5 ms·

How to Stop the Corporate Virtue-Signaling Before It’s Too Late

11 points by hkai 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s9w 8y ago
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.
- richmarr 8y ago
  > 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.
  - s9w 8y ago
    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.
    - richmarr 8y ago
      > 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.
      - s9w 8y ago
        > Are you saying that's happened here? 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.
        apacheCamel 8y ago
        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.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  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.
cauchyschwartz 8y ago
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
richmarr 8y ago
This article is disengenuous. 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".
- s9w 8y ago
  The anti-trump ice cream is virtue signaling in itself - without the skin-bleaching cream thing.
  - richmarr 8y ago
    What's your reasoning? How to you claim to know the motives of the people that planned that product?
  - cauchyschwartz 8y ago
    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.
drcongo 8y ago
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.
- lucozade 8y ago
  > You think I'm virtuous 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.
- s9w 8y ago
  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.
  - thecrash 8y ago
    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.
    - s9w 8y ago
      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.
    - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
      Spot on. The English language had plenty of words to express concepts as "bragging", "showing off", and so on. "virtue signalling" has been quickly turn into a dog whistle within the alt-right.
locopati 8y ago
labelling something as "virtue signaling" - a cowardly way of passive-aggressively saying "I disagree with your viewpoint"
SwatBrat 8y ago
All credibility was lost when the author blamed Black Lives Matter for fueling division. Stopped reading. Unbelievable...

11 points by hkai 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

s9w 8y ago

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.

richmarr 8y ago
> 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.
- s9w 8y ago
  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.
  - richmarr 8y ago
    > 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.
    - s9w 8y ago
      > Are you saying that's happened here? 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.
      - apacheCamel 8y ago
        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.
threatofrain 8y ago
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.

cauchyschwartz 8y ago

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

richmarr 8y ago

This article is disengenuous. 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".

s9w 8y ago
The anti-trump ice cream is virtue signaling in itself - without the skin-bleaching cream thing.
- richmarr 8y ago
  What's your reasoning? How to you claim to know the motives of the people that planned that product?
- cauchyschwartz 8y ago
  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.

drcongo 8y ago

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.

lucozade 8y ago
> You think I'm virtuous 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.
s9w 8y ago
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.
- thecrash 8y ago
  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.
  - s9w 8y ago
    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.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    Spot on. The English language had plenty of words to express concepts as "bragging", "showing off", and so on. "virtue signalling" has been quickly turn into a dog whistle within the alt-right.

locopati 8y ago

labelling something as "virtue signaling" - a cowardly way of passive-aggressively saying "I disagree with your viewpoint"

SwatBrat 8y ago

All credibility was lost when the author blamed Black Lives Matter for fueling division. Stopped reading. Unbelievable...