The problem isn't where corporations spend their political donations or philanthropy, it's that liberals think that its their business to have a say in the matter.
Great post. And a worthy reminder that normally, when corporations do things that may appear virtuous to us, they're doing so not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they believe it to be good business. At the risk of veering off-topic, it's worth noting that, if we want good behavior out of corporations, we need to incentivize that good behavior.
Back on topic… Now that I think about it, airing an ad for your products that takes some sort of stand in the hope that it sells product—that's not even really a virtuous act. More just virtue signaling. Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's just not anything righteous about it. It's an ad for your product, not a public-service announcement. (I'm thinking back to the Super Bowl ads that found a way to feature Martin Luther King Jr.)
Anyway, it's a good thing that, on the list of ethical criteria that guide my consumer spending, I don't include the political bents of the company and its leadership. Down that way lies madness. And anyway, I've already purchased my two pairs of Kyrie 4s (the best basketball shoes I've ever worn).
BTW, I just can't get enough of the fact that the GOP gubernatorial candidate's name is Knute Buehler. That's kinda awesome. In the unlikely event he wins, he would have the most quintessentially "Northwest Republican governor" name since Idaho's Butch Otter.
Pretending that some multinational conglomerates are good boys and others are bad boys is just another way dumb people pretend that they are better than others, while living the same lifestyle and consuming the same things.
But of course we DO have a say - by choosing what products and services we patronize based on a company's political and social actions; in normal parlance it's called "voting with your pocketbook". And companies DO pay attention - IF they see it affecting their bottom-line.
Dollar votes are the worst votes.
"it's that liberals think that its their business to have a say in the matter."
Oh. Christ. Here bumbles our resident Forest Gump.
First off: Liberals?
So, all the squeals, screams, Talk Radio and Fox News outrage pieces, Facebook groups, demonstrations, and product burnings and boycotts by right-wingers against every perceived corporate slight against White American Cristian Values were ACTUALLY conservatives declaring that they have no "say in the matter?" Are you fucking kidding me?
Second: Consumers, right and left, very much have a "say in the matter," dumbfuck. Or corporations would run like little bitches pink and green washing or spend billions on PR. If it didn't matter what consumers think or say corporations would still be investing in apartheid and giving money to the Klan.
Do you take five seconds to think about anything your club hands mash out on that Fisher Price keyboard of yours?
UGH. I wasn't under the impression that the CK marketing campaign was anything other than that (a slick and effective marketing campaign), but I did buy a hoodie yesterday because pretty much that gets 45 and his white supremacist minions' panties in a twist is a good thing in my mind. I mean god forbid these assholes care about black people being murdered on a daily basis by cops instead of whining and crying and screaming and burning shit because someone takes a knee in protest.
But the joke's on me because my $ just went directly into their pockets. FUCK. And I just bought it yesterday, too. If I had waited and read this today, the purchase never would have happened.
*pretty much anything
and no I can't return it b/c I've already altered it (I am disabled).
total virtue signaling and mutual opportunism under the guise of spontaneous altruism at the cost of our epistemology, yet it still keeps re-emphasizing the essentialist view that the main issue facing the black community is over-policing, and trigger happy cops. any of you folks ever peep the podcast with glen loury and john mcwhorter? worth listening to just as an alternative to the current mainstream line of thinking.
Oh and @1 the actual problem is that SCOTUS' decision Citizens United made it so that corporations ("are people") can donate obscene amounts of money to buy and sell politicians and elections. It is the exact opposite of democracy. It is bad for everyone, no matter what one's political affiliation is. The only thing that should EVER matter is one person, one vote. That is how things SHOULD work. The obscene perversion of corporate interests buying and owning our government should be an affront to everyone.
@11 and your comment contributes to the dialogue how? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
Wait a minute, since when has Nike stopped using sweatshop labor?
Is that really true? Serious question.
@14 if you search the issue, it is not really clear. For awhile they made serious improvements, but as of last year they seem to have backslid (enough for people to notice).
5 and 7: OK, but corporations will never know whether its out of politics or whether it was the wrong flavor or size that a consumer didn't buy said product or service. In an aggregated sense however, I concede your points.
"but corporations will never know whether its out of politics or whether it was the wrong flavor or size that a consumer didn't buy"
Oh. For. Fuck. Sake. So seeing people on social media burning a Nike jersey would be confusing for a corporate marketing and PR department? Holy shit, man. When you "concede a point" you actually need to concede the point and not equivocate some rhetorical back door where you argument crawls away and survives unscathed. Of course consumers and citizens have a say in what corporations do, invest and donate. I mean. They SHOULD. Unless you really do want to live a totalitarian state. Which, apparently, most so called "conservatives" actually seem hell bent on creating for themselves.
13 - quite the contrary. I am offering a few morsels there, plus a suggestion of some people smarter and blacker than I who have some interesting heterodoxical views worth at least knowing about and being able to refute on merit. I would argue that outside of the cynical side of this corporate blackwashing virtuesignaling, there is also a side effect of disenfranchisement and domestic terror that this reinforces the myth that bloodthirsty cops are roundly out to get black people, and that this over-policing and capital and lowercase racism is the defining aspect of the condition of blackness, and is the main cause of the adverse outcomes we see when we sort demographics by "black" and other non black subsets. these views are better put by loury/mcwhorter, and I have been dabbling in considering them.
Ya, you are right. I should add in something like “ I hope all white people get killed” or something...
Followed up by a “ It was just a thought! I didn’t really to go out and do it!” Post
Does that help contribute to the dialogue?
@21 sure, fine, whatever. going after me personally is really productive and rehashing things already beaten to death even more productive. you have nothing to contribute. keep obsessing over me. at the very least it will keep you from doing anything else. it's apparent you have nothing else to do anyway. show everybody who you are. keep it up. bring it on. is that all you've got?
@18: Tangential references to things like burning a jersey do nothing to elevate your argument. Corporations can choose to take the opinions of their consumers into consideration on how they run their businesses, which for the most part they do. But they are under no prerogative to do so.
Those whom take issue, such as yourself, simply have to accept the fact that you made your comments heard and go on. Shop, and pout, elsewhere.
Just because Trump got elected doesn't mean that the lunatic fringes of society with your dispositions are validated in their totalitarian dogma.
I was suckered because I bought a sports top with the logo, in support of CK, even though it's my policy to never wear a logo. I'll wear it because I know it pisses off the Red Hats, and it's a good shirt. I bought Patagonia last Christmas because of their opposition to Trump. I will vote with my dollars.
So the summary of this story is that Nike is like any other publicly traded company whose main objective is to increase profits because they answer to shareholders. Not exactly hot news or is it surprising at all
This article is misleading. Maybe a bunch of wealthy Nike employees donate to the GOP (and I don’t know about whether or not Nike matches those donations?) but here is the actual breakdown and it favors Democrats.
@6 Agrippa: Thank you.
@11: Said the trolling idiot. Seriously--lay off that stinkin' root beer, Ogie. Your triglyceride level must be through the roof.
@26 actually, the article specified that the 2008 and 2016 cycles went blue, but that the majority of the time they donate more to the GOP. So what you’ve shared doesn’t contradict the title at all.
No matter how cynical you may be about the motives behind corporate PR campaigns, it is not cynical enough.
Saucony is a better shoe.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134