Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
guest_
· 4 years ago
· FIRST
Seeing all these logos in one place... I see a pattern.... a couple actually.... notice how almost all these companies are entertainment based.... or strongly tied to entertainment or each other (Nike starts and ends with professional sports and Apple, asides it’s highly social based brand image is also a major supplier of computers used in graphics work as well as having the same “founder” as Pixar and long standing partnerships in development of technology...)
guest_
· 4 years ago
They are also all major household brand names and mostly industry or segment leaders. But... no. No. It couldn’t be. That would mean.... that the entertainment industry and majors corporations are full of “suck ups.” It implies that’s perhaps Hollywood and major conglomerates alike are full of people with flexible morality and a motivation for money! Insanity, who ever would have thought the richest people and companies on earth got there through anything but the staunchest of integrity and an unwillingness to work with people they didn’t approve of? That doesn’t sound like Hollywood at all.
guest_
· 4 years ago
But in all seriousness- what gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of all the “such and such company is China’s bitch....” 1. The United States government has backed, installed, supported, or tacitly ignored for practical reasons- actual genocidal regimes. Not just the US- most governments are guilty of this- and I’m not talking 50 years ago- I am talking within the life time of anyone over drinking age. 2. While the current president is playing “hardball” with China- wether behind the scenes the administration and government really are or not- most economists and even world leaders recognize the importance and strategy of maintaining diplomatic relations and economic relations with China. Even the president doesn’t want to end relations with China- his official stance is that he wants to change the trade balance so that we are selling China more than it sells us- which... would require US businesses to work with China to export goods and services wouldn’t it?
Show All
guest_
· 4 years ago
Despite his “hardline” stance on China- the action president hasn’t made overtures about the poor treatment of Chinese citizens civil rights or the abuses of the Chinese government save for where he ties it to economics or as a tactic for negotiations from a favorable position- ie: badmouthing the opposition in a deal to gain leverage for a better deal. What involvement has the administration had- diplomatic or otherwise- in the civil rights of China? We signed into law a bill that says we won’t trade with Hong Kong if it doesn’t meet non defined standards of freedom. It states the us can “sanction” those who it deems abusive. Ok. That’s something... but it only applies to Hong Kong and doesn’t help the majority of those under Chinese protection.
guest_
· 4 years ago
It doesn’t include mainland central groups such as Chinese Muslims or other ethnic and religious minorities- who unlike Hong Kong happen to not necessarily be a major world economic force. It also is a bill which simply says we won’t trade with Hong Kong if it isn’t “free enough...” which when you think about it... could be viewed as a way to squeeze the mainland in ongoing trade disputes- and isn’t a solid commitment to democracy as much as it is to capital. It also is important to note that it relies on China needing the US as a trade partner- and of course, the people deprived goods and services by such actions are largely the people of Hong Kong themselves- making it a case where they would receive punishment because their remote government doesn’t meet our standards. So it certainly could be seen as using the people of Hong Kong as proxies to fight for favorable trade environments in the region for the US.
guest_
· 4 years ago
But there is a hypocrisy beyond that- an individual hypocrisy. The fact that none of these majors companies, their parents, siblings, child companies- are really hurting for business- the fact their products are still so ubiquitous- means that for the most part- people aren’t actually willing to go without what they are selling over their moral outrage. We can bad mouth them all day- but if you’re still supporting ANY of them or their conglomerates- you’re guilty of the same crime they are- compromising morals for personal gain. And while these companies continue to soar economically but the noise arrows and you see more people decrying them- that just makes it even worse- that everyone sees a problem but isn’t willing to do anything about it if it causes them the slightest inconvenience beyond posting memes.
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
There is a niche hypocrisy as well. Those outraged by Gillette ads and the social posturing of companies- those who would say “It isn’t the place of companies to make social commentary or try to shape elections...” those who would applaud Ricky G. Telling Hollywood to get off its soap box and just take their silly award- seem to miss the irony of now calling on corporations to make a stand on social issues. I dare say many of these people show their true colors- that the Gillette ad for example- didn’t upset them because they believe corporations shouldn’t try to change society, but because they didn’t approve of the message. How else do you explain the same people crying for corporate America to jump in and send social messages and help direct the course of a society now that it suits their disposition or politics?
guest_
· 4 years ago
The groups of people who said that the US had no place intervening in Syria on behalf of the people as they faced down an impressive regime... those who believe that the US didn’t belong in Afghanistan or Iraq... were these countries people not facing depots, murders in the night and strict government control, rubber bunkers and worse being used against them? If one believes that the civil affairs of a nation- it’s civil wars and internal struggles are its own- how would they justify a stance that it is the place of US interests to make a stand in a conflict between China and its citizens?
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
And perhaps- there is a terror in the thought that we expect or desire that the private sector corporations would have more power than most governments and be able to stand toe to toe and stare down one of the largest nations on earth? More terrifying that when we would see a conflict between government and citizens that we’d expect corporations to throw in lots and take sides? That we would desire global business to be involved in global politics instead of be looking at ways to reduce the involvement or corporations in shaping the affairs of governments?
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
At the end of the day a company is a company. Rockstar censors Grand Theft Auto in Australia to meet their laws. Movies and music and live performances have censored themselves or changed things to fit the social and legal or political climates around the world for generations. Should business operate free of ethics? I do not believe it should.
guest_
· 4 years ago
But the final hypocrisy here? How many democrats or republicans have gotten upset at a company for supporting or insulting a politician or a political movement they supported? How many people have said that it wasn’t their place or that they would boycott a company for choosing to take that stance? But- aren’t all these people- wether a company supports Donald Trump or mocks him for example- aren’t BOTH doing what they think is “right?” Don’t they both think they are being patriotic and Dede ding American values when they insult or celebrate the same man? So then... perhaps we could endeavor to have more ethics in business- but maybe less politics in business and less business in politics.
