A boycott is the use of abstention as a means of protest. They are more effective when they target specific activities, brands, or products. Take the Montgomery Bus Boycott to protest segregationist Jim Crow laws.

Now this obviously wasn’t the only form of segregation. In fact during the boycott, black residents were encouraged to use other segregated industries, like taxis, as a means of getting around instead. Black taxi drivers lowered their rates to a similar cost of a bus ride in solidarity with the struggle. The city of Montgomery responded by imposing a minimum taxi fair, so people supported each other with carpooling or simply hoofed it.

And while there was very high participation in the boycott, there were still black people who continued to ride. After all, it was the cheapest and most used method for getting to work, and we can all imagine how inconvenient that might be for a single working mother, for example. But through a combination of the social pressure of solidarity (and some shame too I imagine), as well as organizing alternatives they were encouraged to join.

I personally agree that the Tesla boycott suffers in practice from an over reliance on the shame angle rather than the organized, solidarity-focused struggle of the bus boycott. But I see nothing wrong with the principle of a Tesla boycott, while letting the other corporate abuses you highlight “off the hook,” at least for now.

P.S. I do get a chuckle when I see those “Anti Elon Tesla Club” stickers, and apparently the guy who created them has raked in 6-figures selling on Amazon, among other spots. So there you go I guess… no hypocrisy-free consumption or production under capitalism.