4 ms·
The kicker here is that actual politics is prohibited by law. Companies can't be endorsing candidates or providing in-kind contributions without getting into t
by free_rms 6y ago
The kicker here is that actual politics is prohibited by law. Companies can't be endorsing candidates or providing in-kind contributions without getting into trouble with the FEC.
So this is all about performative poses in the workplace, on the topic of politics, rather than being about actual politics.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoCompanies get involved with politics all the time, and policy in the US seems to be far more about keeping corporations and the shareholder class happy than keeping voters happy. So it's more that companies can't do certain limited things, but companies - and CEOs particularly - can do plenty of others.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- free_rms 6y agoSure, in terms of lobbying, contributing to PACs, etc. But that's very rarely aligned with what the social justice activists want. What they get, instead, is a performative pacifier. Which IMO makes the problem worse as they realize how unsatisfying it is and demand more and more strenuous performance.
- tehjoker 6y agoThere is something to what you're saying, but politics isn't only electoral. The two poles of attraction are pro-labor and pro-capital, so if startups do real politics in the workplace, it won't be to the benefit of anyone that isn't in management.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoApparently you were never acquainted with the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
- free_rms 6y agoI'm aware, and tech companies support things like Prop 22 in California with their superPAC money. While prostrating themselves about how much they care about intersectional social justice to keep their employees happy. Pure performance.