The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling.
The reality is that retailers that sell guns will continue to sell guns, and salesforce will lose customers as a self-inflicted wound.
The argument "if you don't do it, someone else will" isn't valid here, because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
> The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling.
If Facebook and others can kick white supremacists off their platforms, why can't Salesforce kick gun sellers off of theirs?
> because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
So what's the problem if Salesforce isn't necessary to sell this class of firearm?
If you accept the propositions from my first post, and suppose that the owners of Salesforce value this virtue signalling more than they value the profit they lose, there is no problem for them. But I would also argue that this would be silly ordering of preferences, especially considering that it is a publicly owned company.
Being publicly owned does not require you maximize profits. Patagonia donated its $10 million in tax savings from US tax reform to fighting climate change. Is that virtue signaling? Yes! Is that also donating funds you weren't required to to a cause your business values? Yes!
Your argument does not appropriately address the concern. Donating real cash to an effort actually helps. Withdrawing CRM software from gun retailers does not accomplish anything to reduce gun violence. Virtue signaling, as a term, is intended to address instances where the social signal is more highly prioritized than the action itself. The action was specifically to fire some of Salesforce's customers over a political motive.
Would you not consider it possible that by firing a gun customer, and thereby making it harder to transact, its possible gun violence was slightly reduced? I mean, it's clear the US isn't going to enact sane gun control policy, so you can't also be shocked when the free market decides to act. While Salesforce alone isn't big enough to move the needle with gun violence, as with deplatforming white supremacists, it does work when everyone acts in concert.
I strongly believe this will not reduce gun violence. I also concede that it is impossible to measure.
I think their CRM software (and other software) is about as integral to the sale of a gun as the Doritos for sale in the gun retailer's company canteen. If Frito-Lay came out and said "we will no longer sell snack products to gun retailers" would you applaud them?
Given that as I understand it most gun violence is undertaken by people who have obtained the firearms illegally[0] or are prohibited from owning them I doubt this will move the needle at all. All this does is prevent people who would legally obtain arms and very probably use them safely to be recorded in a competitors CRM system as opposed to Salesforce.
> In total, the 20 most generous companies donated $3.5 billion in cash in 2015.
Simply because you're public doesn't mean every dollar is being sent to either shareholders or directly reinvested into the business. Nor does it mean you are legally required to take actions to maximize shareholder value.
To me, when the social signal is valued more highly than the negative outcomes caused by the action, it becomes a bad thing. The action does not reduce gun violence, but hurts both customers and profits.
Actions don't occur in a vacuum. If enough companies followed suit, the social conversations in media, between people, and between organizations can change enough to act as a lever for larger social changes.
Lunch counter sit-ins didn't immediately "reduce" the actual local laws that banned black people from sitting in the restaurants... but the protest and counter-protests happened, and the famous pic of the white mob pouring drinks on the peaceful black diners helped inspire social action that led to the Civil Rights Act.
The phrase "virtue signalling" is made-up nonsense that has been utilized, primarily by far-right commentators, to denigrate and ridicule any opinion or action that runs counter to their world-view.
Most bafflingly, people who use the phrase seem oblivious to the fact that its mere application is in and of itself an example of the phrase.
People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" in almost every context should be treated with the same deference and respect that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" is due when discussing vaccines.
First, you claim that it virtue signalling is made-up nonsense. Then, you claim that use of the term virtue signalling is an instance of virtue signalling.
Your statements contradict themselves. Describe your position more accurately, please.
Calling something a "hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals", is undeniably, irrefutably, uncontroversially, a hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals.
I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions.
People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves.
You accept that it describes what people think it describes, so the concept exists. You also give an example of the concept being applied, so it is not only a concept, but it exists in reality as well.
Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
>I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions.
This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case.
Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes.
If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system.
Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action.
This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are.
>People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves.
It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is.
Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap.
Imagine these three scenarios:
1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing)
2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?)
3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)
> The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling.
It's neither. There are a number of unsavory industries that people choose not participate in. The fact that apple doesn't allow porn in the app store doesn't mean they think they're going to stop porn, nor is it virtue signaling. They just don't want to be a part of it.
> because CRM software is not a necessary economic input
Well, even if it is, Salesforce isn't the only game in town. In fact, CRM isn't all that damned complicated - there are a lot of people who would be chomping at the bit to compete with Salesforce but don't because their incumbent status is too great. If Salesforce throws away customers, though, that gives somebody else a chance to get their foot in the door.
What's wrong with "assault-style"? It correctly describes rifles that are designed to look like their actually select-fire military assault rifle counterparts, but that are just semi-automatic themselves. It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics, nothing more.
Not OP, but, 'assault-style' is meaningless. Who cares that it -looks- like a black rifle, it's just a semi automatic rifle. Many airsoft and paintball guns look similar, are they also 'assault-style'? A lot of damage was done with the Mini 14, which I'm guessing nobody classifies as 'assault-style', or do they? The only difference is that one is wooden, and the other is metal/plastic, really. So when you boil it down to those differences, it seems rather silly.
If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics.
However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.
I mean, I agree, I think it would make more sense to repeal the Second Amendment, and then ban all autoloading firearms and all handguns, similar to what many other nations have done. I don't think it makes sense to go after guns based on aesthetics.
However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
So you're saying that the important thing is how they look, right? That they can have a big impact simply based on their appearance and that it signals a certain intent even though their appearance may have no direct bearing on their effectiveness?
Actually... "assault" has a completely different meaning than aesthetics.
There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
Not the OP, but obligatory and very relevant Popehat:
Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?
On one hand, large magazines are useful in a murderous rampage, especially in semi-autos. That's why they're banned in Canada.
On the other hand, assault-styled weapons give kids that "video game feel" and there's a high incidence of their use in domestic terrorism.
On another hand, dogs are living creatures, and it's not generally acceptable to throw them into a grinder. But popehat is written by lawyers who deliberately represent scum. False equivalence is their bread and butter
As someone who had a Rottweiler called Psycho (named after the nickname of a football player from the local team) as a child the most harm that dog would do to you was sit on you or lick you to death. (I have a vivid memory of lying on the carpet in the living room playing Mario on the NES on a Saturday morning and the dog coming over and falling asleep on me and I was pretty much stuck, but who cared I had Saturday morning Mario to play on the big TV in the living room.)
We used to have a large front garden and a tiny back garden so as kids we would play in the front garden and obv play with the dog. I remember atleast 4 times the authorities of one form or another were sent out to pay us a visit simply because we were playing with such a vicious animal.
As kids we were more of a threat to that dog than it was to us as we sit on the dogs back and get rides up and down the garden.
He was an awesome dog :-)
But in the UK we do have a few banned dog breeds - https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs - but personally I believe it’s down to the treatment of the animal from a puppy that matters, a well cared for and socialised pit bull terriers can be a loving family dog. Though I can not say I’ve had any interaction with any of the other dogs on the banned breed list.
I thought that so called dangerous dogs were almost always safe in the family, but any danger came with encounters with outsiders like your out of state aunty brings her new three year old to visit and the kid pulls its tail.
We would always brings friends home as kids and as I would walk the dog and take it to the local park I would often let the dog off the lead and allow it to run in the dog park (around the age of 11 iirc was when I would take the dog out by myself) and personally never had any issues.
Though that is just one story from one person on-line. Take it as you will. Esp compared to the horror stories you see in the news. I just personally believe that Rottweilers got a bad rap because a few people abused them because they were big dogs.
EDIT: What I mean is as a kid I just treated him as my dog, just like anyone would treat their Labrador or Golders retriever. I didn’t think I needed to worry about warning friends or anything when they came over unexpected. So we never worried about the “aunt from out of state with her 3 year old pulling the tail” as kids as unknown kids would be over all the time anyway.
>It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics
No, not really. A lot of arguments against gun rights uses phrasing like “assault” or “assault style” to imply the difference between the scary gun they want to ban and a hunters gun are much bigger than cosmetics.
"Tacticool" is more of an in-joke, and is not as widely understood as "assault-style". It's OK to use in some more narrow realms, but generally speaking, an average person won't understand what you're talking about when you say that. So it's not as good of a phrase to use in a news headline.
Ha! This is probably because there was a request from a high paying user for implementing some arms dealer specific flags in the system, and some smarmy developers felt the need to stay in character (using their SFW promotion centric face) and raise complaints.
In a work environment at a publicly traded company with a humorless HR department, even posturing can lead to profoundly stupid and robotic, deterministic or inelastic outcomes, where fear of consequences conducts a signal like a bucket brigade passing the buck to its logical destination.
So, there was a conference call, Camping World got the memo, the communications department changed published policies, and then journalists ears perked up, and now it's a shit storm.
It’s a good thing Northern California has perfect morals, otherwise companies based there forcibly exporting them to the rest of the world might have some downsides.
Salesforce is really not a good enough product to be throwing it's weight around like that. It's expensive, it's clunky, and there are plenty of alternatives.
I am not really sure, but we switched to Microsoft Dynamics a while back because Salesforce was overly expensive, and we got some steep discounts from Microsoft through a partner program. I don't use it much, but our sales people seem to have adjusted pretty easily; it was a bit of a pain to extract, clean, and import all the data that used to be in Salesforce, but far from insurmountable.
I am wondering how this will impact gun fanatics that don't sell guns. I can easily see this costing Salesforce more then just companies that sell guns. Companies owned by pro gun rights people will likely leave as well.
59 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadThe reality is that retailers that sell guns will continue to sell guns, and salesforce will lose customers as a self-inflicted wound.
The argument "if you don't do it, someone else will" isn't valid here, because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
If Facebook and others can kick white supremacists off their platforms, why can't Salesforce kick gun sellers off of theirs?
> because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
So what's the problem if Salesforce isn't necessary to sell this class of firearm?
I think their CRM software (and other software) is about as integral to the sale of a gun as the Doritos for sale in the gun retailer's company canteen. If Frito-Lay came out and said "we will no longer sell snack products to gun retailers" would you applaud them?
[0]https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/j...
For any retailer, losing your eCommerce platform would be a pretty big bummer.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/fortune-500-most-charitable-co... (The 20 Most Generous Companies of the Fortune 500)
> In total, the 20 most generous companies donated $3.5 billion in cash in 2015.
Simply because you're public doesn't mean every dollar is being sent to either shareholders or directly reinvested into the business. Nor does it mean you are legally required to take actions to maximize shareholder value.
Lunch counter sit-ins didn't immediately "reduce" the actual local laws that banned black people from sitting in the restaurants... but the protest and counter-protests happened, and the famous pic of the white mob pouring drinks on the peaceful black diners helped inspire social action that led to the Civil Rights Act.
Most bafflingly, people who use the phrase seem oblivious to the fact that its mere application is in and of itself an example of the phrase.
People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" in almost every context should be treated with the same deference and respect that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" is due when discussing vaccines.
Your statements contradict themselves. Describe your position more accurately, please.
I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions.
People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves.
It is not a thing.
Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case.
Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes.
If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system.
Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action.
This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are.
>People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves.
It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is.
Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap.
Imagine these three scenarios:
1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing)
2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?)
3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)
It's neither. There are a number of unsavory industries that people choose not participate in. The fact that apple doesn't allow porn in the app store doesn't mean they think they're going to stop porn, nor is it virtue signaling. They just don't want to be a part of it.
Well, even if it is, Salesforce isn't the only game in town. In fact, CRM isn't all that damned complicated - there are a lot of people who would be chomping at the bit to compete with Salesforce but don't because their incumbent status is too great. If Salesforce throws away customers, though, that gives somebody else a chance to get their foot in the door.
What name would you recommend instead?
If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
On the other hand, assault-styled weapons give kids that "video game feel" and there's a high incidence of their use in domestic terrorism.
On another hand, dogs are living creatures, and it's not generally acceptable to throw them into a grinder. But popehat is written by lawyers who deliberately represent scum. False equivalence is their bread and butter
already illegal
> video game feel
Have you shot a gun in real life or in a game? There's no similarity.
> Something about popehat
Way to shoot the messenger and ignore the message...
We used to have a large front garden and a tiny back garden so as kids we would play in the front garden and obv play with the dog. I remember atleast 4 times the authorities of one form or another were sent out to pay us a visit simply because we were playing with such a vicious animal.
As kids we were more of a threat to that dog than it was to us as we sit on the dogs back and get rides up and down the garden.
He was an awesome dog :-)
But in the UK we do have a few banned dog breeds - https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs - but personally I believe it’s down to the treatment of the animal from a puppy that matters, a well cared for and socialised pit bull terriers can be a loving family dog. Though I can not say I’ve had any interaction with any of the other dogs on the banned breed list.
Though that is just one story from one person on-line. Take it as you will. Esp compared to the horror stories you see in the news. I just personally believe that Rottweilers got a bad rap because a few people abused them because they were big dogs.
EDIT: What I mean is as a kid I just treated him as my dog, just like anyone would treat their Labrador or Golders retriever. I didn’t think I needed to worry about warning friends or anything when they came over unexpected. So we never worried about the “aunt from out of state with her 3 year old pulling the tail” as kids as unknown kids would be over all the time anyway.
Tacti-cool
>It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics
No, not really. A lot of arguments against gun rights uses phrasing like “assault” or “assault style” to imply the difference between the scary gun they want to ban and a hunters gun are much bigger than cosmetics.
The arrogance of these companies to impart what Americans can and cannot do is stunning.
In a work environment at a publicly traded company with a humorless HR department, even posturing can lead to profoundly stupid and robotic, deterministic or inelastic outcomes, where fear of consequences conducts a signal like a bucket brigade passing the buck to its logical destination.
So, there was a conference call, Camping World got the memo, the communications department changed published policies, and then journalists ears perked up, and now it's a shit storm.
I worked there briefly but have since moved on.