10 ms·

Michael Jordan: “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too”

42 points by cryptokey 4y ago

mikkergp 4y ago
> A series of surveys suggests that people who identify as conservative are more likely to want to do this by buying products marketed as “better,” while liberals are more drawn to messaging that emphasizes that the product is “different.”” this is interesting. I would be more drawn to messaging on "different", but mostly because I wouldn't trust a company to be an impartial judge on what is "better" - I would look to reviews rather than marketing for that. I guess it also represents a difference in notions of black and white thinking as well. I'd be curious to hear which one appeals more to people and why.
- marketwatcher 4y ago
  I mean, some people are really drawn to value statements rather than utility. This is a great read, fun to look back at a young MJ's business strategy.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    I guess, which in your mind would be a statement on utility and which would be values? They both seem like they could be.
    - marketwatcher 4y ago
      To me, something that is "better" is a value statement, while something that is "different" inherently poses a utility consideration for the consumer. But i see how this - beyond a face-value consideration - could be applicable to both, but i guess getting to that granular level requires this political element to not be at play. Interesting to think about haha
- ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
  That's why Apple markets its products as better and different. Must get them all.
- cryptokey 4y ago
- theonething 4y ago
  I'm also wary of messaging about being "better." But if the marketing shows why it's better in concrete and logical ways, that might pique my interest more than without it. I'd still look to outside sources to verify.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    Yeah I guess “has a 1420mAh battery instead of 1200 mAh” battery would be statement of “better” if you didn’t want to get overly pedantic.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > I would be more drawn to messaging on "different", but mostly because I wouldn't trust a company to be an impartial judge on what is "better"… Per the cited article, it's not about whether the product is better. According to the research (which seems vague to me), conservatives supposedly prefer products that signal that they personally are "better" or "superior". "In our research, conservatives tended to differentiate themselves through products that show that they are better than others — for example, by choosing products from high-status luxury brands." https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-differently https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-...
deepdriver 4y ago
- jayd16 4y ago
  What increased enmity are you referring to? Similar to the War on Christmas and other talking points, I never experience any of this.
  - roflyear 4y ago
  - sky_rw 4y ago
    Look no further than the rest of the comments on this post explaining how Jordan was wrong.
  - deepdriver 4y ago
    Official hate speech policies and enforcement patterns on Reddit, Facebook and Twitter explicitly allow racist speech that targets whites. Facebook: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/07/facebook-discriminating-against-whites-males-americans-in-its-hate-speech-policy/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/07/facebook-discriminating... >In the first phase of the project, which was announced internally to a small group in October, engineers said they had changed the company's systems to deprioritize policing contemptuous comments about "whites," "men" and "Americans." Facebook still considers such attacks to be hate speech, and users can still report it to the company. However, the company's technology now treats them as "low-sensitivity"—or less likely to be harmful—so that they are no longer automatically deleted by the company's algorithms. Twitter's stated policies are better, but they allow this kind of slander in practice: https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1298780540431224832 https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/129878054043122483... Reddit: https://reclaimthenet.org/reddit-hate-speech-majority-groups/ https://reclaimthenet.org/reddit-hate-speech-majority-groups... >While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Historically, Reddit in particular hosted extremely hateful subreddits against black people and other minorities. It seems they decided to correct this by inverting rather than eliminating racial bias. This is not a long-term recipe for social cohesion. For anecdata, see most online media of the past ten years: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FacehMiXEAAAO9d?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FacehMiXEAAAO9d?format=jpg&name=... University professors like Rutger's Brittney Cooper saying "I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate", and "we got to take these motherf-ckers out:" https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/rutgers-professor-calls-white-people-villains/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/rutgers-professor-calls-white-... That was a year ago, she still has her job and none but conservative outlets seemed to care: https://africanastudies.rutgers.edu/faculty-mainmenu-134/core-faculty/140-brittney-cooper https://africanastudies.rutgers.edu/faculty-mainmenu-134/cor...
Barrin92 4y ago
The positive framing of this phenomenon is strange. Someone muting his criticism against an open segregationist because his voters buy sneakers is probably one of the more cartoonish examples of market logic and self-interest crowding out people's values. And I mean this even in a value neutral sense in regards to the topic itself. It's as if a devout Christian would start selling abortion pills or a pacifist became an arms dealer. When the article uses the phrase 'tribalism' it seems to me they just mean 'political'. People have started to prioritize values over economic calculus again after the monoculture of the 90s, which this kind of a thing was a product of.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  I don’t think that’s true — there’s second order effects in play, beyond shallow virtue signaling. People respect Jordan unlike Kapernick or James, because Jordan didn’t hypocritically involve himself in politics — unlike those two who haven been outspoken against racism and slavery… except for the slaves making the shoes they advertise. They’re perfectly fine profiting from those slaves. - - - - - I also think your example is ridiculous: not vocally criticizing is nothing like actively participating.
  - faizshah 4y ago
    I think it’s almost the exact opposite, people respect Kapernick for his politics and activism and respect Lebron and MJ for their basketball. I have never heard of anyone respecting Michael Jordan for his politics.
  - alex_young 4y ago
    Just to paraphrase a bit, are you suggesting that any athlete with any merchandise is hypocritical for stating any socially progressive opinion? That seems like a very rigid standard IMO.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      No, what I said was very narrow — if you outspokenly condemn historic slavery in the US while profiting from companies that use slave labor, you’re the definition of a hypocrite. There are “progressive” opinions unrelated which wouldn’t be hypocritical, eg, advocating for universal healthcare while profiting from slaves. Edit: example related to healthcare here, since I hit the posting cap — I think the closer example would be advocating for universal healthcare while receiving money from people who actively lobby against it to promote their product, eg, insurance companies. But part of why they’re “hypocrites” rather than “sellouts” is their lack of speaking out against Chinese slavery, the way Enes Freedom has done. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/590392-enes-freedom-rips-warriors-investor-who-says-nobody-cares-about/amp/ https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/590392-ene...
egypturnash 4y ago
If someone is openly taking your money for the stuff they make and giving it to people who are pretty open about wanting to make your life worse, then they shouldn't be surprised if you quit buying their stuff. Actions have consequences, and being filthy rich shields you from some of them, but not all of them. And sometimes choosing to not take a side is, in fact, an action with distinct consequences.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Here I thought the progressive ideology would be to not buy Nike's because they are overpriced garbage that has a history of questionable manufacturing processes. Professional sports in many ways are like the cornerstone of capitalism.
- danjoredd 4y ago
  Thats what I was thinking. Why is this article upset over something Jordan said years ago? Even if he is wrong for trying to stay neutral, there are worse things going on with Nike.
Morizero 4y ago
And yet, Nike's sales surged when they brought on Kaepernick > Despite Fox News and parts of the social mediasphere predicting the Swoosh’s downfall, the company claimed $163 million in earned media, a $6 billion brand value increase, and a 31% boost in sales. https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did-we-learn-from-nikes-blockbuster-colin-kaepernick-ad https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did...
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  > ... brought on Kaepernick not long after, the Nike Store in Scottsdale, Arizona 'went out of business'. I wondered if it was correlated.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    If your statement is true, it sounds like it was for sure correlated.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      it could have been for different reasons though: it was in an expensive spot with multiple floors, so maybe just had not been profitable anyway. Within the last year, they opened up a way less nice Nike store about 5 miles away in a different outdoors mall, but it's more like the Nike outlets i've seen elsewhere.
- jklinger410 4y ago
  Yes, excellent observation, both Republicans and Democrats buy products.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Nike’s revenue curve is pretty much linear since 2009 except for pandemic: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenue&axis=single&comp=NKE https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenu...
blagie 4y ago
If I were running a business ethically, I'd want to mute my criticism of politics, including fairly extreme ones. Partisanship is tearing the world apart. I want people with different viewpoints to interact. That's the only way to address them. If we don't work together and we don't shop together, we'll grow more polarized as a result. Democracy isn't a battle, and you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them. A business isn't a good venue for partisan change. It is an okay place for some types of politics (e.g. environmental sourcing), but not for explicitly partisan ones. Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it. If I sell to everyone, and I have competitors who focus on the blue tribe and ones who focus on the red tribe, they'll have a competitive advantage over me with any given consumer, and I'll be left with the very few people who aren't on either side.
- chrisan 4y ago
  The problem I find is convincing Republicans to even talk and think about the consequences of something. Abortion for example, they just hardline "no". It's very exhausting.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    What other examples can you think of? And how many Republicans have you tried discussing the consequences of abortion with? Recent polling[1] doesn't seem to agree with your characterization, so maybe you have just had bad luck with your delivery or respondents? 1: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HHP_June2022_KeyResults.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HHP...
    - chrisan 4y ago
      Guns "Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc Vaccines being good Anything that helps another person is "socialism" Not sure about a poll of 1300 people, have you tried changing a hardline Republican's mind? I dunno, I grew up in PA/OH so I have a lot of republican friends. I gave up trying to show them the other side.
jmyeet 4y ago
> Our desire to be in tribes feels natural. People need to realize the consequences of this because it is the go-to tool for manipulating people. Creating division is creating tribes that people can belong to (and, by extension, another tribe they can blame for their problems). Racism, sexism, immigrants, homophobia and transphobia are obvious examples. But there's a way more pervasive version of this: the myth of the middle class. The middle class is propaganda to create division between the completely made up middle class and the completely made up lower class. > Workplace preferences see co-partisan workers paid more and promoted faster, despite at times being less qualified. In tech we call this "culture fit" and it's pervasive and real. > Republicans are more entrepreneurial. Conservatives start more firms than liberals ... Is this adjusted for socioeconomic conditions?
cryptokey 4y ago
- marketwatcher 4y ago
jimjimjim 4y ago
Slytherin Buy Sneakers Too
illuminerdy 4y ago
Businesses are supposed to be separate entities from the individuals who own them. I don't understand why people think businesses need to be political. If that's the case then just start your own Political Action Committee.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I mean, at least at the highest level, businesses have to be political in their areas right? Internet companies should be involved in SOPA, car companies should be involved in emissions regulation, food companies should be involved in FDA regulation.
- wahern 4y ago
  The zealot's standard rejoinder is that everything is political. See, also, you're either with us or against. What contemporary liberal politics has brought to the table is "science" that purports to show a simple, direct link between rhetorical opposition or even mere abstention, and directly consequential, imminent harm. See, e.g., claims re trans-gender suicides, or just today insinuations that compromises made in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act will kill minorities--https://www.npr.org/2022/08/17/1117725655/the-spending-bill-will-cut-emissions-but-marginalized-groups-feel-they-were-sold https://www.npr.org/2022/08/17/1117725655/the-spending-bill-... These are liberal analogs to, e.g., conservative claims about the how Civil Rights Act would directly lead to blacks and latinos raping and murdering whites, or in more recent years similar insinuations (and sometimes outright claims) regarding border controls. When you can draw a straight line between abstract policy preferences and the imminent death of an untold number of people, dissension becomes intolerable. Most people tend to agree with that sentiment on its face--that's why political rhetoric so often regresses to such stark terms--the sticking point is what that line looks like, if it even exists at all. EDIT: I keep forgetting that the misuse of science is nothing new, so liberals aren't actually bringing anything new to the table in that regard. Of course science (certainly poor science, yet sadly mostly only in hindsight generally recognized as pseudo-science or non-science, e.g. Social Darwinism) was used to justify those example conservative claims, as well countless similarly specious claims from across the political spectrum going as far back as one cares to look, but particularly after empiricism displaced both institutional religion and rationalism as the fount of categorical truths.
pessimizer 4y ago
The woke-PR institutions that are meant to be criticized by this already account for it. Companies that sell direct-to-consumer are not trying to outwoke each other, they're resting in the same moderate, optimistic, positive, there are well-intentioned people on both sides place they always were. Where you see the aggressive enforcement of woke sentiment is within industries who are fighting regulation. To think about Republican voters (not politicians, who are of course important for them) is wasted time. All of them are going to vote for politicians who will not regulate these companies, no matter how their base feels about the companies and their messaging. Their Democratic politicians, however, could be voted out and replaced with eager regulators for helping a company that has been cancelled. Instead of thinking about regulation, it's important that the Democratic voter ask: “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow... would that end racism? Would that end sexism?” i.e. Their Dem politicians need to be protected, their Republican politicians do not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
googlryas 4y ago
There's a meme, where someone goes on a rant in the wrong location and someone responds "Sir, this is a Wendy's". Maybe we need one for "Sir, this company sells shoes". It isn't clear to me why a person trying to sell shoes needs to take a stand about one politician or another. Except for the fact that there is only one thing partisans hate more than their enemies - the people who aren't part of the partisan fray.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Shoe production would be pretty dependent on trade policy right? Which different politicians support in different ways.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  "Burgers?" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-sure-this-will-help-us-sell-more-burgers https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-sure-this-will-help-u... The meme creator is unfortunately quite racist. I see it is a problem if extremists are the only ones comfortable making certain obvious true statements. It attracts the support of people who might otherwise remain moderate.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sir-this-is-a-wendys https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sir-this-is-a-wendys is the meme OP was referring to. I do like your observation that "only extremists feel comfortable making certain obvious true statements" I'm going to have to think on that one. It seems to me that is a very bad place for public discourse to be in.
    - _9xrb 4y ago
      It's incredible how far the Overton window has moved in only a decade. This nonpartisan Channel 4 fact-check on race and crime matches numerous criteria for "hate speech" under Reddit's current policies: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-amer... Channel 4 is considered a fact-based, center-left news outlet: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/
andrew_ 4y ago
> Years later, for many, Jordan’s brand is intrinsically tied to this choice. I really dislike this kind of journalism. How many is "many"? Is it just the author and their circle? Is it just people who insist that everything is political? I think this is a lazy assertion, which is a shame because I enjoyed the content that followed it. Surely there's a better introduction available.
cryptokey 4y ago
Another good memo - less controversial :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32513917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32513917
- cryptokey 4y ago

42 points by cryptokey 4y ago

> A series of surveys suggests that people who identify as conservative are more likely to want to do this by buying products marketed as “better,” while liberals are more drawn to messaging that emphasizes that the product is “different.”” this is interesting. I would be more drawn to messaging on "different", but mostly because I wouldn't trust a company to be an impartial judge on what is "better" - I would look to reviews rather than marketing for that. I guess it also represents a difference in notions of black and white thinking as well. I'd be curious to hear which one appeals more to people and why.

marketwatcher 4y ago
I mean, some people are really drawn to value statements rather than utility. This is a great read, fun to look back at a young MJ's business strategy.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I guess, which in your mind would be a statement on utility and which would be values? They both seem like they could be.
  - marketwatcher 4y ago
    To me, something that is "better" is a value statement, while something that is "different" inherently poses a utility consideration for the consumer. But i see how this - beyond a face-value consideration - could be applicable to both, but i guess getting to that granular level requires this political element to not be at play. Interesting to think about haha
ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
That's why Apple markets its products as better and different. Must get them all.
cryptokey 4y ago
theonething 4y ago
I'm also wary of messaging about being "better." But if the marketing shows why it's better in concrete and logical ways, that might pique my interest more than without it. I'd still look to outside sources to verify.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Yeah I guess “has a 1420mAh battery instead of 1200 mAh” battery would be statement of “better” if you didn’t want to get overly pedantic.
CharlesW 4y ago
> I would be more drawn to messaging on "different", but mostly because I wouldn't trust a company to be an impartial judge on what is "better"… Per the cited article, it's not about whether the product is better. According to the research (which seems vague to me), conservatives supposedly prefer products that signal that they personally are "better" or "superior". "In our research, conservatives tended to differentiate themselves through products that show that they are better than others — for example, by choosing products from high-status luxury brands." https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-differently https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-liberals-and-conservatives-shop-...

deepdriver 4y ago

jayd16 4y ago
What increased enmity are you referring to? Similar to the War on Christmas and other talking points, I never experience any of this.
- roflyear 4y ago
- sky_rw 4y ago
  Look no further than the rest of the comments on this post explaining how Jordan was wrong.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  Official hate speech policies and enforcement patterns on Reddit, Facebook and Twitter explicitly allow racist speech that targets whites. Facebook: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/07/facebook-discriminating-against-whites-males-americans-in-its-hate-speech-policy/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/07/facebook-discriminating... >In the first phase of the project, which was announced internally to a small group in October, engineers said they had changed the company's systems to deprioritize policing contemptuous comments about "whites," "men" and "Americans." Facebook still considers such attacks to be hate speech, and users can still report it to the company. However, the company's technology now treats them as "low-sensitivity"—or less likely to be harmful—so that they are no longer automatically deleted by the company's algorithms. Twitter's stated policies are better, but they allow this kind of slander in practice: https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1298780540431224832 https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/129878054043122483... Reddit: https://reclaimthenet.org/reddit-hate-speech-majority-groups/ https://reclaimthenet.org/reddit-hate-speech-majority-groups... >While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Historically, Reddit in particular hosted extremely hateful subreddits against black people and other minorities. It seems they decided to correct this by inverting rather than eliminating racial bias. This is not a long-term recipe for social cohesion. For anecdata, see most online media of the past ten years: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FacehMiXEAAAO9d?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FacehMiXEAAAO9d?format=jpg&name=... University professors like Rutger's Brittney Cooper saying "I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate", and "we got to take these motherf-ckers out:" https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/rutgers-professor-calls-white-people-villains/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/rutgers-professor-calls-white-... That was a year ago, she still has her job and none but conservative outlets seemed to care: https://africanastudies.rutgers.edu/faculty-mainmenu-134/core-faculty/140-brittney-cooper https://africanastudies.rutgers.edu/faculty-mainmenu-134/cor...

Barrin92 4y ago

The positive framing of this phenomenon is strange. Someone muting his criticism against an open segregationist because his voters buy sneakers is probably one of the more cartoonish examples of market logic and self-interest crowding out people's values. And I mean this even in a value neutral sense in regards to the topic itself. It's as if a devout Christian would start selling abortion pills or a pacifist became an arms dealer. When the article uses the phrase 'tribalism' it seems to me they just mean 'political'. People have started to prioritize values over economic calculus again after the monoculture of the 90s, which this kind of a thing was a product of.

zmgsabst 4y ago
I don’t think that’s true — there’s second order effects in play, beyond shallow virtue signaling. People respect Jordan unlike Kapernick or James, because Jordan didn’t hypocritically involve himself in politics — unlike those two who haven been outspoken against racism and slavery… except for the slaves making the shoes they advertise. They’re perfectly fine profiting from those slaves. - - - - - I also think your example is ridiculous: not vocally criticizing is nothing like actively participating.
- faizshah 4y ago
  I think it’s almost the exact opposite, people respect Kapernick for his politics and activism and respect Lebron and MJ for their basketball. I have never heard of anyone respecting Michael Jordan for his politics.
- alex_young 4y ago
  Just to paraphrase a bit, are you suggesting that any athlete with any merchandise is hypocritical for stating any socially progressive opinion? That seems like a very rigid standard IMO.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    No, what I said was very narrow — if you outspokenly condemn historic slavery in the US while profiting from companies that use slave labor, you’re the definition of a hypocrite. There are “progressive” opinions unrelated which wouldn’t be hypocritical, eg, advocating for universal healthcare while profiting from slaves. Edit: example related to healthcare here, since I hit the posting cap — I think the closer example would be advocating for universal healthcare while receiving money from people who actively lobby against it to promote their product, eg, insurance companies. But part of why they’re “hypocrites” rather than “sellouts” is their lack of speaking out against Chinese slavery, the way Enes Freedom has done. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/590392-enes-freedom-rips-warriors-investor-who-says-nobody-cares-about/amp/ https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/590392-ene...

egypturnash 4y ago

If someone is openly taking your money for the stuff they make and giving it to people who are pretty open about wanting to make your life worse, then they shouldn't be surprised if you quit buying their stuff. Actions have consequences, and being filthy rich shields you from some of them, but not all of them. And sometimes choosing to not take a side is, in fact, an action with distinct consequences.

encryptluks2 4y ago

Here I thought the progressive ideology would be to not buy Nike's because they are overpriced garbage that has a history of questionable manufacturing processes. Professional sports in many ways are like the cornerstone of capitalism.

danjoredd 4y ago
Thats what I was thinking. Why is this article upset over something Jordan said years ago? Even if he is wrong for trying to stay neutral, there are worse things going on with Nike.

Morizero 4y ago

And yet, Nike's sales surged when they brought on Kaepernick > Despite Fox News and parts of the social mediasphere predicting the Swoosh’s downfall, the company claimed $163 million in earned media, a $6 billion brand value increase, and a 31% boost in sales. https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did-we-learn-from-nikes-blockbuster-colin-kaepernick-ad https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did...

jjtheblunt 4y ago
> ... brought on Kaepernick not long after, the Nike Store in Scottsdale, Arizona 'went out of business'. I wondered if it was correlated.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  If your statement is true, it sounds like it was for sure correlated.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    it could have been for different reasons though: it was in an expensive spot with multiple floors, so maybe just had not been profitable anyway. Within the last year, they opened up a way less nice Nike store about 5 miles away in a different outdoors mall, but it's more like the Nike outlets i've seen elsewhere.
jklinger410 4y ago
Yes, excellent observation, both Republicans and Democrats buy products.
rayiner 4y ago
Nike’s revenue curve is pretty much linear since 2009 except for pandemic: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenue&axis=single&comp=NKE https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenu...

blagie 4y ago

If I were running a business ethically, I'd want to mute my criticism of politics, including fairly extreme ones. Partisanship is tearing the world apart. I want people with different viewpoints to interact. That's the only way to address them. If we don't work together and we don't shop together, we'll grow more polarized as a result. Democracy isn't a battle, and you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them. A business isn't a good venue for partisan change. It is an okay place for some types of politics (e.g. environmental sourcing), but not for explicitly partisan ones. Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it. If I sell to everyone, and I have competitors who focus on the blue tribe and ones who focus on the red tribe, they'll have a competitive advantage over me with any given consumer, and I'll be left with the very few people who aren't on either side.

chrisan 4y ago
The problem I find is convincing Republicans to even talk and think about the consequences of something. Abortion for example, they just hardline "no". It's very exhausting.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  What other examples can you think of? And how many Republicans have you tried discussing the consequences of abortion with? Recent polling[1] doesn't seem to agree with your characterization, so maybe you have just had bad luck with your delivery or respondents? 1: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HHP_June2022_KeyResults.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HHP...
  - chrisan 4y ago
    Guns "Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc Vaccines being good Anything that helps another person is "socialism" Not sure about a poll of 1300 people, have you tried changing a hardline Republican's mind? I dunno, I grew up in PA/OH so I have a lot of republican friends. I gave up trying to show them the other side.

jmyeet 4y ago

> Our desire to be in tribes feels natural. People need to realize the consequences of this because it is the go-to tool for manipulating people. Creating division is creating tribes that people can belong to (and, by extension, another tribe they can blame for their problems). Racism, sexism, immigrants, homophobia and transphobia are obvious examples. But there's a way more pervasive version of this: the myth of the middle class. The middle class is propaganda to create division between the completely made up middle class and the completely made up lower class. > Workplace preferences see co-partisan workers paid more and promoted faster, despite at times being less qualified. In tech we call this "culture fit" and it's pervasive and real. > Republicans are more entrepreneurial. Conservatives start more firms than liberals ... Is this adjusted for socioeconomic conditions?

cryptokey 4y ago

marketwatcher 4y ago

jimjimjim 4y ago

Slytherin Buy Sneakers Too

illuminerdy 4y ago

Businesses are supposed to be separate entities from the individuals who own them. I don't understand why people think businesses need to be political. If that's the case then just start your own Political Action Committee.

mikkergp 4y ago
I mean, at least at the highest level, businesses have to be political in their areas right? Internet companies should be involved in SOPA, car companies should be involved in emissions regulation, food companies should be involved in FDA regulation.
wahern 4y ago
The zealot's standard rejoinder is that everything is political. See, also, you're either with us or against. What contemporary liberal politics has brought to the table is "science" that purports to show a simple, direct link between rhetorical opposition or even mere abstention, and directly consequential, imminent harm. See, e.g., claims re trans-gender suicides, or just today insinuations that compromises made in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act will kill minorities--https://www.npr.org/2022/08/17/1117725655/the-spending-bill-will-cut-emissions-but-marginalized-groups-feel-they-were-sold https://www.npr.org/2022/08/17/1117725655/the-spending-bill-... These are liberal analogs to, e.g., conservative claims about the how Civil Rights Act would directly lead to blacks and latinos raping and murdering whites, or in more recent years similar insinuations (and sometimes outright claims) regarding border controls. When you can draw a straight line between abstract policy preferences and the imminent death of an untold number of people, dissension becomes intolerable. Most people tend to agree with that sentiment on its face--that's why political rhetoric so often regresses to such stark terms--the sticking point is what that line looks like, if it even exists at all. EDIT: I keep forgetting that the misuse of science is nothing new, so liberals aren't actually bringing anything new to the table in that regard. Of course science (certainly poor science, yet sadly mostly only in hindsight generally recognized as pseudo-science or non-science, e.g. Social Darwinism) was used to justify those example conservative claims, as well countless similarly specious claims from across the political spectrum going as far back as one cares to look, but particularly after empiricism displaced both institutional religion and rationalism as the fount of categorical truths.

pessimizer 4y ago

The woke-PR institutions that are meant to be criticized by this already account for it. Companies that sell direct-to-consumer are not trying to outwoke each other, they're resting in the same moderate, optimistic, positive, there are well-intentioned people on both sides place they always were. Where you see the aggressive enforcement of woke sentiment is within industries who are fighting regulation. To think about Republican voters (not politicians, who are of course important for them) is wasted time. All of them are going to vote for politicians who will not regulate these companies, no matter how their base feels about the companies and their messaging. Their Democratic politicians, however, could be voted out and replaced with eager regulators for helping a company that has been cancelled. Instead of thinking about regulation, it's important that the Democratic voter ask: “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow... would that end racism? Would that end sexism?” i.e. Their Dem politicians need to be protected, their Republican politicians do not.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

googlryas 4y ago

There's a meme, where someone goes on a rant in the wrong location and someone responds "Sir, this is a Wendy's". Maybe we need one for "Sir, this company sells shoes". It isn't clear to me why a person trying to sell shoes needs to take a stand about one politician or another. Except for the fact that there is only one thing partisans hate more than their enemies - the people who aren't part of the partisan fray.

mikkergp 4y ago
Shoe production would be pretty dependent on trade policy right? Which different politicians support in different ways.
deepdriver 4y ago
"Burgers?" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-sure-this-will-help-us-sell-more-burgers https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-sure-this-will-help-u... The meme creator is unfortunately quite racist. I see it is a problem if extremists are the only ones comfortable making certain obvious true statements. It attracts the support of people who might otherwise remain moderate.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sir-this-is-a-wendys https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sir-this-is-a-wendys is the meme OP was referring to. I do like your observation that "only extremists feel comfortable making certain obvious true statements" I'm going to have to think on that one. It seems to me that is a very bad place for public discourse to be in.
  - _9xrb 4y ago
    It's incredible how far the Overton window has moved in only a decade. This nonpartisan Channel 4 fact-check on race and crime matches numerous criteria for "hate speech" under Reddit's current policies: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-amer... Channel 4 is considered a fact-based, center-left news outlet: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/

andrew_ 4y ago

> Years later, for many, Jordan’s brand is intrinsically tied to this choice. I really dislike this kind of journalism. How many is "many"? Is it just the author and their circle? Is it just people who insist that everything is political? I think this is a lazy assertion, which is a shame because I enjoyed the content that followed it. Surely there's a better introduction available.

cryptokey 4y ago

Another good memo - less controversial :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32513917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32513917

cryptokey 4y ago