6 ms·

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 wan

by 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.
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      Spoiler alert: I'm probably what you'd call a hard line Republican That said, yes, I've changed the minds of people with fixed ideals, many times, over several decades. Step one is to listen to them without trying to. > Guns What is the mindset that needs to be changed? Republicans, as a bloc, support the right of anybody of sound mind and character (presumptive prerequisites for being part of a potential [and hopefully unnecessary] well regulated militia) to own a gun. They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases, as long as those edge cases don't grow to be standardized restrictions. Maybe you think nobody should own a gun, I dunno, but if that's the case it seems like the kind of extreme absolutist position you're complaining about. > "Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc Again, what's the argument here? I can guess you are dog-whistling about how Republicans just want to use racial slurs or something, but it's just a guess and if I'm right then that's a pretty strawman type assumption. Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing? > Vaccines being good Republicans as a whole are fine with vaccinations, and most are vaccinated many times throughout their life. Don't let the backlash to COVID-19 trick you into thinking they aren't vaccinated for other things. Also, don't confuse vaccines with vaccine mandates, c'mon, no wonder you can't change their minds if that's what you're doing. > Anything that helps another person is "socialism" OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences. That is a very gross mischaracterization (in both the senses of disgusting and wholesale). Maybe you mean they are against the idea of welfare payments or wealth redistribution? Those are pretty nuanced concepts even still, so you really gotta get into a proper discussion. Based on these examples you've provided, I have a hard time believing you have really attempted to have a conversation with a Republican, or maybe you have just had very bad luck as I said earlier. If you want to change minds, you have to know where they are and where you want them to be, and have a path for them to get from A to B. I bet you and I agree on a lot of things if you'd just be willing to listen.
      - thatswrong0 4y ago
        Not the OP you're replying to but: I think there's a chasm between what views Republican voters hold, and what the Republican party stands for, and not being able to distinguish between the two leads to people talking past each other. And yet, being a Republican voter means implicitly endorsing the views of the Republican party. So maybe this chasm doesn't matter. If you vote for a person who explicitly is against climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, etc., then that says something about your own personal philosophy. > They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases The RNC is most certainly not however. No matter how many kids die in school shootings, any attempt to seriously tighten up the rules is met with a chorus of "they're taking our guns!". Getting anything passed took us.. how many school shootings? > Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing? Well, that framing is pretty disingenuous. And Republicans generally support that businesses should be able to serve whoever they want. Labelling a private company's platform as a pseudo-public forum is also at odds with the general ethos of "don't let the government tell me what to do". On top of this, the general outrage about deplatforming often entirely ignores the series of platform rule-breaking that leads up to said deplatforming.. and yet then if an unarmed black person gets killed by a cop, you'll so often hear cries of "just follow the law" coming from the right side. In short, I consistently see Republican politicians / pundits / voters completely abandon their ideals the moment it begins to personally affect them. (Note: this until-it-affects-me probably explains the party's platform about LGBTQ+ issues, racial issues, etc.) > OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences Most of my family members, as the whole, are what I would call "reasonable republicans" who generally care about the principles of small government and not interfering too much with the economy. And yet some of them too occasionally fall into the Fox News inspired trap of labeling anything related to social welfare as "socialism". It's a real thing man.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  I guarantee there are a large number of people who vote Republican but who are willing to discuss abortion and maybe even are pro choice. There just might be other issues they want more that they think the Republican party will deliver on. Those people probably don't go around identifying as Republicans publically. In my experience, the vast majority of people don't let who they vote for define their identity.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Have you tried engaging with a hardline democrat on abortion? You note below that you’re from PA/OH, presumably places where democrats are used to having their beliefs challenged and republicans aren’t. The situation is quite the opposite in for example DC. (And those folks are much more educated than the folks where you’re from, and I’d expect a higher level of meta-cognition, but alas.)
kyleblarson 4y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/01/coinbase-wont-allow-discussions-of-politics-and-social-causes-at-work-if-employees-dont-like-it-theyre-free-to-leave/?sh=74ce2bb67459 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/01/coinbase-w...
zorpner 4y ago
If one side is advocating genocide and you want to mute your criticism of politics (so that you can make money, to be clear), that's a choice available to you, but it's neither ethical nor respectable.
mikkergp 4y ago
I think it gets the gnarliest in conversations about discrimination. We have notions of "protected classes" and "non-protected classes", and the recent discussions about caste discrimination are pretty exemplary. And sometimes you can't help but take a side. I don't know that I always think inaction is taking a side, but once you become aware of people taking actions in your company, like a higher caste firing a lower caste, it's harder to make that argument.
- feet 4y ago
  Inaction is absolutely complicity. By doing and saying nothing you're stating the issue doesn't matter enough to you to not let it continue.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    That's a huge reach. People aren't entitled to have everyone else take personal risks on their behalf. That is why it is worthy of respect when people do stick their necks out for others. And yes, standing up against injustice is very often a personal risk.
    - feet 4y ago
      That's very individualistic. The reality is that we all take part in the same system whether we like it or not.
      - bluefirebrand 4y ago
        This doesn't address what I said at all. Yes, we're all in the same system, so what? Is a person obligated to risk their own position in that system for the sake of someone else? Legally, no. In many ethical systems, also no. You claimed that people who are not taking action are complicit. Often that is absolutely not the case. Often in fact those people are helpless, bound by their own situations. Let's take the example of a mugging. You walk past an alley, and you see someone pointing a gun at another person. Are you obligated to intervene? Of course not. You might be able to save that person's life or defuse the situation but you also just might get killed and accomplish nothing. Let's take another example. Workplace bullying. You witness a person who is being very aggressive to a coworker, giving insults and maybe even being physical. Do you intervene? Of course you do, right? Now imagine you have kids. Your spouse recently lost their job, you can't afford to also lose yours. Surely you wouldn't be risking your job by speaking up about this bullying right? Except the bully is your boss. And he's good friends with the CEO. But that's what HR is for right? You make an anonymous tip to HR. And nothing happens because HR won't act on an anonymous tip. So you should talk to them in person right? But that's putting yourself at risk and boy you really can't lose your job. Helpless. Not malicious.
V__ 4y ago
I agree with you that partisanship and polarization are making it worse. However, you imply that "both sides" are just as extreme, but that isn't often the case. Let's exaggerate it to: "Russians buy sneakers too" or "Taliban are religious too" or something alike. A business saying "We want the Russian military and the Ukrainian civilians to interact, share different viewpoints and prevent partisanship" would sound ridiculous. My example is obviously exaggerated but my point is: Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S., so it doesn't come across odd that some businesses for ethical reasons and some for efficient reasons try to position themselves against it.
- geraldwhen 4y ago
  Whether you understand it or not you have taken an extreme political position. “Their politics are politics. Our politics are ethics/human rights.” It’s all politics and refusing to see that is extremely divisive.
  - V__ 4y ago
    If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, that is not an extreme political position. This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
    - geraldwhen 4y ago
      Politics is politics. A religious person who believes absolutely in no murder might think that Ukrainians have a duty to retreat; land isn’t worth the price of a single life. Many others feel differently. But how personal ethics and belief tie into law and governance IS politics.
      - V__ 4y ago
        I understand your viewpoint, but can't agree with you. Dismissing everything as just politics and giving every viewpoint the same validity would mean that "rape should be legal" and "raising the tax by 1%" are equally valid positions or opinions to hold. Sure, there may be people which would agree with that assessment and calling one viewpoint extreme might seem be divisive to you or ignoring that it's just politics. But I can't agree with you. I find that notion absurd.
dclowd9901 4y ago
I think your initial ideas illustrate a truly naive viewpoint. This isn't about what your company wants. Your customers will create an identity for you and it's yours, whether you like it or not. You can choose to embrace it or to deny it, but even if you try to go the middle route, you're still making a call (usually it's "I'm ok with it"). Another way to look at it: There was a very popular hairstyle among alt-right youths a while back (actually, a couple now that I'm thinking about it). It didn't matter if you were alt-right: if you had that haircut, that's how people perceived you, because that's who adopted the style. It's no different with consumer products. If alt-right nuts started buying up Jumpman products in droves, you can bet that the progressive fans of its brands would demand for the company to take a stand on their co-option or risk losing the progressives (because progressives buy sneakers too).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bell-cot 4y ago
> Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it... Longer-term, that's a dangerous strategy in the social media era. The side you pick may regularly twist your arm to perform expensive demonstrations of loyalty to them. And (depends on where you are) potential customers who are less than comfortable with hyper-partisan politics may be more numerous than the red or blue zealots.
sometimeshuman 4y ago
"you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them." This is painful and pointless unless it is a good faith discussion. But often people just use you as a sounding board to repeat rumors, gossip, and lies about whatever out-group currently in their crosshairs. Also what possible interaction can you have with someone that can compete with the slow drip of fear and hate they consumed nightly for the last decade from cable news for example.

by blagie 4y ago

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.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    Spoiler alert: I'm probably what you'd call a hard line Republican That said, yes, I've changed the minds of people with fixed ideals, many times, over several decades. Step one is to listen to them without trying to. > Guns What is the mindset that needs to be changed? Republicans, as a bloc, support the right of anybody of sound mind and character (presumptive prerequisites for being part of a potential [and hopefully unnecessary] well regulated militia) to own a gun. They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases, as long as those edge cases don't grow to be standardized restrictions. Maybe you think nobody should own a gun, I dunno, but if that's the case it seems like the kind of extreme absolutist position you're complaining about. > "Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc Again, what's the argument here? I can guess you are dog-whistling about how Republicans just want to use racial slurs or something, but it's just a guess and if I'm right then that's a pretty strawman type assumption. Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing? > Vaccines being good Republicans as a whole are fine with vaccinations, and most are vaccinated many times throughout their life. Don't let the backlash to COVID-19 trick you into thinking they aren't vaccinated for other things. Also, don't confuse vaccines with vaccine mandates, c'mon, no wonder you can't change their minds if that's what you're doing. > Anything that helps another person is "socialism" OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences. That is a very gross mischaracterization (in both the senses of disgusting and wholesale). Maybe you mean they are against the idea of welfare payments or wealth redistribution? Those are pretty nuanced concepts even still, so you really gotta get into a proper discussion. Based on these examples you've provided, I have a hard time believing you have really attempted to have a conversation with a Republican, or maybe you have just had very bad luck as I said earlier. If you want to change minds, you have to know where they are and where you want them to be, and have a path for them to get from A to B. I bet you and I agree on a lot of things if you'd just be willing to listen.
    - thatswrong0 4y ago
      Not the OP you're replying to but: I think there's a chasm between what views Republican voters hold, and what the Republican party stands for, and not being able to distinguish between the two leads to people talking past each other. And yet, being a Republican voter means implicitly endorsing the views of the Republican party. So maybe this chasm doesn't matter. If you vote for a person who explicitly is against climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, etc., then that says something about your own personal philosophy. > They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases The RNC is most certainly not however. No matter how many kids die in school shootings, any attempt to seriously tighten up the rules is met with a chorus of "they're taking our guns!". Getting anything passed took us.. how many school shootings? > Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing? Well, that framing is pretty disingenuous. And Republicans generally support that businesses should be able to serve whoever they want. Labelling a private company's platform as a pseudo-public forum is also at odds with the general ethos of "don't let the government tell me what to do". On top of this, the general outrage about deplatforming often entirely ignores the series of platform rule-breaking that leads up to said deplatforming.. and yet then if an unarmed black person gets killed by a cop, you'll so often hear cries of "just follow the law" coming from the right side. In short, I consistently see Republican politicians / pundits / voters completely abandon their ideals the moment it begins to personally affect them. (Note: this until-it-affects-me probably explains the party's platform about LGBTQ+ issues, racial issues, etc.) > OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences Most of my family members, as the whole, are what I would call "reasonable republicans" who generally care about the principles of small government and not interfering too much with the economy. And yet some of them too occasionally fall into the Fox News inspired trap of labeling anything related to social welfare as "socialism". It's a real thing man.
bluefirebrand 4y ago
I guarantee there are a large number of people who vote Republican but who are willing to discuss abortion and maybe even are pro choice. There just might be other issues they want more that they think the Republican party will deliver on. Those people probably don't go around identifying as Republicans publically. In my experience, the vast majority of people don't let who they vote for define their identity.
rayiner 4y ago
Have you tried engaging with a hardline democrat on abortion? You note below that you’re from PA/OH, presumably places where democrats are used to having their beliefs challenged and republicans aren’t. The situation is quite the opposite in for example DC. (And those folks are much more educated than the folks where you’re from, and I’d expect a higher level of meta-cognition, but alas.)

kyleblarson 4y ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/01/coinbase-wont-allow-discussions-of-politics-and-social-causes-at-work-if-employees-dont-like-it-theyre-free-to-leave/?sh=74ce2bb67459 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/01/coinbase-w...

zorpner 4y ago

If one side is advocating genocide and you want to mute your criticism of politics (so that you can make money, to be clear), that's a choice available to you, but it's neither ethical nor respectable.

mikkergp 4y ago

I think it gets the gnarliest in conversations about discrimination. We have notions of "protected classes" and "non-protected classes", and the recent discussions about caste discrimination are pretty exemplary. And sometimes you can't help but take a side. I don't know that I always think inaction is taking a side, but once you become aware of people taking actions in your company, like a higher caste firing a lower caste, it's harder to make that argument.

feet 4y ago
Inaction is absolutely complicity. By doing and saying nothing you're stating the issue doesn't matter enough to you to not let it continue.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  That's a huge reach. People aren't entitled to have everyone else take personal risks on their behalf. That is why it is worthy of respect when people do stick their necks out for others. And yes, standing up against injustice is very often a personal risk.
  - feet 4y ago
    That's very individualistic. The reality is that we all take part in the same system whether we like it or not.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      This doesn't address what I said at all. Yes, we're all in the same system, so what? Is a person obligated to risk their own position in that system for the sake of someone else? Legally, no. In many ethical systems, also no. You claimed that people who are not taking action are complicit. Often that is absolutely not the case. Often in fact those people are helpless, bound by their own situations. Let's take the example of a mugging. You walk past an alley, and you see someone pointing a gun at another person. Are you obligated to intervene? Of course not. You might be able to save that person's life or defuse the situation but you also just might get killed and accomplish nothing. Let's take another example. Workplace bullying. You witness a person who is being very aggressive to a coworker, giving insults and maybe even being physical. Do you intervene? Of course you do, right? Now imagine you have kids. Your spouse recently lost their job, you can't afford to also lose yours. Surely you wouldn't be risking your job by speaking up about this bullying right? Except the bully is your boss. And he's good friends with the CEO. But that's what HR is for right? You make an anonymous tip to HR. And nothing happens because HR won't act on an anonymous tip. So you should talk to them in person right? But that's putting yourself at risk and boy you really can't lose your job. Helpless. Not malicious.

V__ 4y ago

I agree with you that partisanship and polarization are making it worse. However, you imply that "both sides" are just as extreme, but that isn't often the case. Let's exaggerate it to: "Russians buy sneakers too" or "Taliban are religious too" or something alike. A business saying "We want the Russian military and the Ukrainian civilians to interact, share different viewpoints and prevent partisanship" would sound ridiculous. My example is obviously exaggerated but my point is: Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S., so it doesn't come across odd that some businesses for ethical reasons and some for efficient reasons try to position themselves against it.

geraldwhen 4y ago
Whether you understand it or not you have taken an extreme political position. “Their politics are politics. Our politics are ethics/human rights.” It’s all politics and refusing to see that is extremely divisive.
- V__ 4y ago
  If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, that is not an extreme political position. This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
  - geraldwhen 4y ago
    Politics is politics. A religious person who believes absolutely in no murder might think that Ukrainians have a duty to retreat; land isn’t worth the price of a single life. Many others feel differently. But how personal ethics and belief tie into law and governance IS politics.
    - V__ 4y ago
      I understand your viewpoint, but can't agree with you. Dismissing everything as just politics and giving every viewpoint the same validity would mean that "rape should be legal" and "raising the tax by 1%" are equally valid positions or opinions to hold. Sure, there may be people which would agree with that assessment and calling one viewpoint extreme might seem be divisive to you or ignoring that it's just politics. But I can't agree with you. I find that notion absurd.

dclowd9901 4y ago

I think your initial ideas illustrate a truly naive viewpoint. This isn't about what your company wants. Your customers will create an identity for you and it's yours, whether you like it or not. You can choose to embrace it or to deny it, but even if you try to go the middle route, you're still making a call (usually it's "I'm ok with it"). Another way to look at it: There was a very popular hairstyle among alt-right youths a while back (actually, a couple now that I'm thinking about it). It didn't matter if you were alt-right: if you had that haircut, that's how people perceived you, because that's who adopted the style. It's no different with consumer products. If alt-right nuts started buying up Jumpman products in droves, you can bet that the progressive fans of its brands would demand for the company to take a stand on their co-option or risk losing the progressives (because progressives buy sneakers too).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bell-cot 4y ago

> Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it... Longer-term, that's a dangerous strategy in the social media era. The side you pick may regularly twist your arm to perform expensive demonstrations of loyalty to them. And (depends on where you are) potential customers who are less than comfortable with hyper-partisan politics may be more numerous than the red or blue zealots.

sometimeshuman 4y ago

"you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them." This is painful and pointless unless it is a good faith discussion. But often people just use you as a sounding board to repeat rumors, gossip, and lies about whatever out-group currently in their crosshairs. Also what possible interaction can you have with someone that can compete with the slow drip of fear and hate they consumed nightly for the last decade from cable news for example.