I don’t buy and have never bought anything by Nike either, but I respectfully disagree with you about the significance of Nike choosing to associate itself with someone who — unlike its past associations — is not an elite athlete at the very pinnacle of his sport, but rather, is known primarily for protesting, disrupting team chemistry and directing hatred toward his own nation. I am not aware of any other major brand that purports to cultivate a national and international customer base doing anything like that, and I think Nike is really making a major statement here. To be clear, as I explained in my original article on this issue, I think the company’s primary motivations are financial rather than ideological, but the ideological significance of the move should not be understated. If this move by Nike works, it’s going to greatly accelerate our already politically polarizing society, where brands are going to start sorting themselves more and more into “liberal” and “conservative” boxes, and we’re going to have liberals and conservatives shopping in different stores, eating at different restaurants and wearing different brands. Moreover, I think conservatives and centrists don’t speak up enough as it is. They don’t get their preferences heard because they stay silent, like you’re advising, with the result that the online Twitter mob composed of the most vocal and regressive Alt-Leftists rules the roost. This is part of why big brands like Nike think they can get away with stuff like this. They assume we’re just going to fulminate about it for a few days and then go away. It sets a dangerous precedent.