Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits. In our third segment this week,
Speaker 1: we look at a conservative activist and as financial crusade
Speaker 1: against woke companies. Conservative activist Robbie Starbuck recently launched a
Speaker 1: boycott against Harley Davidson, criticizing the company for supporting LGBTQ
Speaker 1: plus initiatives and other woke causes. Starbuck, who previously targeted
Speaker 1: companies like Tractor Supply and John Deere for similar reasons,
Speaker 1: claims his efforts aim to remove politics from corporate America.
Speaker 1: His campaigns have resonated with some conservative audiences, but they've
Speaker 1: also sparked backlash, particularly from those who see his actions
Speaker 1: as divisive and harmful. While Starbuck argues that businesses should
Speaker 1: stay neutral on social issues, critics argue that diversity and
Speaker 1: inclusion are crucial for modern company's success. This story is
Speaker 1: from USA Today by Jessica Gwinn on August second, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, and Aaron, I would like to go to
Speaker 1: you first on this one. So, Aaron, political activism, much
Speaker 1: like the atheist activism we practice, depends on voices of
Speaker 1: the activists to prompt change. What are the voices telling
Speaker 1: you with this story?
Speaker 2: Well, it's something that this guy's got the loudest voice,
Speaker 2: and the loudest voice is the voice that wins. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: the it's not the fairest voice, it's not the most
Speaker 2: just voice, it's not the it's just it's the loudest.
Speaker 2: Whoever's gonna make the most noise, make the biggest ruckus.
Speaker 2: That's usually who people listen to. And and unfortunately, there's
Speaker 2: I don't see a lot of voices out there countering this,
Speaker 2: this gentleman's message, you know, and I don't see people
Speaker 2: out there working to shut him down and make sure
Speaker 2: that the loudest voice is the fairest voice, is the
Speaker 2: voice that wants diversity and wants equality. And you know,
Speaker 2: these people that are working.
Speaker 3: Harder, and they work hard, and we need to work
Speaker 3: we need work harder. And I don't.
Speaker 2: Understand where this is what he has what's his beef? Right,
Speaker 2: It's it's why does he care what these companies are doing?
Speaker 2: What's what's And for some reason, I think it's because
Speaker 2: that for white men are seem to be losing, they
Speaker 2: seem to be losing their their their power in our
Speaker 2: country and our culture. And I believe he's scared of that.
Speaker 2: And you know, he's not the only voice, he's not
Speaker 2: the only person out there who is decrying these uh
Speaker 2: rallying against diversity in equity. And it's almost like these
Speaker 2: guys also kind of have maybe have a deep understand
Speaker 2: of how economic systems have worked historically, that economic systems
Speaker 2: really rely on a base.
Speaker 3: Of underpaid or not paid at all worker class that
Speaker 3: they can take advantage of any time and use that underpaid,
Speaker 3: unpaid worker class to make them enrich themselves. And that's
Speaker 3: really what is going on here, is he doesn't he
Speaker 3: doesn't want to see himself lose power, and he doesn't
Speaker 3: want to see uh and he loses he loses power
Speaker 3: by having a more diverse and equitable workforce.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that there's some kind of well, there's
Speaker 1: a there's a quiet part, right you say, the quiet
Speaker 1: part quiet and the loud part loud, and so that
Speaker 1: there's some kind of well known arterial theial motive going
Speaker 1: on here.
Speaker 3: The quiet part is you want really underpaid workers so
Speaker 3: that you can enrich yourself. That's that's the quiet part, right.
Speaker 3: But look look at the rate.
Speaker 2: Of increase of salaries and a in the United States,
Speaker 2: and it has been flat.
Speaker 1: For a long time flat for the workers.
Speaker 3: For workers, yeah, workers are not keep it keeping up
Speaker 3: with inflation. Workers are making.
Speaker 2: Less what they have and minimum wage is not minimum
Speaker 2: wage and most of the country has not gone up
Speaker 2: for a very long time.
Speaker 1: All right, Thanks Aaron. Let's jump over to Jimmy here.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Starbuck is a political activist and he couches his
Speaker 1: opinions in a political context. Can you comment on some
Speaker 1: of the political motivations and implications of his efforts?
Speaker 4: Well, sure, I think there is definitely some credibility to
Speaker 4: what Aaron's saying as far as white men feeling like
Speaker 4: they've lost power in this country, which obviously is ridiculous.
Speaker 4: I mean, they still overwhelmingly hold a majority, especially in government.
Speaker 4: When we look at elected officials in our country, they're
Speaker 4: overwhelmingly white men. So this idea that white men are
Speaker 4: losing power is a little bit crazy to me. I
Speaker 4: think that the election of Barack Obama really angered a
Speaker 4: lot of would be biggots who were hiding kind of
Speaker 4: in the tall grass, and they expose themselves once a
Speaker 4: person or once we saw this kind of far right
Speaker 4: push that came after Barack Obama, and so I think
Speaker 4: a lot of people felt emboldened to kind of speak up.
Speaker 4: The thing is, though, and let me get to the point,
Speaker 4: I don't know what being a conservative and bigotry have
Speaker 4: to do with each other. So unfortunately in this country
Speaker 4: we've seen bigotry become intertwined with conservative politics. But conservatism
Speaker 4: is not something that really needs to be enmeshed in bigotry. Conservatism,
Speaker 4: traditionally speaking is just, and you can be somebody who
Speaker 4: advocates for small government and still not be a bigot.
Speaker 4: For some reason, though we see those things being mutually exclusive,
Speaker 4: and so to be a conservative doesn't mean you need
Speaker 4: to speak out against dei policies. In fact, if you're
Speaker 4: a conservative, you should recognize that the smaller the government
Speaker 4: and the more disproportionate your population is by ethnicity, that
Speaker 4: the smaller population, that smaller ethnicity is probably going to
Speaker 4: be disparaged in some way. Our history tells us that.
Speaker 4: It tells us that. So, you know, conservatives like to
Speaker 4: take the stance that they are excuse me, representative of
Speaker 4: what the founders intended, right. They take a hard, hard
Speaker 4: line approach or a strict constructionist view of the constitution,
Speaker 4: where everybody gets equal rights. Well, if you play this
Speaker 4: conservative card and you advocate for small government, not every
Speaker 4: everybody's going to have equal rights. And so it might
Speaker 4: even make sense to be a conservative and advocate from
Speaker 4: the government not being involved in your affairs as a
Speaker 4: business owner, and also recognizing that maybe we need some
Speaker 4: safeguards to ensure everybody's treated equally and has the equal opportunities.
Speaker 4: And so that's my point there.
Speaker 1: You know, Jimmy, both you and Aaron mentioned that, you know,
Speaker 1: there doesn't have to be a necessary connection between conservativism
Speaker 1: and bigotry, right, and so it seems like why, you know, why,
Speaker 1: why does it? At least it seems to us on
Speaker 1: a show like this, it's it seems to us that
Speaker 1: that particular mindset, the conservative mindset, seems to be drawn
Speaker 1: to that type of belief and interaction. And I know
Speaker 1: it seems like I bring up this this research too often,
Speaker 1: too often on the nonprofits, But there was a there
Speaker 1: was a study done that shows that there is a
Speaker 1: strong the difference, the biggest difference between a conservative mindset
Speaker 1: and a liberal mindset is authoritarianism. And that and it's
Speaker 1: not because it's not because the conservative mindset encourages authoritarianism.
Speaker 1: It's the other way around. And so it's it's rather
Speaker 1: than dividing people by are you conservative or liberal, you
Speaker 1: can divide them by are you are you pro authoritarianism
Speaker 1: or are you against it? And then the group that
Speaker 1: is pro authoritarianism is way more likely to be conservative politically,
Speaker 1: is way more likely to be conservative religiously, is way
Speaker 1: more concerned about things like purity and loyalty and that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. And so I think I think there
Speaker 1: is kind of a roundabout tie from the from the
Speaker 1: conservative mindset to this idea of bigotry through that conduit
Speaker 1: of authoritarianism and purity.
Speaker 4: But I would I would say that that is unique
Speaker 4: to the United States, though, because if you look at
Speaker 4: another country like Hungary, for example, they don't have a
Speaker 4: minority African American population that's going to be disparaged the
Speaker 4: more conservative they are, right, So conservatism means something different
Speaker 4: in a country like that than it does here. So
Speaker 4: when you get that kind of population in a country
Speaker 4: that's got disproportionate groups, you're going to see disproportionate a
Speaker 4: disproportionate splitting of the resources and splitting of the gains
Speaker 4: of that society between those groups because one is essentially
Speaker 4: going to control the other, and being conservative means that
Speaker 4: that group gets to be more authoritarian over the rest
Speaker 4: of them. So I don't know. I hope that makes
Speaker 4: make sense.
Speaker 1: Oh no, yeah, that was a thanks for thanks for
Speaker 1: adding that. I'm glad you did. I want to jump
Speaker 1: over to Eli here real quick. So Eli, to you
Speaker 1: and I, this seems like a ridiculous overreaction, of course
Speaker 1: on on Starbucks part. What could prompt such a strong
Speaker 1: reaction from him?
Speaker 5: Well, I think it is just like Jimmy said, and
Speaker 5: it's this this power that white men have, the idea
Speaker 5: that they're losing and also don't necessarily realize that they have.
Speaker 5: At the same time, I think the last time you
Speaker 5: and I Scott talked about the white standardism and how
Speaker 5: a lot of you know, white people will have this
Speaker 5: idea that like, just the way that my life is
Speaker 5: is just a standard way, and that's like most people
Speaker 5: feel that way and just don't recognize that different people
Speaker 5: have different perspectives unless and I think that's probably true
Speaker 5: for the majority perspective, because we are not living in
Speaker 5: somebody else's perspective. So Robbie Starbuck says in his rent.
Speaker 5: He says, just get rid of social issues and a
Speaker 5: divisive causs and that's such a violently unaware statement. And
Speaker 5: I think because I think what makes it so divisive
Speaker 5: is this idea that the way that it always has
Speaker 5: been is the way that it should continue to be,
Speaker 5: because that's the way where I was basically allowed to
Speaker 5: treat other people however I wanted, and I could like
Speaker 5: benefit the most, and I liked it that way, and
Speaker 5: that made me the most comfortable, and I went that back,
Speaker 5: and it's it's not you know, go and these whole
Speaker 5: like the Pride flags in the tractor supply company store,
Speaker 5: those don't affect Robbie Starbuck. The DEI programs that any
Speaker 5: of these companies use, they don't affect Robbie Starbuck negatively
Speaker 5: in any way. He just wants to be hateful and
Speaker 5: get it back to the way he's used to having
Speaker 5: it because that's what he likes. It's just ignorance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you mentioned that that phrase white standardism, and I
Speaker 1: remember when we talked. That came up in a story
Speaker 1: we covered on the nonprofits a few weeks ago, and
Speaker 1: the context was it was an African American woman was
Speaker 1: talking about how history, and I think it was Arizona,
Speaker 1: maybe New Mexico had been whitewashed. And she said, you
Speaker 1: might not be a white supremacist, but you're a white standardist.
Speaker 1: And what that means is that you think of being
Speaker 1: white as like the default, as the as the standard,
Speaker 1: and anything else's deviations from from being white. And so
Speaker 1: I wonder if that I mean to me that this
Speaker 1: story here just kind of reeks of that of that
Speaker 1: white standards and that we were talking about before. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's jump back over to Aaron here. Aaron, you
Speaker 1: you kind of painted a dark picture of capitalism earlier.
Speaker 1: What changes could we make to the way that we
Speaker 1: examine capitalism or change capitalism itself? What what can we
Speaker 1: do that can lighten up this dark picture a little bit?
Speaker 2: Well, let me read something from you for you. I
Speaker 2: don't think, yeah, I don't think. I don't think this
Speaker 2: gets red and talked about enough. Okay, most of us,
Speaker 2: we'll find this familiar. We the people of the United States,
Speaker 2: in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
Speaker 2: ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
Speaker 2: general warfare, welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
Speaker 2: ourselves and our pasterity, do our dain and establish this
Speaker 2: Constitution of the United States of America. I love the
Speaker 2: Preamble to the Constitution because it tells us exactly why
Speaker 2: the Constitution exists and why our government exists. It basically
Speaker 2: exists to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
Speaker 2: our posterity. If you look in this country, let's say
Speaker 2: reincarnation is a real thing, and that well, we're all
Speaker 2: going to get reincarnated. Look around this country and if
Speaker 2: somebody asks you, well, who, what kind of a person,
Speaker 2: with what kind of a nationality or race, or sexuality,
Speaker 2: gender would you like to be born as.
Speaker 3: In this country? And if the answer is I don't care,
Speaker 3: then we have some work to do. And you know
Speaker 3: what I think, I don't think people can answer it, well,
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter, right, I think it does matter how
Speaker 3: you're born and who you're born in this country. And
Speaker 3: that's a shame. That means that there are groups that
Speaker 3: don't have and there are groups that have. And it's
Speaker 3: the purpose of our government to make sure that everybody
Speaker 3: has secured the blessings of liberty for themselves, regardless of
Speaker 3: their race, their nationality, their sexuality, or their gender. And
Speaker 3: I think our government needs to step up and it
Speaker 3: needs to help people have better wages. It needs to
Speaker 3: help people have medical bills that don't crush them. Is
Speaker 3: to help people get educated, to provide education for people
Speaker 3: so they have opportunities to improve their lives. So I
Speaker 3: think I think to solve this problem, it requires government intervention,
Speaker 3: It requires government regulation and to help improve and secure
Speaker 3: the blessings of liberty for everybody in this country, regardless
Speaker 3: of how you were who you were born as.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you mentioned that what was that the
Speaker 1: veil of ignorance morality?
Speaker 5: Is that?
Speaker 1: I think it was John Wrawles that that said that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and yeah, that's a really good perspective to have. You know,
Speaker 1: if if you want to judge the fairness or judge
Speaker 1: the judge's system, just imagine if you don't get to
Speaker 1: pick what role you're going to play in an organization
Speaker 1: or in that system or whatever. And you know, that
Speaker 1: really gets people thinking about other people because you don't
Speaker 1: know if you're going to be the other people or
Speaker 1: if they're going to be the other people, right, And
Speaker 1: so if you don't know that, then uh, if you're
Speaker 1: if you're making decisions based on position, then that's taking
Speaker 1: advantage of the fact that you're in that position. That's
Speaker 1: exercising that privilege. And and so I and I also
Speaker 1: appreciate that you read us the preamble to the Constitution there.
Speaker 1: I agree. I think that's uh. I think we should
Speaker 1: read that a little more often. But anyway, I digress
Speaker 1: a little bit here. I Uh, let's jump down to
Speaker 1: uh to Eli here, Eli, So we talked about maybe
Speaker 1: there's racial motivations, maybe there's some political motivations. It seems
Speaker 1: like there's some kind of maybe kind of deeper urge
Speaker 1: pushing Starbucks here into doing these kind of things. What
Speaker 1: do you think about that? So what he.
Speaker 5: Says here, like I said before, like this is all
Speaker 5: just about hate, Like I want to hate these people,
Speaker 5: and you're making it uncomfortable for me to do that.
Speaker 5: And he says at one point or does a quote
Speaker 5: from an article that says, if you give people the
Speaker 5: inform I am paraphrasing, but it says, if you give
Speaker 5: people the information, especially if you are doing it in
Speaker 5: a way that is focused at the right demographics and
Speaker 5: at the right customer base, then they are going to
Speaker 5: make wise choices. And what he means by that is,
Speaker 5: if you manipulate people, you can get them to do
Speaker 5: what you want. And I guess I shouldn't say that's
Speaker 5: what he means. I shouldn't, you know, put intent to it.
Speaker 5: But that's how I read that. That's how it feels,
Speaker 5: just coming from like the like the what he's been doing,
Speaker 5: like these campaigns that he's on that he finds to
Speaker 5: be so important that like, I haven't really made any
Speaker 5: change to the way that these companies do business other
Speaker 5: than like these particular products aren't on display anymore. It
Speaker 5: really just seems like the only reason for it is, Hey,
Speaker 5: the purpose of an ad campaign is to like draw
Speaker 5: in customers, and if if Harley Davidson wants to draw
Speaker 5: in customers that are of the LGBTQIA community, which I'm
Speaker 5: sure that they do, because like money doesn't have sex,
Speaker 5: so there's no wrong way, Like there's no wrong money,
Speaker 5: so I'm sure they want that money. There was in
Speaker 5: the article it said that there is one point four
Speaker 5: trillion dollars of purchasing power in the USA among the
Speaker 5: LGBTQIA community. So I know that Harley Davidson wants that money.
Speaker 5: So if they want to show that community that they
Speaker 5: are welcoming and inclusive to them, they need to include
Speaker 5: that community and welcome that community in their ad campaigns.
Speaker 5: This is one plus one. And like Robbie Starbuck's upsaid
Speaker 5: about it, the UFC fighter Sean Strickland, who was mentioned
Speaker 5: in the article saying that this is betrayal by Harley Davidson.
Speaker 5: That is treachery. And it seems to me that.
Speaker 6: If that's not a word of privilege right there, right exactly,
Speaker 6: if acknowledging that people that are different from you exist,
Speaker 6: like that's not betrayal, that's like snowflake narcissism.
Speaker 5: Yes, I'm calling calling Jean Strickland out because that just
Speaker 5: seems really fragile to me. To feel like you're being betrayed.
Speaker 5: If your image, if it is so important to your
Speaker 5: image to reject other people as people, then your image
Speaker 5: is fragile.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no shit, But you point out that. So in
Speaker 1: order to be able to apply that pressure, then he
Speaker 1: must be somewhat successful. Jimmy, let's jump down to you here.
Speaker 1: We've seen that's Arbuck has been successful in the past
Speaker 1: with tractor supply and with John Deere. They basically all
Speaker 1: but caved in to his demands. And now Harley Davidson
Speaker 1: is you know, on the edge or figuring out what
Speaker 1: to do here? What can these companies do other than
Speaker 1: what ELI has been suggesting, you know, just embracing it
Speaker 1: and going with it. Is there anything that they could
Speaker 1: do to resist that kind of business pressure?
Speaker 4: Well, I think that based off my sheer observation and
Speaker 4: not on any data. So this is dangerous, but I'm
Speaker 4: gonna I'm gonna go down this road anyway. And based
Speaker 4: off the fact that I have lived in New York
Speaker 4: and Texas and Florida, I would probably venture to say
Speaker 4: that Tractor Supply and John Deere do not have a
Speaker 4: large customer base or employment force that represents anybody other
Speaker 4: than the kind of conservative population. Right. Maybe there might
Speaker 4: be some onesie tuosies, but generally speaking, I don't think
Speaker 4: that they, you know, John Deere or Tractor Supplier in
Speaker 4: the middle of New York City and doing a whole
Speaker 4: lot of business. Right, I haven't seen one in Times
Speaker 4: Square recently. These are in the rural areas where things
Speaker 4: like that are common and where a mindset that is
Speaker 4: anti woke, if you will, is more common as well.
Speaker 4: Why not test this theory? Why not open up a
Speaker 4: business and do some business in the sectors of society
Speaker 4: that you have no connection with, and see how fruitful
Speaker 4: it is. I would agree that opening stores in urban
Speaker 4: liberal centers and going completely woke, hiring transgender people, hiring
Speaker 4: people that don't look like your neighbors for a twenty
Speaker 4: mile radius, you know, that's an experiment that I would
Speaker 4: love to see by some of these big organizations. I
Speaker 4: don't think that that Harley Davidson has fallen yet, because
Speaker 4: Harley Davidson is not quite as I think, conservatively aligned
Speaker 4: or rurally aligned if you can even use those words
Speaker 4: like that that way as the other companies that we've
Speaker 4: talked about. Right, So, just like Starbucks said, ironically not
Speaker 4: related to the corporation Starbucks by any means, but Starbuck
Speaker 4: himself had said, Look, I understand that Starbucks is a
Speaker 4: I don't know what he called it, like a liberal
Speaker 4: shit show or something like that. Whatever he goes, I
Speaker 4: completely I completely accept that that's who they are, and
Speaker 4: I go in and I get my coffee anyway, Right, Okay,
Speaker 4: so then what what is the problem? You must see
Speaker 4: the financial benefit and what is the problem with your
Speaker 4: your companies that you that you love so much getting
Speaker 4: a financial benefit as well, but also providing a safe
Speaker 4: and inclusive work environment for people who might want to
Speaker 4: work there, who might want to take on that company's
Speaker 4: mission and get a paycheck and be part of the team.
Speaker 4: What's wrong with that?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 3: I go for it?
Speaker 1: So you're saying not not only not only embracing the
Speaker 1: that portion of that what was it ELI one point
Speaker 1: four billion? Was that brillion? One point four trillion dollars?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 1: So I was off by three factors of ten there
Speaker 1: one point for trillion dollars. They want to get that
Speaker 1: rather than just targeting for that, rather than just creating
Speaker 1: an interaction or a company that is friendly to consumers. Jimmy,
Speaker 1: you're saying that they should incorporate that into their entire
Speaker 1: corporate identity, right, that they should be embracing at from
Speaker 1: the inside out. Almost.
Speaker 4: Well, I think they should just recognize the benefit and
Speaker 4: recognize the fairness. I don't think that they need to
Speaker 4: rebrand themselves. I just think that they don't need to
Speaker 4: be exclusive or what's the word discriminatory?
Speaker 1: Right? Yeah? Yeah, I don't think that that would require
Speaker 1: any kind of rebranding either, just to come out and
Speaker 1: say we recognize that there are other human beings. It
Speaker 1: seems that seems like a pretty basic thing to say.
Speaker 1: But I have one last question for all three of you,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to ask for a quick, short answer
Speaker 1: from each of the three of you. Clearly that we're
Speaker 1: talking about one guy here, Robbie Starbuck, and he's made
Speaker 1: kind of a big splash. So what does that tell
Speaker 1: us about the power of one person's voice and does
Speaker 1: that impact our perceptions of our own voices as we
Speaker 1: promote the ACA's position of promoting atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism,
Speaker 1: et cetera. What does that tell us about the ability
Speaker 1: of one person to make a difference. We'll go to
Speaker 1: Aaron first.
Speaker 3: We all can make a difference.
Speaker 2: We all can be that voice, that loud voice that
Speaker 2: affects change in the world. We just have to take
Speaker 2: the energy and the time to do.
Speaker 5: It, all right, Eli, The reason that Robbie Starbick was
Speaker 5: successful is because those companies recognize the platform that he
Speaker 5: has and the influence that he has. And it's just
Speaker 5: so it's just like you said it, like you use
Speaker 5: the platform, the influence you have to make the changes
Speaker 5: that you want to see. He wanted to see it,
Speaker 5: and he got it done, and you know I haven't
Speaker 5: done anything about it.
Speaker 1: All right, Jimmy last word here? What does what does
Speaker 1: Robbie Starbuck tell us about the power of the voice?
Speaker 4: Well, I think that he is showing us that an
Speaker 4: excellent communicator can play all the fears of people and
Speaker 4: have a negative outcome. Rather than use his voice for good,
Speaker 4: I think that he's using it for bad. And you
Speaker 4: know what, he's benefiting from it. We are talking about
Speaker 4: him right now. People are writing about him and following
Speaker 4: him because he makes a case so effectively even though
Speaker 4: he's wrong.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Okay, And that's the power of the voice.
Speaker 1: You've heard our voices on this