assume that they made the calculation that there would be a backlash, but the backlash would largely fall on those threatening violence, not Target. If said backlash was effective at shutting down future threats, then it would be a good choice, perhaps even the best possible one, and not just for themselves. That’s two big ifs, though, and so it’s kind of risky, and I wouldn’t put high odds on this being their reasoning.
There are more options, though. One is capitulate. Depending on the circumstances, this can be an extreme and desperate form of protect yourself, attempted martyrdom, or merciful self-destruction/suicide. (I say “attempted martyrdom” because martyrdom doesn’t work if barely anyone knows or cares.) Another is switch sides, which depends on whether your enemy allows this. Yet another is to mostly ignore the problem and let the trash take itself out, which only works if you’re not merely largely invulnerable but your enemy is ineffectual, something which Target has apparently judged to be untrue or at least not worth the risk of finding out the hard way, due to the increase of right-wing violence in recent years. The last is to form alliances, to become no longer vulnerable, so you can effectively focus on both “protect yourself” and “strike back” at the same time. Do you really expect the major corporations to ally with each other in any effective way, though?
(continued from previous, but you don’t need to have read it first)
…There is an option which everyone else can take in response to this situation which does not require Target’s cooperation: “a plague on both your houses”. Kick the corps (and the cops) out of pride. If you must do pride merch, do indie. Something which should probably happen eventually anyway, though I doubt this will be the trigger. The “sensible” queers can stay home and throw private parties. If you’re safe and mainstream enough that the major corporations catering to you is among your biggest concerns, you’re probably beyond the point of needing pride, but there are other still, more radical and/or vulnerable ones who still need it.
The reason why I doubt we’re there yet is because doing so would both require a critical mass of agreement and local/regional plans for what comes after, both of which takes time to develop. Reacting without some degree of larger-scale coordination (even just loose coordination) while there’s still some open warfare would just create unnecessary vulnerabilities. For example, if we get rid of the cops, we still need security, and it would help a lot if said security wasn’t something easily portrayed as thugs with barbed-wire bats. Also if Target is the only one which gives in, reacting this way would be jumping the gun, anyway; they might walk it back later, and we could just boycott them if they don’t. (Not that boycotts are all that effective nowadays, but it’s still something.)
Re: protecting staff employees. I guess that Target could respond to harassment and threats by bringing in security, but then what are the chances that the bigots will respond by shooting up a Target? Reasonably high, by how things seem to be.
All I know is that anti-Pride hatred is worse than ever right now and even across the pond here right wingers are seriously buying into the false accusations of grooming. They’re not even blaming trans-people either, but everyone under the flag. It’s really upsetting to watch. And it baffles me how they can so quickly jump to a baseless and heinous belief, while no doubt continuing to whine about the “false accusations” of #MeToo.
It’s amoral “Cancel Culture” when these people do it, a righteous boycott when those people do it.
Anyway, piss off the left, you probably get a bunch of keyboard warriors trying to cancel you and failing, piss off the right and you might get shot. Understandable you might treat it differently even if you were theoretically unbiased
@Alan-
There are a lot of us queer and trans folk who don’t have the option of hiding our visible difference in order to feel safe.
If individual Target employees feel unsafe, they have the choice to ask for positions off the floor or to find another job. They have options to manage their safety on an individual level.
How much more UNsafe does it make visibly queer and trans people to have a massive and powerful organization such as Target publicly state that violence against us and our allies is EFFECTIVE at forcing us out of public life? More and more of us will be attacked just for daring to go outside.
It’s not “suck it up buttercup” to say that it’s literally the very height of privilege and cowardice to opt out of a limited and minimal danger in a manner that directly offsets it onto people who do not have the choice to safely sit this one out.
@Chase Lara: I don’t think that’s the main issue here. If *every* employee of a particular Target, including the cishets are afraid, due to the risk of someone coming in with an AK-47 and mowing down everyone they see, who exactly is going to be manning the floor?
Well, in a better world, the people who actively cheer on open terrorism like all those fascist grifters would get some consequences for their actions and the people who get targeted would be under protection.
But the social media platforms, law enforcement and the companies are not on the side of LBGTQ+ people. Those are, sadly, the people that are allowed to be threatened.
Ladies, gentlemen, and assorted non-binary people, guess what?
It’s schadenfreude time!
https://truthout.org/articles/glitches-on-twitter-interrupt-ron-desantiss-2024-presidential-campaign-launch/
@ chase lara
I do get your point; but unfortunately terrorism does work.
Now sometimes shows of defiance can undermine the effectiveness of terrorism. We had that here after the 7/7 bombings. People were posting “You missed me” as a hashtag, and there were memes about how “we’ve been bombed by a better class of bastards than you”. (And there was the whole global war on terror thing.)
But that was on a city wide level; and statistically the chances of being a victim when the whole country was a target were pretty remote.
Here though, a specific chain has been identified as a target. And all past indications would suggest this is a genuine threat. Or at least a subject of legitimate concern.
So I’m afraid I can’t agree with you on this:
I don’t think it’s cowardice for a minimum wage shop worker to not want to take a bullet; and I think it’s a bit unfair to say that if an employee isn’t willing to die if necessary then they should find another job.
I totally get how this can make you feel abandoned. But short of stores arming their staff to the same level as the potential assailants, I’m not sure what the solution is.
Allyship requires action. Sometimes, it requires increasing the risk of being in the line of fire in order to alleviate a fraction of the burden of violence from those being targeted. Nice white people who believed in desegregation but stayed home because of the dogs and the hoses were cowards. Target’s behavior here is cowardly. Terrorism only works if enough people decide that the illusion of their safety is more important to them than other people’s lives.
Frankly, we’re no more likely to get shot up in Target than in any other public place, and that will only keep increasing as we prove that it doesn’t matter the setting, we’re willing to accept it. Acquiescing to public violence always positively reinforces it.
I mean, the obvious solution is that domestic right-wing terrorism needs to be taken properly seriously.
In practice, of course, after generations of the domestic right-wing terrorists being actively courted as a political body to the point of many of them effectively being the government and the police (and, frankly, U.S. history being such that right-wing white supremacists have been the powers-that-be for most of that history), that’s not happening in the timeframe of anybody’s life expectancy here. Especially not with the way said domestic terrorists have weaponized their Heckler’s Veto by using Freedom of Speech from the First Amendment to insist that they have the right to say anything they want to no matter the consequences, and then the expansive interpretations of the Second Amendment to threaten anybody who tries to use Freedom of Speech against them.