5 ms·

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. T

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.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
> 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?
- challenger22 7y ago
  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.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    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!
    - challenger22 7y ago
      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.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        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.
        challenger22 7y ago
        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?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        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. [0]https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/ https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/j...
    - VladimirIvanov 7y ago
      I agree with you but I have point out that Pategonia is a private company
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Great point that they're private (I missed that). Here's an older Fortune article about charity at public companies. http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/fortune-500-most-charitable-companies/ 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.
- writepub 7y ago
  Henceforth Intel CPUs shall only compute on workloads deemed kosher by the cancel/activist/de-platform crowd.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
I like how the implicit premise is that virtue signaling is a "bad thing".
- challenger22 7y ago
  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.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    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.
kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
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.
- challenger22 7y ago
  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.
  - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
    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. It is not a thing.
    - challenger22 7y ago
      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.
    - Nadya 7y ago
      >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)
drewrv 7y ago
> 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.
- Kalium 7y ago
  For Apple, it has branding value. It means they are known to legions of parents as a company that won't expose their children to porn.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> 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.
hsod 7y ago
what's wrong with signalling virtue?

toomuchtodo 7y ago

> 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?

challenger22 7y ago
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.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  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!
  - challenger22 7y ago
    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.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      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.
      - challenger22 7y ago
        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?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        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. [0]https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/ https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/j...
  - VladimirIvanov 7y ago
    I agree with you but I have point out that Pategonia is a private company
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Great point that they're private (I missed that). Here's an older Fortune article about charity at public companies. http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/fortune-500-most-charitable-companies/ 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.
writepub 7y ago
Henceforth Intel CPUs shall only compute on workloads deemed kosher by the cancel/activist/de-platform crowd.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

I like how the implicit premise is that virtue signaling is a "bad thing".

challenger22 7y ago
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.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  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.

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago

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.

challenger22 7y ago
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.
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  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. It is not a thing.
  - challenger22 7y ago
    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.
  - Nadya 7y ago
    >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)

drewrv 7y ago

> 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.

Kalium 7y ago
For Apple, it has branding value. It means they are known to legions of parents as a company that won't expose their children to porn.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> 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.

hsod 7y ago

what's wrong with signalling virtue?