5 ms·

> From a business perspective And that is our fault, to a great extent. By "we", here I mean citizens of western countries that put up with this bullshit. Wh

> From a business perspective And that is our fault, to a great extent. By "we", here I mean citizens of western countries that put up with this bullshit. When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. If we fail to do so, we are enabling this behavior. There's not much that we can do about human rights abuses in other countries. But there's a lot that we can do in our own countries to local companies that participate or validate the abusers. In that particular case, it would be feasible for Austrian people to stop all Marriott operations on the whole country, with a targeted human-rights campaign.

skeeter2020 5y ago
>> When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. What's the difference between what you're promoting and the knee-jerk cancel culture that's as bad as what it punishes? I like to think we can influence and change behaviours without "boycotting companies into oblivion", even if that was realistic or likely. There's a large distance between your aggressive post on the internet and an entire country of people coordinating a campaign against specific business.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  Just because some cancel culture is knee-jerk does not mean all attempts to cancel someone or something is necessarily wrong.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I believe sustaining such a boycott is nearly impossible if you don't have the news-media on your side. This is because you need to convince the average, not particularly engaged citizen to join in the boycott. And, after the initial outrage you need media attention keep the boycott relevant in people's minds. I don't sense our news-media wants to fight this fight.
Aunche 5y ago
Westerners have this outdated view that they have enough economic leverage to pressure China into doing what they want. Hollywood, the NBA, and Marriott actually have negative leverage over China because they are American exports that the CCP doesn't particularly care about. They would much rather their population consume Chinese media and stay in Chinese hotels anyways, so they're more than happy to find an excuse to kick them out. Pressuring these companies to take a stand about China and get kicked out will not only do absolutely nothing in helping the Uyghurs, it will hurt our domestic economy and help theirs. Nike and Apple do have some leverage that the government can work with. However, American imports tend to be intermediary goods, so doing so would mutually damage both sides. We barely have enough on the table to negotiate trade, so no politician is going to enter a war of attrition for humanitarian reasons, especially if it's one that they have been preparing for, and we have not.
mleonhard 5y ago
You're putting responsibility on individuals to enforce ethical behavior. This has two problems: 1. People don't have enough motivation, knowledge, and free time to find and keep track of which companies behave ethically. Also, people are generally selfish and will buy from unethical companies if it saves them money or time. (I did this yesterday.) 2. Liars deceive large groups of people and escape punishment or cause wrong punishment of a competitor. In a modern society, we need people with specialized skills to do the work of holding companies accountable. We should train them, pay them, and hold them accountable for how they do their jobs. USA has a law forbidding US people from paying bribes to anyone anywhere in the world. The FBI enforces this law. How about adding a law forbidding US people from discriminating in business based on political or religious affiliation? I think we don't have this because a lot of US people wish to run their businesses with bigotry. See the gay wedding cake controversy [0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162
- lenkite 5y ago
  > How about adding a law forbidding US people from discriminating in business based on political or religious affiliation? Such laws would be terrific. Example: Gofundme will not be permitted to ban Kyle Rittenhouse's fundraising. The number of folks on the right being discriminated against outnumber the folks on the left by several orders of magnitude.

skeeter2020 5y ago

>> When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. What's the difference between what you're promoting and the knee-jerk cancel culture that's as bad as what it punishes? I like to think we can influence and change behaviours without "boycotting companies into oblivion", even if that was realistic or likely. There's a large distance between your aggressive post on the internet and an entire country of people coordinating a campaign against specific business.

jjeaff 5y ago
Just because some cancel culture is knee-jerk does not mean all attempts to cancel someone or something is necessarily wrong.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I believe sustaining such a boycott is nearly impossible if you don't have the news-media on your side. This is because you need to convince the average, not particularly engaged citizen to join in the boycott. And, after the initial outrage you need media attention keep the boycott relevant in people's minds. I don't sense our news-media wants to fight this fight.

Aunche 5y ago

Westerners have this outdated view that they have enough economic leverage to pressure China into doing what they want. Hollywood, the NBA, and Marriott actually have negative leverage over China because they are American exports that the CCP doesn't particularly care about. They would much rather their population consume Chinese media and stay in Chinese hotels anyways, so they're more than happy to find an excuse to kick them out. Pressuring these companies to take a stand about China and get kicked out will not only do absolutely nothing in helping the Uyghurs, it will hurt our domestic economy and help theirs. Nike and Apple do have some leverage that the government can work with. However, American imports tend to be intermediary goods, so doing so would mutually damage both sides. We barely have enough on the table to negotiate trade, so no politician is going to enter a war of attrition for humanitarian reasons, especially if it's one that they have been preparing for, and we have not.

mleonhard 5y ago

You're putting responsibility on individuals to enforce ethical behavior. This has two problems: 1. People don't have enough motivation, knowledge, and free time to find and keep track of which companies behave ethically. Also, people are generally selfish and will buy from unethical companies if it saves them money or time. (I did this yesterday.) 2. Liars deceive large groups of people and escape punishment or cause wrong punishment of a competitor. In a modern society, we need people with specialized skills to do the work of holding companies accountable. We should train them, pay them, and hold them accountable for how they do their jobs. USA has a law forbidding US people from paying bribes to anyone anywhere in the world. The FBI enforces this law. How about adding a law forbidding US people from discriminating in business based on political or religious affiliation? I think we don't have this because a lot of US people wish to run their businesses with bigotry. See the gay wedding cake controversy [0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162

lenkite 5y ago
> How about adding a law forbidding US people from discriminating in business based on political or religious affiliation? Such laws would be terrific. Example: Gofundme will not be permitted to ban Kyle Rittenhouse's fundraising. The number of folks on the right being discriminated against outnumber the folks on the left by several orders of magnitude.