A better review.Doug DeMuro review of a Cybertruck.
How is that a review?
I'm torn a bit on the issue of corporate greenwashing and fake-woke advertising and so forth. ON the one hand, of course, yes, they're [insert nasty epithet here] and should hang their corporate heads in shame if not in nooses, but at the same time, they'd be even worse [asterisk-deserving epithet here] if they also advertised as they perform.
They're kind of beta testing the social trends, advertising what they know is right but also aren't willing to risk doing. I suppose it depends on whether you want them to be rotten at the core, or rotten all the way out to the skin. It's dirty doing, but at least they kind of know what's right and what they ought to be doing, which is a step above a lot of politicians these days.
Corporations don't have values or morals; human beings do. Corporations are legal abstractions designed to maximise profits and that's all they are. We shouldn't anthropomorphise them.
Too late.
I guess you haven't read the Supreme Court rulings that designates corporations as people.Sarcasm. ; )
The speech of a corporation is the speech of the people that own the corporation, and those people are still entitled to their free speech rights, even when they are speaking corporately. Because they're still people.
The speech of a corporation is the speech of the people that own the corporation, and those people are still entitled to their free speech rights, even when they are speaking corporately. Because they're still people.
I often wonder about the folks who think the ruling was that corporations are people realize that the same ruling would also mean that unions are people? So, if corporations aren't people neither are unions and therefore unions wouldn't have the right to speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Anyrate, its worth reading about and its a lot more complicated than corporations are people or are not people.
Still not exactly sure why that was necessary, since the actual people involved already had those rights, as well as the freedom of association. So I'm not sure what new is brought to the table by having a dozen or so who decided on a corporate message be equivalent to ONE person... you know... the same as 10,000 people in a union.
It seems to me like if X people wanted to put message Y forward, they already had that right as actual people, for, dunno, 200+ years. Like, if Musk wanted to say he's anti-woke, he ALREADY had that constitutional protection. I'm not entirely sure what other than obfuscation is gained by framing it as "Twitter is anti-woke." Or conversely, "Disney is, oh, totally woke."
It seems to me like just a way for corporations (or unions for that matter) to diffuse responsibility and claim to speak for more people than they actually do.
Look, I'm from Germany, I'm NOT against people unionizing for collective bargaining power. Quite the opposite. I'm just not sure why framing it as "union A can strike against corporation B" is any better than, say, "10,000 people from union A working for corporation B, are striking against 20 or so people making that decision for corporation B"
Like, I can dig why that's a more concise way to report it. I really do. But what actually is added by making the two be equivalent to just two physical persons in a petty dispute?
You should log in and correct the wiki.I'm sorry. But neither corporations or unions are people.
People pooling their resources to buy a bigger platform.
People pooling their resources to engage in a business venture, and still retaining the right to engage in collective speech as part of that pool.
It's a legal thing. A corporation is a separate legal entity that can own property, sue and be sued all independently of its owners or managers.Look, I'm from Germany, I'm NOT against people unionizing for collective bargaining power. Quite the opposite. I'm just not sure why framing it as "union A can strike against corporation B" is any better than, say, "10,000 people from union A working for corporation B, are striking against 20 or so people making that decision for corporation B"
Like, I can dig why that's a more concise way to report it. I really do. But what actually is added by making the two be equivalent to just two physical persons in a petty dispute?
It's a legal thing. A corporation is a separate legal entity that can own property, sue and be sued all independently of its owners or managers.
A union is not a separate legal entity. Members can be held individually liable for the actions of the union as a whole.
It depends on the laws of the land but a union is more likely to be akin to a business partnership. There is no separate legal entity. The partners jointly and severally own the assets of the business and the partners are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the business (this is why incorporation is usually considered).Of course it can, you honestly think unions can't own their headquarters? This is not a distinction. A union is less likely to be sued because of the nature of its activities but it certainly can be.
The main difference I see is that unions are unlikely to be for profit corporations and instead be organized as something like a not for profit corporation.
It depends on the laws of the land but a union is more likely to be akin to a business partnership. There is no separate legal entity. The partners jointly and severally own the assets of the business and the partners are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the business (this is why incorporation is usually considered).
Well that's how it works in a business partnership (and like a union, the agreement is pretty formal) so it must make sense.It would seem pretty obvious as otherwise who would the dues go to? Having it as the property of the union would seem to make sense. The endowments and so forth really don't make sense in a informal agreement.
Corporations don't have values or morals; human beings do. Corporations are legal abstractions designed to maximise profits and that's all they are. We shouldn't anthropomorphise them.
So there you have it, irrefutable data that proves the 'Go woke, go broke' crowd got it all wrong.Based on analysis of 392 brands across 58 countries, the research, which claims to be the first of its kind, indicates the positive impact of inclusive advertising on outcomes, with an almost 3.5% boost to shorter-term sales and a more than 16% increase in the longer term.
It seems to persuade 62% of buyers to choose a product and make 15% of shoppers more loyal.
The study covered different product categories such as confectionery, snacks, personal care, beauty, pet food, pet care, alcohol, consumer healthcare and household products, across a variety of geographies.
“The idea that inclusive advertising content can commercially *damage a business has limited progress for too long,” said Sara Denby... "This irrefutable data should reassure any business and encourage brands to renew their commitment to inclusivity in all forms, to not only benefit the communities they serve but also to drive growth and financially prosper."
doesn't seem like there's much of a difference from the people barking woke at everything imo
There's a difference between inclusivity in advertising and harping on systemic racism and injustice, even if they have to invent it. "Woke" is more like the latter.
And including some black guys or women in advertising is nothing new, really. The first TV ad to feature black men and women in a completely non-racist way is from 1948, for Pete's sake.
So yeah, all that's changed now is that some posers are trying to pretend they're the first fighting a fight that's already been done for decades. It's on par with some 6 year old claiming that he's NOW defeating the VietCong. And doing more harm than good by stirring the pot, at that.
There's a difference between inclusivity in advertising and harping on systemic racism and injustice, even if they have to invent it. "Woke" is more like the latter.
And including some black guys or women in advertising is nothing new, really. The first TV ad to feature black men and women in a completely non-racist way is from 1948, for Pete's sake.
So yeah, all that's changed now is that some posers are trying to pretend they're the first fighting a fight that's already been done for decades. It's on par with some 6 year old claiming that he's NOW defeating the VietCong. And doing more harm than good by stirring the pot, at that.
I missed all those gay couples in adverts decades back, along with the Asian couples etc.
It hasn't gone unnoticed that an anti-"woke"r wants to redefine the term "woke" now that they've lost the argument.
I dunno about gay couples, but Asians have been in ads for many decades. Using mixed race couples or groups of friends, including, yes, Asians practically exploded in the 80's. (For example cf https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6975669 ) And never went away.