The hermit never partakes in the evil to begin with, so what he's doing isn't a boycott. You have to use something (or intend to use something) in order to say you're boycotting it. Saying you're boycotting evil implies you'd use evil if it met a certain set of conditions, or that you were a prior user of evil until it became 'too evil'.
In this scenario the hermit has never used an evil service. But he's not actually changing or improving anything; no-one in society notices he's boycotting anything because he's a hermit, hidden away, not buying (and therefore, not interacting with anything). It's only through the Fox asking do we even learn there's a boycott, and as the Fox implies, the hermit hasn't actually changed anything.
I see parallels with medics who pushed out the DeathVax™️but said nothing.
Aesop's Fables often apply to multiple situations.
Despite the age of some of the original Fables, many of them still hold true today.
The Aged Lion and the Fox I think is one apt example of the poison shots:
https://fablesofaesop.com/the-fox-and-the-sick-lion.html
I liked the hermit, the man who stole from himself, and the man who didn’t actually fight the government… something to think about
Pretty Good , still pretty accurate ThAnks!
The hermit never partakes in the evil to begin with, so what he's doing isn't a boycott. You have to use something (or intend to use something) in order to say you're boycotting it. Saying you're boycotting evil implies you'd use evil if it met a certain set of conditions, or that you were a prior user of evil until it became 'too evil'.
In this scenario the hermit has never used an evil service. But he's not actually changing or improving anything; no-one in society notices he's boycotting anything because he's a hermit, hidden away, not buying (and therefore, not interacting with anything). It's only through the Fox asking do we even learn there's a boycott, and as the Fox implies, the hermit hasn't actually changed anything.
There's deeper layers to this.