First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you think companies should pick a political side?
21696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 3/27/17 , edited 3/27/17
I think it is usually a dumb business decision to play favorites with segments of your customer base, so no.

Hell, I don't even share my political views in public, only creates problems and headaches and has the potential to create enemies and its the same for businesses. Why bother?
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 3/27/17 , edited 3/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

Businesses should stay out of politics, period. It's because of their money that politicians don't listen to the voters.


I completely agree with DeadlyOats on this point.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/27/17


.
Posted 3/28/17
nope what the point
Posted 3/28/17

auroraloose wrote:
I agree that a company acting rationally (whatever that means) has profit as its goal; I just think that the goal of making a political stance can be separate from the impact of doing so. Even the people who couldn't care less either way, who just like the company's product, are affected.

I probably don't have a good definition for the words political and social, so I probably shouldn't claim to understand the difference between the two.


I guess this can be true at times. When a company takes on a political stance or a social one, it does seem to have various, offset, impacts throughout the company as a whole. Some employees may quit or disassociate themselves from the company due to conflicts against said "public view" of the company to something as obscure as other companies choosing not to do business with them due to their political/social stance that is publically stated.

To me, a political statement would be more tuned towards a specific politican, candidate, or political party. While a social statement would be something that impacts social progress or the lack thereof (for/against same-sex marriage/relationships, for/against hiring immigrants, etc etc). There is a fine line between the two, making it difficult to disassociate them from one another but it is there. Though, that statement alone is where the political divide in the modern day is causing that line to become blurred or entirely removed (from the majority of citizens).


auroraloose wrote:

Yeah, I definitely don't think people have to view every little thing as a microsortie in a zero-sum culture war. I think it's important to try to understand the messages one's actions send, but it's also important to have a healthy sense of alarm. It's impossible to keep track of all the signals one sends out, so it's prudent to give people the benefit of the doubt on things. Understanding that one's political opponents aren't pure evil helps. Except doing that makes it harder to excite people - and, thus, gain recruits. And in American society, in which we scrutinize every little aspect of ourselves - something I can relate to - people do view every little thing as part of a war. If enough people do that, the rest of us are forced to go along with it. (You said basically the same thing.)

I think of boycotts like I think of protests: they're team-building exercises. They probably won't achieve their stated goals, but they do bring people together, fire them up, and make them feel good about themselves. I feel like that's a waste, though, because all that energy that could've gone towards actually doing something worthwhile got expended in something superficial. And then doing superficial things becomes enough for people, the organizers realize they can gain status more easily by doing superficial things, and nothing actually changes. I'm sort of speaking from experience, and now I'm depressed thinking about it.


In the political atmosphere of America right now, I feel like there are more people taking the "any ground gained is ground lost" micro-sortie kind of logic to political topics. I mean, even this thread was crafted with this logic in mind. For companies to take a political stance, that means that company XYZ may or may not agree with [me] on the topics that I care about - therefore, they should just stay out of it so that nothing comes from it. There's more fear of the "opposite side" than there is understanding or viewing things without that "viewing one's political opponents as not being pure evil" perspective. It's a bit depressing to see people being that diversified.

Boycotts are team-building exercises for those who share a singular goal or opinion about a company (whether it be from a political standpoint or not). But my overall issue with boycotts is exactly as you've stated yourself: "And then doing superficial things becomes enough for people, the organizers realize they can gain status more easily by doing superficial things, and nothing actually changes." Sometimes it gives the illusion of a "win" when you're together with your boycotters-in-arms (nowadays) but it ends up being a wasted effort where something more productive could have been done to show the same intent/statement.

The mathematician in me cannot help but view boycotts similar to playing any type of lottery system. Yes, there's a chance that the impact will be enough to make your point - but it's significantly low depending on various factors. Playing the lottery at a local joint for local prizes will yield more wins than playing a state or national lottery. Same logic is applied to that of boycotts (in my mind). I've been on protests (even lately) and understand their appeal - it's just that it'll take more than a few hundred/thousand people marching. Take the "Woman's March" that happened internationally - it was large enough to make a statement but the impact is still unknown.
30000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
84 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 3/28/17
Yes, definitely.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.