couple of points:
a) this is also: "pick my own comfort"? which is probably what your average joe is doing when he crosses a picket line: he doesn't care either way.
b) the argument has been somewhat based on solidarity. as many have already mentioned, the default is always to not cross the picket line. but if the organization picketing discriminates against people like me, i may feel no solidarity with them. instead, i may have to use personal judgement on whether their cause outweighs their bigotry.
> If the HRC calls a protest against some anti-gay reactionary, do I say to
> hell with them (and effectively side with the reactionary)...
that's a good hypothetical actually. will those who require that "not crossing the picket line" be an axiomatic, unthought action, afford the same unquestionable axiomatic status to the above case? more importantly, would a (or majority of) union member(s)?
if i were to be picketing burger king for inhumane treatment of animals, including serving them as food, how my unquestioned solidarity would i receive? my guess is: zero. perhaps apart from organic food yuppies, as someone else ridiculed in another response.
woj argues that in most of the civilized world (i think that was his term, but i could be wrong) such solidarity is a given, and only in a "shithole" like america would it even be questioned. but this shithole has better immigration policies than almost all of western europe. how is an immigrant (say from the third world) to consider such calls for unquestioned solidarity? or the similar call for unquestioned solidariy from flag-waving americans?
> If you have to be a saint to be deserving of solidarity, then no one
> qualifies.
the more pertinent approach may be this: there is a range of attitudes from the saint down to the devil (say "george bush" for this exercise). at some point of devility, solidarity ends. do we estimate that point based on high-level rules presented as axioms (thou shall not cross a picket line), or from some more fundamental moral values (thou shall not restrict the life opportunities and experiences of others, thou shall not harm other living creatures, etc)? if the latter, then definitely reasoning has to be involved in answering the question of solidarity. if the former, with greater priority over the latter, then am i not being asked to act against moral fundamentals that i hold (which have not been proved wrong)?
> And once again, people are making this issue far more complicated than it
> is.
i agree. i believe the complication arises from the requirement that others act in solidarity without thought. i can understand that individual reasoning can be misguided without access to the breadth of information that may be required, but i am unconvinced that that's a reason to banish it.
--ravi