3 ms·

Going to guess you didnt read the link in a lot of detail. There are accusations of forced participations in public spectacles in there, regardless of environm

Going to guess you didnt read the link in a lot of detail. There are accusations of forced participations in public spectacles in there, regardless of environmental conditions (ie: heat). If they'll do that for his birthday, would they do that for a world record attempt? How much of a "good thing" is a world record attempt if the participants are compelled by the state and end up putting themselves at risk? Further, the stated rationale from Guinness is "we are a family oriented brand". I can understand them not having done much research about a dictator initially, and maybe being unaware. Only they haven't actually done anything consistent with that when it has been highlighted this individual is using their records as part of a propaganda machine in a very oppressive state. They in fact defended "their record holders". Family oriented? Or profit oriented?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
You're making up a hypothetical situation where the record is objectively bad. Of course I agree that Guinness shouldn't participate in a force record. I'm saying that you can set aside something bad that someone has done, to do something that you believe in of itself is actually good. Your point that record setting can be secondarily used as a propaganda tool feeds directly into my point above about considerations of primary action versus secondary and tertiary actions. By that logic we shouldn't help a dictator build a school or a hospital, because it could be used for propaganda. This is what I reject
- throwaway346434 4y ago
  There's nothing hypothetical here. No could be used, is used for propaganda. - Regime has a track record of human rights abuses - Company takes payment, sends out judge, stamps out record - Company takes a stance as "family values oriented" - Company is then subjected to press coverage pointing out they are working with human rights abuser. - The only public statement they have made is in support of their "record holders". Nothing revoked, revisited, reviewed. If they had "family values", why wouldn't they do this upon learning about who they work with? It's been a number of years, and they have done nothing. This is not the consistent position worthy of respect you think it is. You additionally keep going back to devil's advocate about choices you could make as an individual. You seem to decline to look further into what is happening between a regime lead by an individual and a for profit company, beyond holding them up as... admirable. If you did, you would now know the individual in question does things like take political prisoners, expose the population to harm (mass participation record attempts during a pandemic), spend billions on world record attempt buildings, and more. It's clear cut. The company involved is not achieving any tangible real world good. They are protecting someone who paid them. Building the world's biggest X is not providing any social value. To pretend that a giant statue record is the same as a school or hospital is disingenuous.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Like I said, I don't think we will see eye to eye. I basically laid it all out in my first post. Some people don't see it as wrong to work with bad people if you don't directly hurt anyone. You obviously disagree. More evidence that someone is bad doesn't change this.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      This discussion reminds me a lot about the debate around separating art from the artist, for example whether or not it's ok to like a Chris Brown song despite his history of extreme domestic abuse

s1artibartfast 4y ago

You're making up a hypothetical situation where the record is objectively bad. Of course I agree that Guinness shouldn't participate in a force record. I'm saying that you can set aside something bad that someone has done, to do something that you believe in of itself is actually good. Your point that record setting can be secondarily used as a propaganda tool feeds directly into my point above about considerations of primary action versus secondary and tertiary actions. By that logic we shouldn't help a dictator build a school or a hospital, because it could be used for propaganda. This is what I reject

throwaway346434 4y ago
There's nothing hypothetical here. No could be used, is used for propaganda. - Regime has a track record of human rights abuses - Company takes payment, sends out judge, stamps out record - Company takes a stance as "family values oriented" - Company is then subjected to press coverage pointing out they are working with human rights abuser. - The only public statement they have made is in support of their "record holders". Nothing revoked, revisited, reviewed. If they had "family values", why wouldn't they do this upon learning about who they work with? It's been a number of years, and they have done nothing. This is not the consistent position worthy of respect you think it is. You additionally keep going back to devil's advocate about choices you could make as an individual. You seem to decline to look further into what is happening between a regime lead by an individual and a for profit company, beyond holding them up as... admirable. If you did, you would now know the individual in question does things like take political prisoners, expose the population to harm (mass participation record attempts during a pandemic), spend billions on world record attempt buildings, and more. It's clear cut. The company involved is not achieving any tangible real world good. They are protecting someone who paid them. Building the world's biggest X is not providing any social value. To pretend that a giant statue record is the same as a school or hospital is disingenuous.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Like I said, I don't think we will see eye to eye. I basically laid it all out in my first post. Some people don't see it as wrong to work with bad people if you don't directly hurt anyone. You obviously disagree. More evidence that someone is bad doesn't change this.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    This discussion reminds me a lot about the debate around separating art from the artist, for example whether or not it's ok to like a Chris Brown song despite his history of extreme domestic abuse