Do corporations actually care?

[m76]

There has been a feint going on that US and some other corporations are standing up for human rights.

If they really cared they wouldn't just pretend on their US domestic branches, but declare support worldwide, especially where basic human rights are not granted to everyone. But that would actually hurt their business. So what do they do? They pretend to care where human rights are already won for everyone.

If they really cared about discrimination they'd stand for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, or Gay rights in Iran, etc.

If there is one thing I hate most in this world it is hypocrisy.

 

 

[Crazycrab]

They care about their bottom dollar more than anything, so if it's a country or region that would object to the use of, in this case, pride symbolism then they obviously won't show it there.  I agree it's hypocritical and I'm certainly not defending them but they do what's best for business.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Crazycrab

[Reality vs Adventure]

I completely agree with you on this. There is only one way to dissolve most problems with corporate America; that is to ban lobbying. That way if they ever take a political stance, then it will be up to the consumer to boycott the product or not, and not have to worry about their money going into government to support what someone is against. The corporations can donate their money for aid out of good conscience and a tax break, but never to a puppet and a bill. There is a loophole though, because even if lobbying was banned, they could still donate to a bad cause outside of government. The most important thing is ban lobbying and empower consumers. There should be greater awareness for consumers to see where corporate money goes. This is exactly where capitalism fails, when they are allowed to market for a cause, get money from victims, and donate it to government to pass a bill to fuck over the people they marketed for in the first place. So that person’s money is used against them. 
And they really are hypocrites for not helping more around the world. The USA is symbolic though and if they take a stance here, I guess they feel it resonates to their other locations. Think about the gaming world though how it has locations across the world but many times act independently. Do corporations have separate funding and decision making for another country? Can the CEO pull funds from Israeli branch and donate to aid civilians in either Israel or Palestine? I think the current climate in the USA and the clear division happening between corporations and party lines is more symbolic than a financial approach. But I say just please stop the flow of their money into government. That is a nose dive into the reckless pits of greedy hell. 

[Reality vs Adventure]

47 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

I think the current climate in the USA and the clear division happening between corporations and party lines is more symbolic than a financial approach

That came out wrong; the ones taking a stance for rights is symbolic because they aren’t donating to protect rights such as voting; but those in favor of voting restrictions don’t go public, they just use their money to talk. So it seems there is fear to use money to stand for rights, and fearless to use money opposing those rights. 

 

[m76]

12 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

I completely agree with you on this. There is only one way to dissolve most problems with corporate America; that is to ban lobbying. That way if they ever take a political stance, then it will be up to the consumer to boycott the product or not, and not have to worry about their money going into government to support what someone is against.

I think capitalism and politics are inherently incompatible. I'd go as far as banning corporations from taking a public stance on politics of any kind. They are not democratically elected representatives, so  they have no right to use their popularity as a political tool.  I don't want to boycott products, especially if it is a good product. The way to express individual political opinion is by voting, or doing it on the appropriate forums, not by choosing haircare products based on said companies political bias.

[m76]

13 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

They care about their bottom dollar more than anything, so if it's a country or region that would object to the use of, in this case, pride symbolism then they obviously won't show it there.  I agree it's hypocritical and I'm certainly not defending them but they do what's best for business.

Yet they are still applauded by many for their progressivism, when in reality it's just empty rhetoric. It's easy to come out in support of something when the public is already in favour of it.   They are just following trends, right or wrong, which is dangerous. I mean if it were the 1930s they would support nazis in germany because they were popular.  As they support the Chinese regime now in china with every fiber of their being.

[The Blackangel]

The statement was made by a comedian (I don't remember who) that we should make politicians wear jackets with all the companies that are backing them during elections. I'll add at least once a month to that.

[Crazycrab]

17 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

The statement was made by a comedian (I don't remember who) that we should make politicians wear jackets with all the companies that are backing them during elections. I'll add at least once a month to that.

 

That's a really good idea.  Professional athletes from Footballers to MMA fighter's, racing drivers and their teams amoung other athletes all have to show their sponsors.

[Jayson]

Being against corporations isn't always the best thing.   For instance, closing the oil pipeline in the US is causing my nation to be dependent on foreign oil - even from Russia.  It's promoting the skyrocket inflation.   How is anti-corporate in this instance helping people struggling to make a living?