3 ms·

There is bad-faith activity on this thread when a substantive comment like this is downvoted without rebuttal.

freejazz 4y ago
Not really, it seems like the poster's own grievances about ESG. I've been asked these questions at every job I've ever had, and that preceded ESG by decades... I wish people here could use reasonable judgment instead of a kind of judgment that reflects "something is possibly true technically, but not really realistic, but I'm going to treat as true anyway because it runs against a mainstream/political narrative so someone rebut me"
- geraldwhen 4y ago
  I have inside knowledge with respect to fund investment.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    What does that have to do with my point?
- MockObject 4y ago
  > ESG funds will buy more of your company’s stock if you have a higher percentage of women on boards, for example, and other metrics. This is as close to a neutral and objective description of ESG as could be written in English! That is not grievance, and it should not be downvoted as such.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Yeah, that is a neutral description of it. My issue wasn't the description of ESG, but the conclusions drawn about how ESG is driving things (which I pointed out, significantly predated ESG) thats exactly the point I'm making about being obtuse for no reason at all. It's abundantly clear from my post that my issue is the conclusions the poster drawn about how ESG drives things, and not the poster's description of ESG on its own. Yet you are apparently under the belief pointing this out rebuts me? That's not reasonable at all.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      I was showing that his description of ESG hardly qualifies as grievance that deserves downvoting. If we agree that his description was neutral, great!
      - freejazz 4y ago
        It is not being downvoted because of the description, it is being downvoted because of the conclusions drawn about ESG which are baseless and easily discounted by anyone's personal experience in the business world prior to like, 2 years ago when it became a buzzterm. This has been explained to you twice yet you are pretending to be so obtuse as to not understand why the post is validly being downvoted. The only thing that is bad faith is you continuing to engage in this conversation with me while not putting any effort in to actually grok what is being discussed.

Not really, it seems like the poster's own grievances about ESG. I've been asked these questions at every job I've ever had, and that preceded ESG by decades... I wish people here could use reasonable judgment instead of a kind of judgment that reflects "something is possibly true technically, but not really realistic, but I'm going to treat as true anyway because it runs against a mainstream/political narrative so someone rebut me"

geraldwhen 4y ago
I have inside knowledge with respect to fund investment.
- freejazz 4y ago
  What does that have to do with my point?
MockObject 4y ago
> ESG funds will buy more of your company’s stock if you have a higher percentage of women on boards, for example, and other metrics. This is as close to a neutral and objective description of ESG as could be written in English! That is not grievance, and it should not be downvoted as such.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Yeah, that is a neutral description of it. My issue wasn't the description of ESG, but the conclusions drawn about how ESG is driving things (which I pointed out, significantly predated ESG) thats exactly the point I'm making about being obtuse for no reason at all. It's abundantly clear from my post that my issue is the conclusions the poster drawn about how ESG drives things, and not the poster's description of ESG on its own. Yet you are apparently under the belief pointing this out rebuts me? That's not reasonable at all.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    I was showing that his description of ESG hardly qualifies as grievance that deserves downvoting. If we agree that his description was neutral, great!
    - freejazz 4y ago
      It is not being downvoted because of the description, it is being downvoted because of the conclusions drawn about ESG which are baseless and easily discounted by anyone's personal experience in the business world prior to like, 2 years ago when it became a buzzterm. This has been explained to you twice yet you are pretending to be so obtuse as to not understand why the post is validly being downvoted. The only thing that is bad faith is you continuing to engage in this conversation with me while not putting any effort in to actually grok what is being discussed.