The "woke" witchhunt turning on its own.

[Debater Slayer]

Are you really suggesting that large corporations
(only large ones?) should perhaps shut down operations
in USA because of foreign policies you dislike?

I don't think that would be realistic (except for emergencies and especially severe situations like wartime, to avoid financing the war in any way), hence my point that I generally don't blame corporations for operating in parts of the world where civil rights and freedoms aren't in great shape. They're also not merely policies I "dislike"; you're well aware of the effects and extent of many of those policies.

But are you also against corporations shutting down operations in Russia due to its foreign policy? If not, then it seems to me that you don't disagree with the core concept of leaving a country based on specific foreign policies. I think waging a war is a sufficiently severe reason to shut down operations in a specific country on strategic and ethical grounds, but you seemed to push back on that idea too in your response to my post.

 

[crossfire]

The question has to be asked -- especially now, in the face of DeSantis and his "anti-woke, anti-DEI" campaign orientation:

Does being "conservative" require that one despise diversity, equity, inclusion? Does it necessitate being averse to notions of justice?

Well, we are talking about lynch-mob mentality here.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's not what I'm saying, I did say, "there's a right way and a wrong way." And they went about it the wrong way.

Ahh.
See the way it was initially explained to me was that Bud Light just gave Dylan a freebie in the hopes she would promote it to her fans.
So I originally thought that she just had a friend who worked at the company who just gave her a random freebie lol
Didn’t actually know it was supposed to be planned by the company. Which, I guess, shows you just how much thought went into the actual promotion lol

They were convinced by the two execs who pitched the idea that Bud needed to move away from it's "frat boy" demographics (their words) and really should jump on the diversity bandwagon. Which is fine to pitch but that needed to be supported and, evidently, it wasn't.

Oh. Well that was dumb of them lol

No doubt Bud Light wishes it was so. Unfortunately, this wasn't simply a miscalculation, it was a colossal f* up because now it's being boycotted by the right and the left (the latter because they're pissed BL backpedaled and "abandoned" Dylan).

Very true
Is it bad that I’ve just been watching all this with amusement.
Whilst having a nice cold drink, even
(Alas not beer, I dislike beer. But a nice bourbon.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think that would be realistic (except for emergencies and especially severe situations like wartime, to avoid financing the war in any way), hence my point that I generally don't blame corporations for operating in parts of the world where civil rights and freedoms aren't in great shape. They're also not merely policies I "dislike"; you're well aware of the effects and extent of many of those policies.

There's no universal agreement on which policies are
bad, & which are good.....so says this moral relativist.
We must accept that often half of people will disagree,
so one cannot just declare absolute rights & wrongs,
expecting them to be treated as gospel.
Note also that 2 corporations run this country, ie, the
DNC (Democrats) & RNC (Republicans). And most
voters in those parties favor the foreign policies that
you & I dislike.

I don't see USA as being so evil that I should shut down
my businesses. Moreover, when you cite Russia as an
analogous malefactor, it raises the question...
Are US foreign & domestic policies really anywhere near
as bad as Russia's aggression? USA has a plentitude of
ineptitude, misfeasance, & malfeasance...but Russia's
domestic oppression & violent conquest to acquire other
countries are much worse, IMO. So I won't advocate that
businesses here shut down.
Should you & businesses in Egypt stop working & paying
taxes their because of its unethical policies? If so in one
country, it should apply in others.

Large corporations cannot simply arise from absence
to operate in times of emergency. Let's say Ford ended
operations in USA. It would take many years to re-enter
the market, eg, planning, building facilities, hiring workers,
creating dealer networks, starting production.

But are you also against corporations shutting down operations in Russia due to its foreign policy?

Whose corporations? We've no such authority over Russian
businesses. The fed can require that US based businesses
cease operation there, although many have done so voluntarily
(as I recall).
But it would be the height of ridiculous fantasy to think that
US government would shut down US businesses operating
in USA because of US government foreign policies that
people in other countries dislike.

If not, then it seems to me that you don't disagree with the core concept of leaving a country based on specific foreign policies. I think waging a war is a sufficiently severe reason to shut down operations in a specific country on strategic and ethical grounds, but you seemed to push back on that idea too in your response to my post.

I sense that what I'm inferring isn't what you're intending.
That's what I hope.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/02/business/chick-fil-a-fake-controversy/index.html

Thoughts?

I rather like Beau of the Fifth Column's take on this...

 

[Debater Slayer]

There's no universal agreement on which policies are
bad, & which are good.....so says this moral relativist.
We must accept that often half of people will disagree,
so one cannot just declare absolute rights & wrongs,
expecting them to be treated as gospel.
Note also that 2 corporations run this country, ie, the
DNC (Democrats) & RNC (Republicans). And most
voters in those parties favor the foreign policies that
you & I dislike.

I shared my opinion. Nothing about absolute right and wrong. In fact, the complexity and subjective nature of a lot of these questions is part of why I don't blame corporations for not pulling out of, say, Saudi Arabia or Qatar (or Texas and Alabama) over human rights concerns.

I don't see USA as being so evil that I should shut down
my businesses.

Well, you're from the US, so of course you wouldn't be able to just up and shut down your business to move elsewhere. But a foreign multinational business has much more leeway than that. Furthermore, as we both seem to agree, a lot of that is down to a subjective assessment of what constitutes "sufficient evil" to warrant such an action.

Moreover, when you cite Russia as an
analogous malefactor, it raises the question...
Are US foreign & domestic policies really anywhere near
as bad as Russia's aggression?

Currently? No. In the last 50-60 years? Absolutely, on a foreign level. They're arguably even worse in some ways (e.g., the fact that they have been more widespread and far-reaching).

US domestic policies are unquestionably better than Russia's, in my opinion, but there's much more to a country's effect on people globally than its domestic policies.

USA has a plentitude of
ineptitude, misfeasance, & malfeasance...but Russia's
domestic oppression & violent conquest to acquire other
countries are much worse, IMO. So I won't advocate that
businesses here shut down.

Same as above: this is a subjective assessment of which is worse or which crosses the threshold of warranting that a business pull operations out of the country.

Would you fault any multinational corporations for continuing to operate in China, one of the world's biggest and most lucrative markets, over its genocide against the Uyghurs or its extreme authoritarianism? If you say that they should shut down operations there, you're basically asking them to lose massive revenue based on your own subjective assessment, even though they will continue to operate in other parts of the world that many other people deem just as bad as China in terms of domestic and foreign policies.

To recap, the reason I brought up this point in the first place was to respond to this point:

But it is completely alright to have a severely limited business when you are a multimillionaire company that doesn't need to make ethically questionable business to survive.

Generally, I don't think it's realistic to expect businesses to severely limit their operations over purely ethical concerns. If they did, they would only be left with a small subset of countries globally to operate in, and even that could have questionable ethical elements too.

Should you & businesses in Egypt stop working & paying
taxes their because of its unethical policies? If so in one
country, it should apply in others.

See above.

Large corporations cannot simply arise from absence
to operate in times of emergency. Let's say Ford ended
operations in USA. It would take many years to re-enter
the market, eg, planning, building facilities, hiring workers,
creating dealer networks, starting production.

Of course. That's why it's unrealistic to expect them to do so—or to pull out of all countries where there are ethical concerns.

Whose corporations? We've no such authority over Russian
businesses. The fed can require that US based businesses
cease operation there, although many have done so voluntarily
(as I recall).
But it would be the height of ridiculous fantasy to think that
US government would shut down US businesses operating
in USA because of US government foreign policies that
people in other countries dislike.

I have no idea how you came up with that scenario, since I didn't even slightly hint at it. It would send not just the American economy but global trade into a tailspin. Yes, I'm talking about voluntary cessation of operations in a given country.

I sense that what I'm inferring isn't what you're intending.
That's what I hope.

Your sense was correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you fault any multinational corporations for continuing to operate in China....

I haven't faulted any yet.
I don't know why you're pursuing this.

To recap, the reason I brought up this point in the first place was to respond to this point:

Not a point I thought worth addressing.

Generally, I don't think it's realistic to expect businesses to severely limit their operations over purely ethical concerns. If they did, they would only be left with a small subset of countries globally to operate in, and even that could have questionable ethical elements too.

So that seems a strange theme to pursue.

I have no idea how you came up with that scenario, since I didn't even slightly hint at it. It would send not just the American economy but global trade into a tailspin. Yes, I'm talking about voluntary cessation of operations in a given country.

Perhaps your vague posts allow inferences you don't intend.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I haven't faulted any yet.
I don't know why you're pursuing this.

Because it was part of the post I originally responded to, before you quoted me and started this exchange.

Not a point I thought worth addressing.

That post wasn't directed at you, so you didn't have to address anything. It was in response to a post I made.

So that seems a strange theme to pursue.

Yeah, hence my disagreement with it earlier on in the thread.

Perhaps your vague posts allow inferences you don't intend.

We don't seem to communicate well with each other. I have yet to have this issue to that extent with anyone else here.

But asking questions instead of making assumptions or jumping to conclusions is usually a reliable way to address communication issues when they arise.

 

[Koldo]

Generally, I don't think it's realistic to expect businesses to severely limit their operations over purely ethical concerns. If they did, they would only be left with a small subset of countries globally to operate in, and even that could have questionable ethical elements too.

What's the problem with only having a small subsets of countries globally to operate in?

 

[Debater Slayer]

What's the problem with only having a small subsets of countries globally to operate in?

For many corporations, this would be a major loss in revenue, and it would also severely limit them compared to the competition depending on how big the market was in each of those countries. Imagine Apple with a base in the Chinese and Gulf markets versus Apple without any reach there whatsoever.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But, @Debater Slayer, at the end of the day, what will eventually be achieved by villifying people that a few of your loud customers don't like? And that's a whole-of-life question.

Apologies if I've missed context here...I read back over some posts, but not the entire thread.

Are you suggesting the alternative to DEI programs is vilification of minority groups?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What's the problem with only having a small subsets of countries globally to operate in?

Commercially or ethically?

Ethically nothing, but commercially it's a much more contextual answer required, depending on lots of factors.

 

[Koldo]

For many corporations, this would be a major loss in revenue, and it would also severely limit them compared to the competition depending on how big the market was in each of those countries. Imagine Apple with a base in the Chinese and Gulf markets versus Apple without any reach there whatsoever.

I am trying how to understand what's the problem if money doesn't take precedence over ethical aspects...

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am trying how to understand what's the problem if money doesn't take precedence over ethical aspects...

Whether or not it's a problem depends entirely on what one prioritizes.

Also, there's the question of which places and individuals one would do business with if one decided to only do business with entities they deemed ethical or in places they deemed to be so. Which countries would qualify? Which corporations?

If at some point your business needed to buy raw materials from, say, a mine in Africa that is owned by China and has terrible working conditions, would that be ethical? Would it be ethical to do business with or in France considering this?

Current situation

Beside being forced to pay a “colonial debt”, 14 Western and Central African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville and Gabon) have their national reserves held by France into France's Central Bank. It is estimated that France now holds nearly $500 billion every year of African countries’ money in its treasury and will do anything to keep it. Moreover, the African countries do not have access to this money.

In fact France forced its former colonies – CFA countries – to put 65% of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20% for financial liabilities, thus leaving them access to only 15% of their own money. If they need more they have to borrow their own money from France at commercial rates. Thus these African states are French taxpayers but their citizens are not French and do not have access to public goods and services their money helps pay for. Do French people know they’re living off the wealth of African countries and have been doing so for over half a century? And if they know, do they care at all?

France has the first right to buy any natural resources found on the territory of its ex-colonies. The African countries are also not allowed to seek other partners freely as the preference is given to French interests and companies in the field of public procurement.

IS FRANCE STILL EXPLOITING AFRICA? | IERI

www.ieri.be

Also:

France accused of 'still controlling' some of its former colonies in Africa

I see the question you posed as too context-dependent for a generalized answer to consistently apply.

 

[Koldo]

Commercially or ethically?

Ethically nothing, but commercially it's a much more contextual answer required, depending on lots of factors.

Just to clarify: I certainly don't see it in terms of black and white. If you need someone's ethics to match 100% yours, then you won't be able to do business with pretty much anyone. But don't you think some lines should not be crossed, unless perhaps strictly necessary for your survival?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they didn't even do that. All they did was send some personalized swag to a popular influencer. That is all they did. The did not produce an ad, they didn't put anything on tv, or in print, or in stores, no billboards, no displays, nothing.

Of course Dylan Mulvaney did her social media thing, as they knew she would. But the only people who saw any of that would be people who follow Dylan Mulvaney.

And transhaters. I don't think that they would qualify as "followers" of her since they tend to hate all transpeople in general.

 

[Soandso]

The antiwoke stuff is kind of funny

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think a lot of the backlash was probably a function of the beliefs of many among the audience of Bud Light. They seem to be mostly conservative and rural Americans, so the worst I could say about the ad campaign was that it perhaps didn't read the audience correctly. That's more of a marketing thing than a political or ethical issue, though.

From what I read even gay bars dropped it over Bud distancing themselves from whats her name.
Wish my life was so fantastic I too could worry about insignificant nothings like they really matter.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Just to clarify: I certainly don't see it in terms of black and white. If you need someone's ethics to match 100% yours, then you won't be able to do business with pretty much anyone. But don't you think some lines should not be crossed, unless perhaps strictly necessary for your survival?

Yep, I do.

As long as we are willing to consider nuance (not here, but in relation to specific scenarios) I think it's fair to say ethical corporate behaviour should be valued and needs to improve over current state.

It's an area where I think government can play a role. Even for strong believers in a free market, things like labelling laws can ensure that consumers are being presented with enough information to make informed choices.

In Australia, there are more recent attempts to ensure larger businesses report on their supply chain from a modern slavery point of view. How effective that particular legislation is, I'm honestly unsure (although I am part of reporting to government) but there should be guidelines and restrictions in some areas around unethical behaviour. An unfettered free market doesn't achieve that, I believe.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yep, I do.

As long as we are willing to consider nuance (not here, but in relation to specific scenarios) I think it's fair to say ethical corporate behaviour should be valued and needs to improve over current state.

It's an area where I think government can play a role. Even for strong believers in a free market, things like labelling laws can ensure that consumers are being presented with enough information to make informed choices.

In Australia, there are more recent attempts to ensure larger businesses report on their supply chain from a modern slavery point of view. How effective that particular legislation is, I'm honestly unsure (although I am part of reporting to government) but there should be guidelines and restrictions in some areas around unethical behaviour. An unfettered free market doesn't achieve that, I believe.

I generally agree with the above, especially because I think there's a lot of nuance that varies from case to case.

My main objection to some notions of "ethical corporate behavior" (and behavior of other organizations that may not necessarily be corporations) comes in when said notions are selective, arbitrary, and sometimes even seemingly based in prejudice rather than consistent and genuine concern for ethics. I would classify a lot of the backlash against hosting the World Cup in Qatar as such, for multiple reasons, although I also recognize that a lot of it was genuine, consistent, and necessary. There were many different critics with different levels of consistency, fairness, and awareness in that situation.

That's a very complicated issue, though, and it would probably require its own thread if one were to do it justice in terms of addressing its various facets and details.