9 ms·

They need to be called out. The amount of virtue signaling these companies do in the US does not excuse their actions elsewhere. This is not confined to the US

They need to be called out. The amount of virtue signaling these companies do in the US does not excuse their actions elsewhere. This is not confined to the US either, countries in other parts of the world will engage in actions for the Chinese government they would not do at home or without great public fanfare about how they are against it.

birken 6y ago
What is the difference between virtue signaling and marketing when a corporation is doing it?
- MR4D 6y ago
  Virtue signaling implies morals. Marketing doesn't.
  - brighton36 6y ago
    I used to think that. Marketing is all about moralizing the product.
- dx87 6y ago
  I think virtue signaling would be saying something to stave off public criticism with no direct monetary benefit, and marketing would be like companies that support gay rights because it means they can sell a bunch of rainbow colored merchandise during pride month.
  - pwillia7 6y ago
    What motive would a company (of sufficient size) have to signal virtue if not in pursuit of profits? Companies without an all powerful strongman on top are amoral, and primarily in the U.S. are only concerned with their shareholders as opposed to all stake holders in the chain's long term value and health. https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholder-value-vs-shareholder-value-is-all-wrong.html https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholde...
    - __s 6y ago
      Some companies have real action behind their words, so while they may be saying "We're doing X" with a long term view of profits due to virtuous behavior, this should be viewed distinctly from saying "We're doing X" when there's not actually a long term strategy backing the statement
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Patagonia sacrifices profit for its virtuous goals.
    - dx87 6y ago
      I think profits are still involved, but the virtue signaling would be about preventing loss of profits. For example, reddit making its logo black, or Activision adding a splash screen in CoD saying they support black people. They don't stand to make any extra money with their change, but they are less likely to have a twitter mob call for a boycott due to not supporting their cause.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      It depends on the company - Disney needs to signal virtue because virtue is part of their brand and everyone knows who they are, Thomson Reuters is not that well known and only need to signal virtue to their valuable employees who might not want to stay at some place they found too scummy (but who knows, money is a great persuader), Monsanto - I don't know, I somehow feel virtue is not on-brand where they're concerned and signalling would make people uneasy.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Yet Disney celebrated Pride month even though they had to know that it would cause criticism from the “Focus on the Family” crowd. https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/06/recognize-pride-month-2020-with-the-new-rainbow-disney-collection/ https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/06/recognize-pri...
        pwillia7 6y ago
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    There's almost always a direct monetary benefit to staving off criticism - it keeps people that might otherwise boycott buying your products. I think this is a difference without distinction - for most companies "virtue signalling" is marketing. This is apparent from their political contributions which rarely align with their stated positions.
scarface74 6y ago
Called out by the current government that dog whistles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics I’ll take virtue signaling over dog whistling any day. I bet he doesn’t call out Apple after Cook kissed the golden ring during the photo op last year.
- vsareto 6y ago
  Companies need to stop doing business if the leaked drone footage of Uygher Muslims is true. But this is likely a statement from Barr made because Trump himself is about as effective as a burnt noodle in a gunfight in terms of foreign policy right now. The best he can do is act through others.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    You mean like the government stopped doing business with Saudi Arabia after 9/11 or how we didn’t support the Osama led Sandinistas in the 80s? The US government can’t exactly stand up tsk tsking with any type of moral authority on anything.
    - vsareto 6y ago
      Not taking a stand just because the US Government doesn't lead by example is foolish
    - bart_spoon 6y ago
      Textbook whataboutism
      - dang 6y ago
        Please keep this tired trope off HN. It's fallacious to begin with [1], and canned arguments are not what we're looking for on HN—if you think about it, comments like this are covered by the site guideline: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
These companies are putting up quotes like: "Silence is not an option" and "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" While happily doing business with the CCP, and keeping mum about Chinese human rights abuses.
- api 6y ago
  There's a simple economic explanation for this. There are more black (and BLM sympathizers of other races) customers in the US for these companies than there are Chinese customers and especially Chinese customers affected by CCP injustices. On the flip side the CCP gates access to the enormous Chinese market. Result: in the US signaling support for civil rights issues is probably a net win, while for China sucking up to the CCP is probably a net win. I don't think personal opinions factor into it much, especially for large publicly traded companies.
  - tmathmeyer 6y ago
    Yes, the person you're replying to probably knows _why_ the companies make the conflicting statements they do, and is choosing to give criticism to whomever made that decision.

birken 6y ago

What is the difference between virtue signaling and marketing when a corporation is doing it?

MR4D 6y ago
Virtue signaling implies morals. Marketing doesn't.
- brighton36 6y ago
  I used to think that. Marketing is all about moralizing the product.
dx87 6y ago
I think virtue signaling would be saying something to stave off public criticism with no direct monetary benefit, and marketing would be like companies that support gay rights because it means they can sell a bunch of rainbow colored merchandise during pride month.
- pwillia7 6y ago
  What motive would a company (of sufficient size) have to signal virtue if not in pursuit of profits? Companies without an all powerful strongman on top are amoral, and primarily in the U.S. are only concerned with their shareholders as opposed to all stake holders in the chain's long term value and health. https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholder-value-vs-shareholder-value-is-all-wrong.html https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholde...
  - __s 6y ago
    Some companies have real action behind their words, so while they may be saying "We're doing X" with a long term view of profits due to virtuous behavior, this should be viewed distinctly from saying "We're doing X" when there's not actually a long term strategy backing the statement
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Patagonia sacrifices profit for its virtuous goals.
  - dx87 6y ago
    I think profits are still involved, but the virtue signaling would be about preventing loss of profits. For example, reddit making its logo black, or Activision adding a splash screen in CoD saying they support black people. They don't stand to make any extra money with their change, but they are less likely to have a twitter mob call for a boycott due to not supporting their cause.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    It depends on the company - Disney needs to signal virtue because virtue is part of their brand and everyone knows who they are, Thomson Reuters is not that well known and only need to signal virtue to their valuable employees who might not want to stay at some place they found too scummy (but who knows, money is a great persuader), Monsanto - I don't know, I somehow feel virtue is not on-brand where they're concerned and signalling would make people uneasy.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Yet Disney celebrated Pride month even though they had to know that it would cause criticism from the “Focus on the Family” crowd. https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/06/recognize-pride-month-2020-with-the-new-rainbow-disney-collection/ https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/06/recognize-pri...
      - pwillia7 6y ago
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  There's almost always a direct monetary benefit to staving off criticism - it keeps people that might otherwise boycott buying your products. I think this is a difference without distinction - for most companies "virtue signalling" is marketing. This is apparent from their political contributions which rarely align with their stated positions.

scarface74 6y ago

Called out by the current government that dog whistles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics I’ll take virtue signaling over dog whistling any day. I bet he doesn’t call out Apple after Cook kissed the golden ring during the photo op last year.

vsareto 6y ago
Companies need to stop doing business if the leaked drone footage of Uygher Muslims is true. But this is likely a statement from Barr made because Trump himself is about as effective as a burnt noodle in a gunfight in terms of foreign policy right now. The best he can do is act through others.
- scarface74 6y ago
  You mean like the government stopped doing business with Saudi Arabia after 9/11 or how we didn’t support the Osama led Sandinistas in the 80s? The US government can’t exactly stand up tsk tsking with any type of moral authority on anything.
  - vsareto 6y ago
    Not taking a stand just because the US Government doesn't lead by example is foolish
  - bart_spoon 6y ago
    Textbook whataboutism
    - dang 6y ago
      Please keep this tired trope off HN. It's fallacious to begin with [1], and canned arguments are not what we're looking for on HN—if you think about it, comments like this are covered by the site guideline: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

These companies are putting up quotes like: "Silence is not an option" and "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" While happily doing business with the CCP, and keeping mum about Chinese human rights abuses.

api 6y ago
There's a simple economic explanation for this. There are more black (and BLM sympathizers of other races) customers in the US for these companies than there are Chinese customers and especially Chinese customers affected by CCP injustices. On the flip side the CCP gates access to the enormous Chinese market. Result: in the US signaling support for civil rights issues is probably a net win, while for China sucking up to the CCP is probably a net win. I don't think personal opinions factor into it much, especially for large publicly traded companies.
- tmathmeyer 6y ago
  Yes, the person you're replying to probably knows _why_ the companies make the conflicting statements they do, and is choosing to give criticism to whomever made that decision.