5 ms·

Wouldn’t hiding it also be political? Seems being transparent is closer to behaving neutrally to me.

by j4coh 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Neutral behavior is not desired. The admin desires to take unilateral, unchecked action without repercussions, while controlling the narrative. Enact tariffs while publicly stating "everything is fine." "Why are you making us look bad by sharing the facts of the actions we're taking?" is how you can think of this. Never assume rational and good faith behavior from bad faith actors. Watch what someone does, not what they say. The words are free and meaningless.
- staticautomatic 1y ago
  100% you’re either a militant conformist or an enemy.
  - j4coh 1y ago
    Amazon has now backed down and will hide them, so it seems the strategy works.
protimewaster 1y ago
That's what I would think. Though, as other users have pointed out, Amazon is being selective about what what they show. If they really wanted to be transparent and neutral, they'd need to show everything that makes up the price (how much the seller/manufacturer gets paid, what Amazon's cut is, how much goes to the payment processor, etc.) Personally, I think it would be pretty great if they showed all that, but I don't see that ever happening.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
  Isn't this different? This tariff isn't a seller's cut, it's a tax, and when I look at my Amazon invoice I see the taxes I paid.
  - protimewaster 1y ago
    Yeah, I agree it's different, but it's all selective transparency. They're willing to be transparent about things they can directly blame on the government (tax, tariffs) but not other things that influence the price (Amazon's markup, the payment processing charges). It would be better if they showed all of that, IMO.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  No, that's not the same thing. Tariffs are taxes collected by customs agents (no matter how much this administration wants to pretend they aren't), and taxes already show up as itemized additions to your receipt, unlike margins and seller fees.
  - protimewaster 1y ago
    To me that just means they're already doing selective transparency. They treat government influences on price as different than other factors that influence the price.
    - j4coh 1y ago
      Every receipt I’ve ever gotten in my life has separated tax, and I don’t recall I’ve ever seen seller margins or anything like that on a receipt before.
      - protimewaster 1y ago
        Yeah, I'm not saying Amazon is the only one doing this. But I am saying that if they're saying that consumers deserve transparency, this just scratches the surface.
zasz 1y ago
Well, in the literal sense it would be neutral to be transparent, but "political" in the sense that the White House is using means "you're being mean to me."
- mingus88 1y ago
  It’s such bare hypocrisy, but it’s just another reminder that they have no actual beliefs aside from power, so everything they do or say is fair game.
danaris 1y ago
There is no neutrality. No, seriously: "political neutrality" as a concept is inherently and fatally flawed. The closest you can ever attempt to come is either a) maintain/support the current status quo—this is obviously a big problem for anyone the status quo is not serving b) tailor whatever you're saying/doing to try to cleave to the exact current center of the political landscape—this is obviously going to be very fraught and highly subjective; no one actually does this Anyone who says they're "apolitical" or who tells you to make something "politically neutral" is nearly guaranteed to be just a beneficiary of the status quo advocating for preserving it, often without even realizing that's what they're doing. Ultimately, it's much more honest and positive in the long run to be honest about your own biases and, yes, be as transparent as possible.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  This is false. Or at least it's almost totally false. I can try to judge things by whether they are true or false, accurate or misleading, good or bad ideas, regardless of who said them. Yeah, I fail sometimes - partly because I do have biases, and partly because I don't have infinite amounts of time and energy to dig in to find out the truth. Still, I don't judge what the administration says by which brand of administration it is. I prefer my news sources to be straight rather than slanted. And I can say that without being a supporter of the current status quo. I find Trump's bullying to be reprehensible.
  - toofy 1y ago
    interesting, out of curiosity did this lead you to not see his bullying and behaviors coming? did this lead you to deny yourself the bigger picture of past behaviors, context, etc…?
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      What have I said that made you think that I ever supported Trump? I didn't, ever. What made you think that I was blind to what he was? I could tell what he was before he was elected the first time.

Wouldn’t hiding it also be political? Seems being transparent is closer to behaving neutrally to me.

by j4coh 1y ago

Wouldn’t hiding it also be political? Seems being transparent is closer to behaving neutrally to me.

Neutral behavior is not desired. The admin desires to take unilateral, unchecked action without repercussions, while controlling the narrative. Enact tariffs while publicly stating "everything is fine." "Why are you making us look bad by sharing the facts of the actions we're taking?" is how you can think of this. Never assume rational and good faith behavior from bad faith actors. Watch what someone does, not what they say. The words are free and meaningless.

staticautomatic 1y ago
100% you’re either a militant conformist or an enemy.
- j4coh 1y ago
  Amazon has now backed down and will hide them, so it seems the strategy works.

protimewaster 1y ago

That's what I would think. Though, as other users have pointed out, Amazon is being selective about what what they show. If they really wanted to be transparent and neutral, they'd need to show everything that makes up the price (how much the seller/manufacturer gets paid, what Amazon's cut is, how much goes to the payment processor, etc.) Personally, I think it would be pretty great if they showed all that, but I don't see that ever happening.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
Isn't this different? This tariff isn't a seller's cut, it's a tax, and when I look at my Amazon invoice I see the taxes I paid.
- protimewaster 1y ago
  Yeah, I agree it's different, but it's all selective transparency. They're willing to be transparent about things they can directly blame on the government (tax, tariffs) but not other things that influence the price (Amazon's markup, the payment processing charges). It would be better if they showed all of that, IMO.
Analemma_ 1y ago
No, that's not the same thing. Tariffs are taxes collected by customs agents (no matter how much this administration wants to pretend they aren't), and taxes already show up as itemized additions to your receipt, unlike margins and seller fees.
- protimewaster 1y ago
  To me that just means they're already doing selective transparency. They treat government influences on price as different than other factors that influence the price.
  - j4coh 1y ago
    Every receipt I’ve ever gotten in my life has separated tax, and I don’t recall I’ve ever seen seller margins or anything like that on a receipt before.
    - protimewaster 1y ago
      Yeah, I'm not saying Amazon is the only one doing this. But I am saying that if they're saying that consumers deserve transparency, this just scratches the surface.

zasz 1y ago

Well, in the literal sense it would be neutral to be transparent, but "political" in the sense that the White House is using means "you're being mean to me."

mingus88 1y ago
It’s such bare hypocrisy, but it’s just another reminder that they have no actual beliefs aside from power, so everything they do or say is fair game.

danaris 1y ago

There is no neutrality. No, seriously: "political neutrality" as a concept is inherently and fatally flawed. The closest you can ever attempt to come is either a) maintain/support the current status quo—this is obviously a big problem for anyone the status quo is not serving b) tailor whatever you're saying/doing to try to cleave to the exact current center of the political landscape—this is obviously going to be very fraught and highly subjective; no one actually does this Anyone who says they're "apolitical" or who tells you to make something "politically neutral" is nearly guaranteed to be just a beneficiary of the status quo advocating for preserving it, often without even realizing that's what they're doing. Ultimately, it's much more honest and positive in the long run to be honest about your own biases and, yes, be as transparent as possible.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
This is false. Or at least it's almost totally false. I can try to judge things by whether they are true or false, accurate or misleading, good or bad ideas, regardless of who said them. Yeah, I fail sometimes - partly because I do have biases, and partly because I don't have infinite amounts of time and energy to dig in to find out the truth. Still, I don't judge what the administration says by which brand of administration it is. I prefer my news sources to be straight rather than slanted. And I can say that without being a supporter of the current status quo. I find Trump's bullying to be reprehensible.
- toofy 1y ago
  interesting, out of curiosity did this lead you to not see his bullying and behaviors coming? did this lead you to deny yourself the bigger picture of past behaviors, context, etc…?
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    What have I said that made you think that I ever supported Trump? I didn't, ever. What made you think that I was blind to what he was? I could tell what he was before he was elected the first time.