I'm baffled that virtue signaling and openly blasting politics is still so widespread in companies and organizations. I have a huge "shit list" of those who I see guilty enough to not want any business. Unfortunately especially in the tech market there's a huge number of "guilty" parties.
Politics should not be a part of what companies and (to a lesser extend) organizations do, out of self-interest alone.
I'm not sure if that self-interest thing was misinterpreted. What I meant is that when people are alienated by corporate politics enough to not buy their things - then it's no longer in the economic self interest of the company.
> I'm not sure if that self-interest thing was misinterpreted. What I meant is that when people are alienated by corporate politics enough to not buy their things - then it's no longer in the economic self interest of the company.
Are you saying that's happened here?
I live in Europe, but my understanding was that Trump fans were in a minority (based on the fact that Clinton got more votes but rural states have more electoral college votes per capita), which would make being anti-Trump more likely to be a successful marketing strategy.
I'm not sure, probably not. But I think in similar cases in the gaming industry this has definitely happened. BF5 just as a recent but non-ideal example. So it's dangerous for them, and hence my baffling.
I am not sure BF5 relates to this at all. It seems like many people were under the impression DICE was involving "gender politics" into a video game even though women would have definitely been involved in the setting. The ones outraged by it, in my opinion, just wanted to be outraged by it instead of having a good reasoning behind it. The gaming industry also has a lot more artistic freedom in taking jabs at the political here and now.
On the contrary, I'd say that any corporation that doesn't play politics in any nation, not just the US, has a competitive edge against those who don't. What people seem to be asking for is that corporations do it in a more savvy manner.
Regardless of how one feels about the issue, the article doesn't seem to focus on the "how" at all despite the title (at least nothing that I can see), but rather just seems to state that Corporate Virtue-Signaling is bad.
Ok, so there is one paragraph that mentions the "Community Pluralism Principle" and that shareholders should hold their company accountable for politicization, then throws a pithy quote that "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”
The issue with this kind of statement is that it falsely implies that politicization is adverse to profit. Are we to believe these companies like Nike or Ben & Jerry's are pursuing politicization purely for social motives, or has someone done the math to determine that this politicization can actually translate to higher profits? Likely it's somewhere in the middle
The lead example given is Ben & Jerry's anti-Trump ice cream, which is being painted as "virtue signalling" because Unilever apparently sells skin-bleaching creams in India.
Let's just dwell on that for a second... Josh Dehaas is accusing Ben & Jerry's of cynical motivation, claiming that their "virtue" is performative, based on the actions of another part of a multi-national organisation.
A multinational conglomerate is not a single entity with singular motivations. The framing is flawed... almost certainly designed to appeal to people who already believe "lefties" are "virtue signalling".
Perhaps it is, but the author's argument appears to be that corporate virtue signalling is bad because it is hypocritical. Examples: B&J despite parent corporation's cream, Qantas vs. work rights, and though not mentioned in the article, probably the same deal for Nike.
And to be fair, there is a point there: corporations will back progressive social ideas that explicitly aren't anti-capitalist.
What I find funny about "virtue signalling" is that it's a pejorative only the right accuses the left of, and like the phrase "politically correct", it's hard to take as any kind of insult. You think I'm virtuous and my politics are correct? Well thank you very much, very kind of you to say so.
Virtue signalling is not about being virtuous. The other, much more important part, is the signalling. The impulse of companites/people/etc to brag about being virtous only to appear in a better light. A bit like vegeratians who often can't resist the temptation to tell the world that they're better.
Yes, at the core of the "virtue signalling" philosophy is the idea that nobody _actually_ holds virtuous values. There are only two kinds of people: those who are honest about being selfish jerks, and hypocrites who disguise their selfishness using "virtue signalling".
It's reminiscent of the psychopath world-view, actually.
No, lucozade put it well: Being virtuous is unrelated to saying you are. That does not mean that saying you're virtuous means you are not. Simply that there is no causal connection.
They're saying that you're shouting about how virtuous you are. That's unrelated to how virtuous you actually are. Same goes for political correctness.
Just because I say I'm awesome, it doesn't make it so.
There's a difference between being virtuous and signaling that one is virtuous. Neither is contingent upon the other.
"Politically correct" used to be a highly ironic term, with the implication being there was "actually correct" and "politically correct." I've seen people recently advocate for the term "politically compliant," and I like that term much better.
22 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] threadPolitics should not be a part of what companies and (to a lesser extend) organizations do, out of self-interest alone.
At risk of blasting straight through Godwin's Law, this is the logic of 1930s IBM... and it should be resoundingly rejected.
Are you saying that's happened here?
I live in Europe, but my understanding was that Trump fans were in a minority (based on the fact that Clinton got more votes but rural states have more electoral college votes per capita), which would make being anti-Trump more likely to be a successful marketing strategy.
I'm not sure, probably not. But I think in similar cases in the gaming industry this has definitely happened. BF5 just as a recent but non-ideal example. So it's dangerous for them, and hence my baffling.
Ok, so there is one paragraph that mentions the "Community Pluralism Principle" and that shareholders should hold their company accountable for politicization, then throws a pithy quote that "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”
The issue with this kind of statement is that it falsely implies that politicization is adverse to profit. Are we to believe these companies like Nike or Ben & Jerry's are pursuing politicization purely for social motives, or has someone done the math to determine that this politicization can actually translate to higher profits? Likely it's somewhere in the middle
The lead example given is Ben & Jerry's anti-Trump ice cream, which is being painted as "virtue signalling" because Unilever apparently sells skin-bleaching creams in India.
Let's just dwell on that for a second... Josh Dehaas is accusing Ben & Jerry's of cynical motivation, claiming that their "virtue" is performative, based on the actions of another part of a multi-national organisation.
A multinational conglomerate is not a single entity with singular motivations. The framing is flawed... almost certainly designed to appeal to people who already believe "lefties" are "virtue signalling".
And to be fair, there is a point there: corporations will back progressive social ideas that explicitly aren't anti-capitalist.
It's reminiscent of the psychopath world-view, actually.
"virtue signalling" has been quickly turn into a dog whistle within the alt-right.
They're saying that you're shouting about how virtuous you are. That's unrelated to how virtuous you actually are. Same goes for political correctness.
Just because I say I'm awesome, it doesn't make it so.
"Politically correct" used to be a highly ironic term, with the implication being there was "actually correct" and "politically correct." I've seen people recently advocate for the term "politically compliant," and I like that term much better.