Gender, Representativeness and Reputation in StackOverflow

[rusi]

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:51:07 -0400, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> > When people boycott a product, it isn't because not having the product
> > is better than having the product. That's clearly untrue: despite the
> > reasons for the boycott, the product has some value. They boycott it
> > because by doing so, they can get something better than <product with
> > badness> or <nothing> -- they can get <product without badness>. (At
> > least, in theory :)
>

On Jul 24, 10:34 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt... at pearwood.info> wrote:
> I don't think that's why people boycott products. I think that boycotts
> are a clear example of people making a moral decision to punish somebody
> for doing wrong, even at the cost to themselves. Sometimes significant
> costs, as in missing out altogether.
>

I dont see so much difference -- maybe you missed the 'badness' in
Devin's quote?

People who lose family, get jailed, blown-up etc for causes they
believe in, have the equation (at least in their value-system) that
the 'badness' is enough that these eventualities are acceptable.