4 ms·

They push so heavily in their press release[0] and their lobbying letter[1] about how this "disproportionately affected communities of color". I'm sure that is

They push so heavily in their press release[0] and their lobbying letter[1] about how this "disproportionately affected communities of color". I'm sure that is true, and it's an important problem. But I'm almost certain this has nothing to do with Amazon's true reasons for doing this: it's just a great way to frame it as them caring about something that comes as a nice byproduct of increased profits for them. I find that pretentiousness a bit gross! [0]: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-is-supporting-the-effort-to-reform-the-nations-cannabis-policy https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-is... [1]: https://assets.aboutamazon.com/3e/53/014acc0843c3b6d5c12b06d8603a/amazon-response-cannabis-administration-and-opportunity-act.pdf https://assets.aboutamazon.com/3e/53/014acc0843c3b6d5c12b06d...

nindalf 5y ago
When I care about something and I want others to care about it too, I frame it in a way that would help them do that. For example the two main ways I’ve seen newspapers argue in favour of changes are data driven (538) or human interest angle (NYT). Each approach appeals to a different demographic. I’ll use the approach that appeals to my audience, not the one that I personally find most compelling. That doesn’t make me dishonest, just sensitive to the preferences of people listening to me. Will a change in this law make it easier for Amazon to staff warehouses and teams working on defence contracts? Yes. And are they convincing people with language most likely to work? Also yes. I don’t see the issue.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > I don’t see the issue. Pretending to care about people when all you really care about is being able to use them for your own benefit is disingenuous, and I'd argue it probably rises to the level of "unethical" when you're a company that has come under so much fire for your labor practices. The poor conditions and treatment of workers in Amazon warehouses, the tactics the company has used to prevent workers from organizing, and the company's laughable attempts at paying workers to defend it online are shameful. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/01/study-amazon-workers-injured-at-higher-rates-than-rival-companies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/01/study-amazon-workers-injured... https://www.npr.org/2021/08/02/1014632356/amazon-alabama-warehouse-workers-may-get-to-vote-again-on-union https://www.npr.org/2021/08/02/1014632356/amazon-alabama-war... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/style/amazon-fc-ambassadors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/style/amazon-fc-ambassado...
- colpabar 5y ago
  There's a difference between framing an argument to make it more appealing to people with different values than yourself and lying about what your motives are. For example, if I wanted to pass legislation that would require backdoors in all E2EE communication systems, and I sold my idea by telling everyone that my legislation would prevent terrorism, wouldn't we all agree that's dishonest?
  - nindalf 5y ago
    Depends. Will it actually reduce terrorism? And have no other negative side effects on society? Then sure, frame it that way. No sane person on this thread disputes that what they said is true - marijuana laws have hurt communities of colour disproportionately. Further, framing it in these terms makes it more likely that change will actually happen and those communities will benefit. But some folks have decided that no one working at Amazon cares about that. Suppose Amazon actually framed it like some people here want them to. “We want to make the lives of our employees and prospective employees easier.” Who would that help exactly? Would it make it more likely that this necessary legislation would pass? No, it wouldn’t. The only thing it would change is that some people here would be less annoyed. But there was no reason to be annoyed in the first place! It’s getting angry by reflex because you don’t like Amazon for other reasons.
65 5y ago
Yeah I don't think Amazon cares at all about "communities of color" or anything related to social good. They want more ways to make profit and if they can sell weed on their website, they're going to push for it.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  They also want to open their hiring pool up to more low wage workers, and not have to pay for testing and marijuana related overhead. Employers will save lots of money if weed is legalized federally.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwawaylinux 5y ago
This is the company that identified less "diverse" workforces as being at greater risk of unionization. Everything a corporation like this does is to further its own wealth and power. Anything that may appear to align with your favorite political or social issue, or that is ostensibly said to be for the greater good or to help others is only by coincidence, or because that is estimated to further the primary goal. That doesn't mean corporatoins are evil, or bad, or good. Corporations are a tool. Amazon cares about communities of color in much the same way as a hammer cares about communities of color.
xfitm3 5y ago
It's unfortunate but I think "communities of color" are the new "think of the children". It will be used to masquerade motivations under the guise of the social justice flavor of the decade ultimately undermining the true good that could come from these thoughts.

nindalf 5y ago

When I care about something and I want others to care about it too, I frame it in a way that would help them do that. For example the two main ways I’ve seen newspapers argue in favour of changes are data driven (538) or human interest angle (NYT). Each approach appeals to a different demographic. I’ll use the approach that appeals to my audience, not the one that I personally find most compelling. That doesn’t make me dishonest, just sensitive to the preferences of people listening to me. Will a change in this law make it easier for Amazon to staff warehouses and teams working on defence contracts? Yes. And are they convincing people with language most likely to work? Also yes. I don’t see the issue.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> I don’t see the issue. Pretending to care about people when all you really care about is being able to use them for your own benefit is disingenuous, and I'd argue it probably rises to the level of "unethical" when you're a company that has come under so much fire for your labor practices. The poor conditions and treatment of workers in Amazon warehouses, the tactics the company has used to prevent workers from organizing, and the company's laughable attempts at paying workers to defend it online are shameful. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/01/study-amazon-workers-injured-at-higher-rates-than-rival-companies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/01/study-amazon-workers-injured... https://www.npr.org/2021/08/02/1014632356/amazon-alabama-warehouse-workers-may-get-to-vote-again-on-union https://www.npr.org/2021/08/02/1014632356/amazon-alabama-war... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/style/amazon-fc-ambassadors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/style/amazon-fc-ambassado...
colpabar 5y ago
There's a difference between framing an argument to make it more appealing to people with different values than yourself and lying about what your motives are. For example, if I wanted to pass legislation that would require backdoors in all E2EE communication systems, and I sold my idea by telling everyone that my legislation would prevent terrorism, wouldn't we all agree that's dishonest?
- nindalf 5y ago
  Depends. Will it actually reduce terrorism? And have no other negative side effects on society? Then sure, frame it that way. No sane person on this thread disputes that what they said is true - marijuana laws have hurt communities of colour disproportionately. Further, framing it in these terms makes it more likely that change will actually happen and those communities will benefit. But some folks have decided that no one working at Amazon cares about that. Suppose Amazon actually framed it like some people here want them to. “We want to make the lives of our employees and prospective employees easier.” Who would that help exactly? Would it make it more likely that this necessary legislation would pass? No, it wouldn’t. The only thing it would change is that some people here would be less annoyed. But there was no reason to be annoyed in the first place! It’s getting angry by reflex because you don’t like Amazon for other reasons.

65 5y ago

Yeah I don't think Amazon cares at all about "communities of color" or anything related to social good. They want more ways to make profit and if they can sell weed on their website, they're going to push for it.

robbedpeter 5y ago
They also want to open their hiring pool up to more low wage workers, and not have to pay for testing and marijuana related overhead. Employers will save lots of money if weed is legalized federally.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwawaylinux 5y ago

This is the company that identified less "diverse" workforces as being at greater risk of unionization. Everything a corporation like this does is to further its own wealth and power. Anything that may appear to align with your favorite political or social issue, or that is ostensibly said to be for the greater good or to help others is only by coincidence, or because that is estimated to further the primary goal. That doesn't mean corporatoins are evil, or bad, or good. Corporations are a tool. Amazon cares about communities of color in much the same way as a hammer cares about communities of color.

xfitm3 5y ago

It's unfortunate but I think "communities of color" are the new "think of the children". It will be used to masquerade motivations under the guise of the social justice flavor of the decade ultimately undermining the true good that could come from these thoughts.