4 ms·

I think what is extremely destructive is siding with "legitimate" military grade weapon sales. But it doesn't invalidate your point. As a gay it means something

by hirako2000 5y ago

I think what is extremely destructive is siding with "legitimate" military grade weapon sales. But it doesn't invalidate your point. As a gay it means something when a CEO speaks up publicly in favor of gay inclusion. If it assures you, it also means something to many people who aren't gay. The issue the parent is pointing out is that these are easy wins used to diverting attention from their huge losses. And, some would argue this kind of public stances further divide citizens who may other wise team up to take everything immoral/illegal those companies do one by one and compel them to stop it. My workplace talks about inclusion all day long, pronouns started to show up left and right, yet LGBT workers are still under represented, and non existent in leadership roles. Tensions haven't gone down, they were inexistent and have been on the rise for years as the word inclusion has started to resonate.

foldr 5y ago
Weapons sales are besides the point. There are plenty of corporations doing totally non-shady things that make exactly the same kinds of tweet. I don't think it's helpful to drag this thread into a discussion about the ethics of selling weapons. I suspect that we don't even disagree on that point. (Please don't think that I hold any brief for Raytheon.) I find the rest of your post a little bit confusing. I don't think you are saying that you want Raytheon to stop making tweets in support of LGBTQ rights. But also, you seem to be hinting that there are somehow potentially bad consequences arising from Raytheon, or other corporations, making these sorts of statements. As the bad consequences are only sketched in the vaguest terms, it's difficult to know what to make of the idea. For example, you seem to suggest that people might be more alert to the bad things that Raytheon does if they didn't publicly support their LGBTQ employees. But you don't have to wind back the clock many decades to get to a time when they didn't do this. It doesn't seem that people had much more success in compelling Raytheon to stop making arms sales in the 70s or 80s than they do now.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  You understood my point, you seem to disagree and that's fine. I do agree that people back then appear to care less about arm dealings. I beleive they care more today then back then. And that people also care about a lot of other unethical practices certain large corporations get involve with. I think people always cared, but information didn't flow as fast, broadly, and independently as today, and even that is being fought against (again by large corporations). If you don't think diversion coupled with virtue signaling is a thing and that it is elaborated precisely for their desired effect, fine. I shared my perspective and the one many people beleive is undoubtful at this point. Weapon dealing / wars are beside the point perhaps but directly relate to the whole thread: Hollywood propaganda.

foldr 5y ago

Weapons sales are besides the point. There are plenty of corporations doing totally non-shady things that make exactly the same kinds of tweet. I don't think it's helpful to drag this thread into a discussion about the ethics of selling weapons. I suspect that we don't even disagree on that point. (Please don't think that I hold any brief for Raytheon.) I find the rest of your post a little bit confusing. I don't think you are saying that you want Raytheon to stop making tweets in support of LGBTQ rights. But also, you seem to be hinting that there are somehow potentially bad consequences arising from Raytheon, or other corporations, making these sorts of statements. As the bad consequences are only sketched in the vaguest terms, it's difficult to know what to make of the idea. For example, you seem to suggest that people might be more alert to the bad things that Raytheon does if they didn't publicly support their LGBTQ employees. But you don't have to wind back the clock many decades to get to a time when they didn't do this. It doesn't seem that people had much more success in compelling Raytheon to stop making arms sales in the 70s or 80s than they do now.

hirako2000 5y ago
You understood my point, you seem to disagree and that's fine. I do agree that people back then appear to care less about arm dealings. I beleive they care more today then back then. And that people also care about a lot of other unethical practices certain large corporations get involve with. I think people always cared, but information didn't flow as fast, broadly, and independently as today, and even that is being fought against (again by large corporations). If you don't think diversion coupled with virtue signaling is a thing and that it is elaborated precisely for their desired effect, fine. I shared my perspective and the one many people beleive is undoubtful at this point. Weapon dealing / wars are beside the point perhaps but directly relate to the whole thread: Hollywood propaganda.