And yet, Nike's sales surged when they brought on Kaepernick
> Despite Fox News and parts of the social mediasphere predicting the Swoosh’s downfall, the company claimed $163 million in earned media, a $6 billion brand value increase, and a 31% boost in sales.
it could have been for different reasons though: it was in an expensive spot with multiple floors, so maybe just had not been profitable anyway.
Within the last year, they opened up a way less nice Nike store about 5 miles away in a different outdoors mall, but it's more like the Nike outlets i've seen elsewhere.
There's a meme, where someone goes on a rant in the wrong location and someone responds "Sir, this is a Wendy's".
Maybe we need one for "Sir, this company sells shoes". It isn't clear to me why a person trying to sell shoes needs to take a stand about one politician or another. Except for the fact that there is only one thing partisans hate more than their enemies - the people who aren't part of the partisan fray.
The meme creator is unfortunately quite racist. I see it is a problem if extremists are the only ones comfortable making certain obvious true statements. It attracts the support of people who might otherwise remain moderate.
There is a large body of thought that encourages censorship of ideas which might bring people to undesirable conclusions. It feeds in on itself, and this is what happens.
It's incredible how far the Overton window has moved in only a decade. This nonpartisan Channel 4 fact-check on race and crime matches numerous criteria for "hate speech" under Reddit's current policies:
Channel 4 is definitely not considered fact based or center left; it's really very left wing indeed and is about as "fact based" as as the rest of the media (i.e. not very).
It's very telling that the top two most popular videos on Channel 4 News' YouTube channel are:
1. A weather man correctly pronouncing the name of the Welsh town of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
2. Jordan Peterson being interviewed by a C4 journalist. After it was uploaded it was described by one pundit as the most disastrous interview for the interviewer they'd ever seen. It has nearly 40 million views, mostly because the interviewer is so absurdly ideologically biased against Peterson and is clearly trying to paint him as absolute evil, yet he handles it (relatively) so well. At one point the interviewer actually becomes so confused she literally runs out of words and doesn't know what to say, leading Peterson to say, "hah, I gotcha" and she replies "yes, yes you have got me".
Businesses are supposed to be separate entities from the individuals who own them. I don't understand why people think businesses need to be political. If that's the case then just start your own Political Action Committee.
The zealot's standard rejoinder is that everything is political. See, also, you're either with us or against. What contemporary liberal politics has brought to the table is "science" that purports to show a simple, direct link between rhetorical opposition or even mere abstention, and directly consequential, imminent harm. See, e.g., claims re trans-gender suicides, or just today insinuations that compromises made in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act will kill minorities--https://www.npr.org/2022/08/17/1117725655/the-spending-bill-...
These are liberal analogs to, e.g., conservative claims about the how Civil Rights Act would directly lead to blacks and latinos raping and murdering whites, or in more recent years similar insinuations (and sometimes outright claims) regarding border controls. When you can draw a straight line between abstract policy preferences and the imminent death of an untold number of people, dissension becomes intolerable. Most people tend to agree with that sentiment on its face--that's why political rhetoric so often regresses to such stark terms--the sticking point is what that line looks like, if it even exists at all.
EDIT: I keep forgetting that the misuse of science is nothing new, so liberals aren't actually bringing anything new to the table in that regard. Of course science (certainly poor science, yet sadly mostly only in hindsight generally recognized as pseudo-science or non-science, e.g. Social Darwinism) was used to justify those example conservative claims, as well countless similarly specious claims from across the political spectrum going as far back as one cares to look, but particularly after empiricism displaced both institutional religion and rationalism as the fount of categorical truths.
> e.g., conservative claims about the how Civil Rights Act would directly lead to blacks and latinos raping and murdering whites
Are you sure that wasn't largely a southern Democrat thing? For the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, ~80% of Republicans voted for them. Meanwhile, only ~65% of Democrats voted for them. It was mostly southern Democrats filibustering/voting against the bills.
This is comparing apples and basketballs. The lurid arguments against the CRA were in fact from conservatives, but the parties weren't polarized the way they are now.
Before civil rights legislation, the Republicans were the party of capitalism, industry, protectionism, and to an extent urbanism; in the early 20th century they were defined mostly in terms of opposition to progressivism (antitrust, workers rights, regulation) and the New Deal. Democrats were the party of farmers, states rights, and (see previously) progressivism and the New Deal. You can look at this as a "conservative/liberal" split, but it's a different one than we have now.
It was only after the CRA that the process was set in motion to polarize the parties perfectly by conservative/liberal ideology (in the sense we use those terms today). And that process didn't even really finish until around the 1980 election; for example if you look at '70s Republican party platforms, for instance, they're still playing footsie with being pro-choice.
So it just doesn't mean much to rebut someone saying "conservatives opposed the CRA" with "no, the Democrats did". There were essentially 4 parties at the time: the liberal/conservative wings of both parties.
And let’s not forget these were very similar parties back then. Southern democrats were FDR democrats. Woodrow Wilson from 1916 is a model of a modern democrat that believes in experts and expert agencies running the country. George Wallace was a big labor guy.
I mean, at least at the highest level, businesses have to be political in their areas right? Internet companies should be involved in SOPA, car companies should be involved in emissions regulation, food companies should be involved in FDA regulation.
If I were running a business ethically, I'd want to mute my criticism of politics, including fairly extreme ones. Partisanship is tearing the world apart. I want people with different viewpoints to interact. That's the only way to address them. If we don't work together and we don't shop together, we'll grow more polarized as a result. Democracy isn't a battle, and you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them.
A business isn't a good venue for partisan change. It is an okay place for some types of politics (e.g. environmental sourcing), but not for explicitly partisan ones.
Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it. If I sell to everyone, and I have competitors who focus on the blue tribe and ones who focus on the red tribe, they'll have a competitive advantage over me with any given consumer, and I'll be left with the very few people who aren't on either side.
Have you tried engaging with a hardline democrat on abortion?
You note below that you’re from PA/OH, presumably places where democrats are used to having their beliefs challenged and republicans aren’t. The situation is quite the opposite in for example DC. (And those folks are much more educated than the folks where you’re from, and I’d expect a higher level of meta-cognition, but alas.)
What other examples can you think of? And how many Republicans have you tried discussing the consequences of abortion with? Recent polling[1] doesn't seem to agree with your characterization, so maybe you have just had bad luck with your delivery or respondents?
Spoiler alert: I'm probably what you'd call a hard line Republican
That said, yes, I've changed the minds of people with fixed ideals, many times, over several decades. Step one is to listen to them without trying to.
> Guns
What is the mindset that needs to be changed? Republicans, as a bloc, support the right of anybody of sound mind and character (presumptive prerequisites for being part of a potential [and hopefully unnecessary] well regulated militia) to own a gun. They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases, as long as those edge cases don't grow to be standardized restrictions. Maybe you think nobody should own a gun, I dunno, but if that's the case it seems like the kind of extreme absolutist position you're complaining about.
> "Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc
Again, what's the argument here? I can guess you are dog-whistling about how Republicans just want to use racial slurs or something, but it's just a guess and if I'm right then that's a pretty strawman type assumption. Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing?
> Vaccines being good
Republicans as a whole are fine with vaccinations, and most are vaccinated many times throughout their life. Don't let the backlash to COVID-19 trick you into thinking they aren't vaccinated for other things. Also, don't confuse vaccines with vaccine mandates, c'mon, no wonder you can't change their minds if that's what you're doing.
> Anything that helps another person is "socialism"
OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences. That is a very gross mischaracterization (in both the senses of disgusting and wholesale). Maybe you mean they are against the idea of welfare payments or wealth redistribution? Those are pretty nuanced concepts even still, so you really gotta get into a proper discussion. Based on these examples you've provided, I have a hard time believing you have really attempted to have a conversation with a Republican, or maybe you have just had very bad luck as I said earlier.
If you want to change minds, you have to know where they are and where you want them to be, and have a path for them to get from A to B.
I bet you and I agree on a lot of things if you'd just be willing to listen.
Not the OP you're replying to but: I think there's a chasm between what views Republican voters hold, and what the Republican party stands for, and not being able to distinguish between the two leads to people talking past each other.
And yet, being a Republican voter means implicitly endorsing the views of the Republican party. So maybe this chasm doesn't matter. If you vote for a person who explicitly is against climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, etc., then that says something about your own personal philosophy.
> They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases
The RNC is most certainly not however. No matter how many kids die in school shootings, any attempt to seriously tighten up the rules is met with a chorus of "they're taking our guns!". Getting anything passed took us.. how many school shootings?
> Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing?
Well, that framing is pretty disingenuous. And Republicans generally support that businesses should be able to serve whoever they want. Labelling a private company's platform as a pseudo-public forum is also at odds with the general ethos of "don't let the government tell me what to do". On top of this, the general outrage about deplatforming often entirely ignores the series of platform rule-breaking that leads up to said deplatforming.. and yet then if an unarmed black person gets killed by a cop, you'll so often hear cries of "just follow the law" coming from the right side.
In short, I consistently see Republican politicians / pundits / voters completely abandon their ideals the moment it begins to personally affect them. (Note: this until-it-affects-me probably explains the party's platform about LGBTQ+ issues, racial issues, etc.)
> OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences
Most of my family members, as the whole, are what I would call "reasonable republicans" who generally care about the principles of small government and not interfering too much with the economy. And yet some of them too occasionally fall into the Fox News inspired trap of labeling anything related to social welfare as "socialism". It's a real thing man.
> If you vote for a person who explicitly .... then that says something about your own personal philosophy.
I'd suggest 1984. Democrats do horrible things Fox News reports on. Republicans do horrible things NY Times report on. Each side votes on different information. In most cases, the information isn't even wrong (although sometimes it is). It's just that major politically-inconvenient things are simply omitted.
This isn't just the US with the red/blue split. The whole world is going with personalized they-are-the-enemy news. I see the same think happening in many countries with completely different ideological divisions.
> Labelling a private company's platform as a pseudo-public forum is also at odds
See Standard Oil and friends a century ago.
> ...if an unarmed black person gets killed by a cop...
Which happens, but not a statistically significant amount.
There is a much bigger problem with the criminal justice system (see The New Jim Crow for a good analysis), but it can't get fixed, in large part due to corruption on the side of the Democrats. The Democrats talk a good game, but are mostly against justice system reform. Law firms donate to Democrats, and anything which reduces the influence of money on justice consistently gets blocked by Democrats.
Police issues are more complex, with corruption on both sides (I'm sure you're familiar with the red side, but Democrats have strong union ties, including police unions).
> how many school shootings?
Not a statistically significant amount. If you want to save kids, improve road safety and have more COVID precautions. Seriously.
I'm not a Republican (let alone a hard-side one), but I do read both sides of the media, and both sides ignore facts, science, and reality.
Don't get me started on Democrats and charter schools. That's the biggest evolution / climate change of liberals.
Oh yeah, I think I might agree for the most part. The RNC and general party platform is very often not reflective of the people who vote Republican, and I can't yet figure out why that is (other than simple contrarianism). I don't think the official platform is so black and white as to be entirely disconnected from the voters, but i get it.
Your point about the cognitive dissonance in the "censorship" thing is very salient. I wasn't sure how to word it properly, so I threw "pseudo" on there to hedge it a little. I don't think I was being disingenuous, though; once you take at face value the de facto nature of social media being a (not the) primary method of information dissemination and conversation of the lesser man, the whole public/private thing becomes more academic. Yes, private companies can do what they want. No, I don't like being removed from them. Yes, I think that they should not be so heavy handed with removing opinion. No, I don't think any legislation is appropriate to remedy that concern. And so on. Nuance, you know? Which is what the original poster was saying Republicans don't have (along with ability to reason out consequences).
I dunno man, I just want to try to get "the other side" to realize we ain't all cardboard caricatures.
I guarantee there are a large number of people who vote Republican but who are willing to discuss abortion and maybe even are pro choice. There just might be other issues they want more that they think the Republican party will deliver on.
Those people probably don't go around identifying as Republicans publically.
In my experience, the vast majority of people don't let who they vote for define their identity.
> Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it...
Longer-term, that's a dangerous strategy in the social media era. The side you pick may regularly twist your arm to perform expensive demonstrations of loyalty to them. And (depends on where you are) potential customers who are less than comfortable with hyper-partisan politics may be more numerous than the red or blue zealots.
I think your initial ideas illustrate a truly naive viewpoint. This isn't about what your company wants. Your customers will create an identity for you and it's yours, whether you like it or not. You can choose to embrace it or to deny it, but even if you try to go the middle route, you're still making a call (usually it's "I'm ok with it").
Another way to look at it: There was a very popular hairstyle among alt-right youths a while back (actually, a couple now that I'm thinking about it). It didn't matter if you were alt-right: if you had that haircut, that's how people perceived you, because that's who adopted the style. It's no different with consumer products.
If alt-right nuts started buying up Jumpman products in droves, you can bet that the progressive fans of its brands would demand for the company to take a stand on their co-option or risk losing the progressives (because progressives buy sneakers too).
I think it gets the gnarliest in conversations about discrimination. We have notions of "protected classes" and "non-protected classes", and the recent discussions about caste discrimination are pretty exemplary. And sometimes you can't help but take a side. I don't know that I always think inaction is taking a side, but once you become aware of people taking actions in your company, like a higher caste firing a lower caste, it's harder to make that argument.
That's a huge reach. People aren't entitled to have everyone else take personal risks on their behalf. That is why it is worthy of respect when people do stick their necks out for others.
And yes, standing up against injustice is very often a personal risk.
This doesn't address what I said at all. Yes, we're all in the same system, so what?
Is a person obligated to risk their own position in that system for the sake of someone else? Legally, no. In many ethical systems, also no.
You claimed that people who are not taking action are complicit. Often that is absolutely not the case. Often in fact those people are helpless, bound by their own situations.
Let's take the example of a mugging. You walk past an alley, and you see someone pointing a gun at another person. Are you obligated to intervene? Of course not. You might be able to save that person's life or defuse the situation but you also just might get killed and accomplish nothing.
Let's take another example. Workplace bullying. You witness a person who is being very aggressive to a coworker, giving insults and maybe even being physical. Do you intervene? Of course you do, right?
Now imagine you have kids. Your spouse recently lost their job, you can't afford to also lose yours. Surely you wouldn't be risking your job by speaking up about this bullying right? Except the bully is your boss. And he's good friends with the CEO. But that's what HR is for right? You make an anonymous tip to HR. And nothing happens because HR won't act on an anonymous tip. So you should talk to them in person right? But that's putting yourself at risk and boy you really can't lose your job.
Why do people feel the need to rob others? Yes, sure there are some tiny percentage of people with severe mental illness who enjoy seeing others in pain but that's not the majority. The majority is due to a lack of opportunity combined with systemic oppression.
The problem of workplace bullying putting a job at risk is a problem which is a power imbalance inherent to capitalism. Forming unions, where people speak up for each other and stick together, is the best way to solve that problem without fundamentally changing the system.
Inaction is absolutely complicity. You're (personally) complicit in a lot of things, probably including treatment of refugees from ISIS in Turkey, the famine in Afghanistan, drug cartel in Mexico, and the Yemeni Civil War. I don't know where you live, but I could name dozens of local issues people are complicit in as well.
There are enough issues in the world that everyone's complicit on most of them.
Convince me why others being complicit in issues you care about is any worse than you being complicit in the issues I listed above.
Or consider that others might prioritize issues differently than you do.
"you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them."
This is painful and pointless unless it is a good faith discussion. But often people just use you as a sounding board to repeat rumors, gossip, and lies about whatever out-group currently in their crosshairs. Also what possible interaction can you have with someone that can compete with the slow drip of fear and hate they consumed nightly for the last decade from cable news for example.
If one side is advocating genocide and you want to mute your criticism of politics (so that you can make money, to be clear), that's a choice available to you, but it's neither ethical nor respectable.
I agree with you that partisanship and polarization are making it worse. However, you imply that "both sides" are just as extreme, but that isn't often the case. Let's exaggerate it to: "Russians buy sneakers too" or "Taliban are religious too" or something alike. A business saying "We want the Russian military and the Ukrainian civilians to interact, share different viewpoints and prevent partisanship" would sound ridiculous.
My example is obviously exaggerated but my point is: Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S., so it doesn't come across odd that some businesses for ethical reasons and some for efficient reasons try to position themselves against it.
If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, that is not an extreme political position.
This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
A religious person who believes absolutely in no murder might think that Ukrainians have a duty to retreat; land isn’t worth the price of a single life. Many others feel differently.
But how personal ethics and belief tie into law and governance IS politics.
I understand your viewpoint, but can't agree with you. Dismissing everything as just politics and giving every viewpoint the same validity would mean that "rape should be legal" and "raising the tax by 1%" are equally valid positions or opinions to hold. Sure, there may be people which would agree with that assessment and calling one viewpoint extreme might seem be divisive to you or ignoring that it's just politics. But I can't agree with you. I find that notion absurd.
A non straw man of your first argument would be the definition of “rape.” Most people believe forced sex should be illegal.
But rape also means consent, in America, so you get “statutory” rape, and Romeo and Juliet laws, and different handling of intoxication all over the world. If two people are black out drunk, can either rape the other if they ostensibly agreed while intoxicated? Does it matter the sex of the participants?
Look no further than any Reddit post and you will see that at least some people think a 17 year old male having sex with a 25 year old female teacher should not be considered rape.
The definition of rape is unequivocally political.
Absolutely, there are lines and some are blurry and worthy of discussion. I'm not trying to deny that. I just wanted to exaggerate an example to get my point across. I could have said "forced sex of a one-year-old by a sane adult" but that's not what I tried to convey.
I try to state that some positions are so out-there (I'm sorry for a lack of a better term) that they are extreme and not part of sane or normal (for a lack of a better term) political discourse. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to talk with these people or shun them. Just that pretending they are normal is dangerous. Politicians insisting 1+1 equals 3 is extreme but maybe not harmful, someone insisting Jews are not people got 6 million killed. That's why I can't agree that it's just politics, if such a position can have real dangerous and harmful implications. I hope I could make my point more clear.
If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, which has nothing to do with attitude.
Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not.
This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
> Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not
And many Republicans "find it obvious" that the Democrats are going to destroy the USA by supporting insert whatever Republicans are angry about today. Gay Rights, or something
As Objectively Correct you think you are, they think they are equally Objectively Correct. You are being equally dismissive of them as they are of you, and therefore you are also part of the problem.
Seeing their side doesn't mean you are obligated to COMPROMISE with them, but as long as you are dismissing them outright as having "crossed a line", you're just as extreme as they are.
Saying they crossed a line or even declaring something extreme doesn't mean I can't see or understand their side. Let's bring it back to my example: I understand and see why Russians think they are fighting a just war. If possible, I would want a peaceful diplomatic solution and being open to talks is the first step. That however doesn't mean that they aren't occupying an extremist position.
I think me, labeling one side extreme, implied they should be ignored or shunned etc. This is not the case. I only labeled them extreme.
> Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not.
Republicans have just inherited a bunch of low-information voters in the Midwest that used to vote Democrat, and have kind of lost control of them. The one’s going on about Diebold machines and whatnot in 2004. I’ve had a bunch of weird ass conversations with Joe Rogan type democrats over the years. The lengths establishment republicans have to go to appease them are disconcerting. But Trump voters remind me a lot of the “common people” back in my home country of Bangladesh, not anything novel.
By contrast, the ideologies that have taken hold among progressive elite democrats are alarming precisely because of who has embraced those ideas. This happened at my law school, for example: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/northwestern-univers.... These are people with influence and power who can actually change society, and we can’t vote for them or anything! They want to run a large scale experiment on American culture, and unlike some unemployed veteran, they have the resources and positions to make those changes whether they rest of us like it or not. That’s way scarier.
Sure. They recognize someone who shares their values—his positions are quite typical of Cubans and Tejanos—but whose language skills are consistent with being a second generation immigrant, versus someone who speaks Spanish as window dressing for peddling white values. Cruz, moreover, is someone who has assimilated into white culture to the limited extent the GOP demands—speak English and believe in guns and capitalism—and does not hide the ball about it. Beto, by contrast, represents the strain of white culture that insists on complete assimilation while professing multiculturalism. You can have diversity, so long as it’s completely superficial and non-threatening.
My Bangla isn’t great, but I live 10 minutes away from my parents, worry what my aunties will think, and believe that my dad is right about most things. I find Trump voters quite relatable. Apart from the same skepticism of outsiders and lack of cosmopolitanism that’s nearly universal in Bangladesh, most are nice people in person. And they don’t want to teach my kids a bunch of weird things.
I came across this article today: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2022/08/18/do-not-se... (“Do not see yourselves as minorities, PM Hasina tells Hindus… Please do not undermine yourselves.”) Contrast the white guy in my link above declaring himself a “racist.” No Bangladeshi would ever do that! It’s alarming!
It doesn't matter whether one side is right or wrong, or whether one side is more or less extreme.
Your tactics don't work and lead to harm.
Let's work from your Taliban example. The extreme pressure placed on the Taliban does nothing to move them out of power, but it does lead to mass famine in Afghanistan, for people who don't deserve it. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver just did an episode. They're in power. They should have their accounts unfrozen. Aid organizations should be able to help people in Afghanistan.
Let's work from you Ukraine example. What change would you like to see? Sanctions on Russia have a few impacts:
1. They reduce Russia's ability to produce weapons
2. They isolate people from the West and make them more vulnerable to propaganda
3. They hurt 140 million people, most of whom didn't ask for the war
4. They support Putin's message that the West is out to get Russia
... and so on. When the war started, I pushed for much more military aid than was provided, but also for weaker and more targetted sanctions.
The point is that simply "taking a stance" and lashing out doesn't lead to change. There need to be tactics involved, and one needs to think through impact.
The impact of having "blue" and "red" businesses, communities, and schools is very, very negative. One side needs to take a stance on saving baby's lives, and another on women's rights. That's fine. One needs to take a stance on respecting the Bill of Rights, and the second on reducing gun violence. That's okay too. However, there are appropriate forums in which to take those stances so we don't all just end up hating each other, and so where possible, reasonable compromises can be found.
Here I thought the progressive ideology would be to not buy Nike's because they are overpriced garbage that has a history of questionable manufacturing processes. Professional sports in many ways are like the cornerstone of capitalism.
Thats what I was thinking. Why is this article upset over something Jordan said years ago? Even if he is wrong for trying to stay neutral, there are worse things going on with Nike.
If someone is openly taking your money for the stuff they make and giving it to people who are pretty open about wanting to make your life worse, then they shouldn't be surprised if you quit buying their stuff. Actions have consequences, and being filthy rich shields you from some of them, but not all of them.
And sometimes choosing to not take a side is, in fact, an action with distinct consequences.
> Years later, for many, Jordan’s brand is intrinsically tied to this choice.
I really dislike this kind of journalism. How many is "many"? Is it just the author and their circle? Is it just people who insist that everything is political? I think this is a lazy assertion, which is a shame because I enjoyed the content that followed it. Surely there's a better introduction available.
The positive framing of this phenomenon is strange. Someone muting his criticism against an open segregationist because his voters buy sneakers is probably one of the more cartoonish examples of market logic and self-interest crowding out people's values.
And I mean this even in a value neutral sense in regards to the topic itself. It's as if a devout Christian would start selling abortion pills or a pacifist became an arms dealer.
When the article uses the phrase 'tribalism' it seems to me they just mean 'political'. People have started to prioritize values over economic calculus again after the monoculture of the 90s, which this kind of a thing was a product of.
> People have started to prioritize values over economic calculus again.
I'm actually pretty skeptical of this. I think that in most cases, when corporations are taking a "stand" it is because they have calculated that not taking a stand will be more financially damaging to their prospects.
I think the business school lectures that keep coming of late about not alienating consumers are skewd towards a time when
1) The American consumer was more homogenous.
2) Companies had less insight into who their customers were.
What's more, analyses like these seem to take for granted that companies risk alienating an equal number of customers taking any stand other than the center. But the consumer base is not the electorate. Conservative leaning Republicans make up less than half the electorate and their cultural preferences are generally held by well below the majority of people.
The strangest part of all of this talk is that it has exploded in the discourse at a time when the positions corporations are taking have generally been about issues facing minorities of race, sexual oreintation or gender orientation.
Yet dozens of large companies have taken conservative stands in recent decades. And while occasionally the media does question the ends of such stands, i.e. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, there isn't this endless hand wringing about whether businesses ought to be taking culturally controversial positions. The most pointed part being that in a case like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby ACTUALLY affected the lives of millions of people. Most of the things business bloggers grouse about of late is corporations throwing out some utterly token signal of wokeness.
Having different spheres of society, including some where we can interact without having to hash out our differences in values is necessary for a pluralistic society to exist in a peaceful way. America, in particular, was not created to be a homogenous place where we share values. It was created by a bunch of different religious fundamentalist groups who mostly wanted to be left alone. Indeed, these value-neutral interactions are often a great way to reduce conflict between different groups.
You're never going to win. You're not going to achieve final and total victory over white southerners. Even if you did, then you'll have to battle conservative Latinos, Asians, Muslims, etc. Look over at Muslims in France to see what happens you try to have diversity without a pluralistic social structure that allows groups to leave each other alone over value differences.
I'm more interested in the question of by what right do we demand others to endorse candidates and be publicly political? Jordan provided that response out of pressure for an explanation for why he didn't endorse anyone. It's wild to me that somehow democrats felt they were owed his support. They certainly don't enjoy it when someone comes out in support of the opponent.
Yeah, reading his statement again, I realize he's not saying Republicans are people too, or businesses shouldn't discriminate, or any of another positive things he could say that I think others are reading into, he's basically admitting, whatever my values, I can make money. Some articles say he said it as a joke, but it doesn't really say what the joke was.
> Someone muting his criticism against an open segregationist ...
You're assuming that there was criticism to mute. Many people just want to live their lives without being dragged into politics and forced to choose a side.
On the other hand, commerce creates mutual dependency and reduces the willingness of participants to view their political enemies as completely evil, increasing the chances at political compromise and reducing the effectiveness of dehumanization propaganda from either side.
Political beliefs that are prejudiced are usually just people who haven't thought very deeply about the issue and find the emotional aspect of the political cause appealing. Dependency on members of politically opposed groups fosters empathy.
Unless you are a politician, there is no reason for anyone to know your own personal political views. Any announcement of such views is signaling. It serves no other purpose.
Let’s say I’m a corporation who gives marital benefits. But some of my employees can’t get married because the state doesn’t allow gay marriage. Should the corporation not take a stance?
Should corporations not have taken a stance about doing business in South Africa before apartheid was abolished?
How are you defining the word “signaling?” Are you being as definitive as you sound when you say serves no other purpose, or do you mean few other purposes? Some would say that celebrities have influence they can use to champion causes they believe in.
After a certain point there is no reason to champion a cause. If a cause is popular enough people have already made up their minds and all you are doing is boosting your image among those who agree with you. You will not change a mind.
I don’t think that’s true — there’s second order effects in play, beyond shallow virtue signaling.
People respect Jordan unlike Kapernick or James, because Jordan didn’t hypocritically involve himself in politics — unlike those two who haven been outspoken against racism and slavery… except for the slaves making the shoes they advertise. They’re perfectly fine profiting from those slaves.
- - - - -
I also think your example is ridiculous: not vocally criticizing is nothing like actively participating.
I think it’s almost the exact opposite, people respect Kapernick for his politics and activism and respect Lebron and MJ for their basketball. I have never heard of anyone respecting Michael Jordan for his politics.
Just to paraphrase a bit, are you suggesting that any athlete with any merchandise is hypocritical for stating any socially progressive opinion? That seems like a very rigid standard IMO.
No, what I said was very narrow — if you outspokenly condemn historic slavery in the US while profiting from companies that use slave labor, you’re the definition of a hypocrite.
There are “progressive” opinions unrelated which wouldn’t be hypocritical, eg, advocating for universal healthcare while profiting from slaves.
Edit: example related to healthcare here, since I hit the posting cap —
I think the closer example would be advocating for universal healthcare while receiving money from people who actively lobby against it to promote their product, eg, insurance companies.
But part of why they’re “hypocrites” rather than “sellouts” is their lack of speaking out against Chinese slavery, the way Enes Freedom has done.
While I respect your position, I do think there seems to be something else going on here I don't understand.
According to the standard you've outlined, wouldn't someone be hypocritical if they advocated for universal healthcare while profiting from selling products made by those living in a place without universal healthcare?
As somebody who grew up in Chicago during his time with the Bulls, I can assure you that we all love Michael Jordan as a basketball player but I don't know anybody who has ever had a positive interaction with the guy. He's not somebody anybody respects.
I don't really find this a compelling critique, but beyond that - the suggestion that what is experienced in the average modern-day sweatshop making your shoe is akin to the historical chattel slavery of the middle passage is absurd and hyperbolic.
In places where colonial chattel slavery was practiced, like Brazil, mortality rates were massive, living conditions were unimaginable, and people were bought and sold.
The average African slave in Brazil lived to be 23 years old.
The forced labor of interned Uyghurs, while reprehensible, is just not the same. Moreover, most shoes are not made with forced labor AFAIK.
I would love to know how one generalizes & measures a respect delta between Labron James and Jordan, and then correlate it to social stances. Tiger Woods took issue with racism and exclusion in golf, no one is going around claiming Nicklaus is more widely respected because he doesn’t have a Nike sponsorship lol.
We prosecuted those who actively participated at Nuremberg and still hunt Nazi soldier to this day… while we didn’t, in general, prosecute the German people.
People need to realize the consequences of this because it is the go-to tool for manipulating people. Creating division is creating tribes that people can belong to (and, by extension, another tribe they can blame for their problems). Racism, sexism, immigrants, homophobia and transphobia are obvious examples.
But there's a way more pervasive version of this: the myth of the middle class. The middle class is propaganda to create division between the completely made up middle class and the completely made up lower class.
> Workplace preferences see co-partisan workers paid more and promoted faster, despite at times being less qualified.
In tech we call this "culture fit" and it's pervasive and real.
> Republicans are more entrepreneurial. Conservatives start more firms than liberals ...
> A series of surveys suggests that people who identify as conservative are more likely to want to do this by buying products marketed as “better,” while liberals are more drawn to messaging that emphasizes that the product is “different.””
this is interesting. I would be more drawn to messaging on "different", but mostly because I wouldn't trust a company to be an impartial judge on what is "better" - I would look to reviews rather than marketing for that. I guess it also represents a difference in notions of black and white thinking as well. I'd be curious to hear which one appeals more to people and why.
I'm also wary of messaging about being "better." But if the marketing shows why it's better in concrete and logical ways, that might pique my interest more than without it. I'd still look to outside sources to verify.
> I would be more drawn to messaging on "different", but mostly because I wouldn't trust a company to be an impartial judge on what is "better"…
Per the cited article, it's not about whether the product is better. According to the research (which seems vague to me), conservatives supposedly prefer products that signal that they personally are "better" or "superior".
"In our research, conservatives tended to differentiate themselves through products that show that they are better than others — for example, by choosing products from high-status luxury brands." https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-...
To me, something that is "better" is a value statement, while something that is "different" inherently poses a utility consideration for the consumer. But i see how this - beyond a face-value consideration - could be applicable to both, but i guess getting to that granular level requires this political element to not be at play. Interesting to think about haha
>In the first phase of the project, which was announced internally to a small group in October, engineers said they had changed the company's systems to deprioritize policing contemptuous comments about "whites," "men" and "Americans." Facebook still considers such attacks to be hate speech, and users can still report it to the company. However, the company's technology now treats them as "low-sensitivity"—or less likely to be harmful—so that they are no longer automatically deleted by the company's algorithms.
Twitter's stated policies are better, but they allow this kind of slander in practice:
>While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority
Historically, Reddit in particular hosted extremely hateful subreddits against black people and other minorities. It seems they decided to correct this by inverting rather than eliminating racial bias. This is not a long-term recipe for social cohesion.
For anecdata, see most online media of the past ten years:
University professors like Rutger's Brittney Cooper saying "I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate", and "we got to take these motherf-ckers out:"
"They don't censor reverse racism as badly" is a far cry from what you are alleging. It sounds like Facebook realized they were overmoderating and backed down.
And, furthermore, I would rather tech giants err on the side of less censorship. The problem that they've engendered over the past decade is that they want to punish everyone rather than just dealing with narrow problems. If you realize your platform is being used for, say, harassment; you don't need to impose stricter speech rules. You need to make it harder to use your platform to harass people and provide meaningful support to those who have been harassed. They didn't really... do that. They imposed broad "whatever pisses off our advertisers" policies.
Related note: Reddit did not correct their racism problem. In fact, site administration has explicitly intervened to prohibit operators of such subreddits from closing them down (such as in the case of /r/KotakuInAction). The only time they ever bother enforcing their own rules is when those subs become enough of a problem that investors or advertisers get cold feet.
Sounds like you got a persecution complex if you believe whites are receiving any real hostility in the US. But comments like this don't surprise me anymore on HN. HN is surprisingly conservative. I guess lots of rich white people here, and lots of people who want to be a rich white person.
The woke-PR institutions that are meant to be criticized by this already account for it. Companies that sell direct-to-consumer are not trying to outwoke each other, they're resting in the same moderate, optimistic, positive, there are well-intentioned people on both sides place they always were.
Where you see the aggressive enforcement of woke sentiment is within industries who are fighting regulation. To think about Republican voters (not politicians, who are of course important for them) is wasted time. All of them are going to vote for politicians who will not regulate these companies, no matter how their base feels about the companies and their messaging. Their Democratic politicians, however, could be voted out and replaced with eager regulators for helping a company that has been cancelled.
Instead of thinking about regulation, it's important that the Democratic voter ask: “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow... would that end racism? Would that end sexism?”
i.e. Their Dem politicians need to be protected, their Republican politicians do not.
> Despite Fox News and parts of the social mediasphere predicting the Swoosh’s downfall, the company claimed $163 million in earned media, a $6 billion brand value increase, and a 31% boost in sales.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did...