• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Go woke, go broke

This guy said it better than I ever could, or have. Listen companies: I don't care if you're virtue-signalling for the woke, or reactionaries, or whatever delusion you might aim for, just stop insulting my intelligence with your dumb pretense by idiots for idiots. Yeah, you hoped that no-life no-brain cretins would wage holy war in your name, against equally no-life no-brain cretins smashing whatever you sell to show opposition, and the resulting flame war would give you free publicity. It used to work. But that's so last decade. People start to catch up. And especially it's not fooling anyone when you go from "oh noes, we'll never advertise on Twitter if they're not censoring the right wing" to "ok, we're back to Twitter if that browbeating didn't work." (E.g., Netflix.) Seriously

 
Last edited:
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.
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think corporations are often between a rock and a hard place. Some of them genuinely want to do the right thing. But they also want credit for it. Others don't actually care about doing the right thing but want to capitalize on a trend. Of course it is virtue signaling. But what do we think advertising is?
 
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.
 
Ron Obvious said:
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.
Click to expand...

Too late.
I guess you haven't read the Supreme Court rulings that designates corporations as people.
Sarcasm. ;)
 
acbytesla said:
Too late.
I guess you haven't read the Supreme Court rulings that designates corporations as people.
Sarcasm. ; )
Click to expand...

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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

I heard what I thought was a better explanation than focusing on who "people" are. It is speech that is protected, not people. So it doesn't matter if it's a person or a corporation or however you want to define it, the default is that the government cannot infringe on speech period.

Basically a "freedom of the (printing) press" issue. I believe some people think that there is a class of people called "the press" that have special protection because they are designated as journalists. But so far as I can tell this is not the case at all.
 
ahhell said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. But neither corporations or unions are people. Neither are political parties, churches or social clubs.

At least, the latter four are usually democratic in nature and not simply based on money.
 
HansMustermann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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" :p

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?
 
HansMustermann said:
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" :p

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?
Click to expand...

It's not about a union's right to strike. It's about a union's right to free speech.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Power in a union is based on 1 man 1 vote. Power in a corporation is based on stock ownership. A single person can control the actions of the corporation. It's also a phony way of getting around political donations by individuals.
 
HansMustermann said:
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" :p

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom