Slightly off-topic from the intended point, but I've heard this more often, that there's no such thing as a fish, but it's a useful constructed concept to have.
So why is it so important that we all remember that animals like whales are not fish, they're mammals? Didn't stop us from calling animals from other groups fish, why should mammals get a special treatment?
I guess I'm not growing old
I sometimes wonder now if the plan is to stop having allies, and instead just make an American version of Wagner. Privatised American military fights for the highest bidder, buys lots of material from the American MIC, makes the world a worse place but makes a lot of money of it. I doubt it would be more profitable than a permanent inflow of 2% of the yearly GDP from several of the richest countries in the world, but I wouldn't put it past them to think that it would be.
I've spent years now trying not to consume products from companies I consider immoral. There are a lot of them and, realistically, you won't make a big dent or bring the company down. The average person is, by definition, average, so a boycott based on people doing the good thing at the expense of some personal discomfort will always fail.
But that doesn't mean it's pointless. Companies like Amazon are almost impossible to compete with because of their size. The most important impact you can have as a consumer is not that the lack of your personal revenue is going to keep the likes of Jeff Bezos up at night. It's that you're providing revenue and a user base to alternative businesses that are struggling to exist in a world where most people just use Amazon.
You can make a real difference this way! Focus on growing competitors rather than hoping the bad company will go away because of your abstention. Kind of like using Lemmy instead of Reddit.
While you are staying, your productivity is fueling the economy, and the taxes you pay go to the government you dislike. If you flee, that's a big economic difference you're making over the years. I guess if you fight symbolically but non-pragmatically and get arrested, they have to feed you and house you in a prison which will cost a little extra, but compared to your non-productivity that's just a small bonus. Fleeing also means you get to proactively contribute to competitors and reward them for being a better place to live, which in a way doubles your economic impact. There's a reason the Berlin wall was built and North Korea executes 3 generations of the families of defectors. People are valuable, and they can't afford to lose too many of them.
On the other hand, if your threshold for fleeing is too low, there are no competitors to support, because every country has their issues, and some may be at a risk of the same developments as the country you're fleeing from, making it a pointless exercise. And your loved ones could be essentially hostages that can be used to make you stay.
So it kind of depends, but at least the cowardice argument seems pointless to me. Pragmatic small-scale effectiveness tends to beat symbolic perfectionism at making an impact.