Why are Woke Western Companies so Inconsistent?

[Ana the Ist]

Actually they do.

This is part of the problem with the new left and its one I've been pointing out repeatedly for at least a few years now.

They don't actually hold any values.

Imagine if I told you I thought rape was wrong and evil and I am 100% against rape....and then you find out I've raping a bunch of women.

When you confront me with this information....I reply "Yeah but not my wife...I would never rape her."

Do I actually hold some sort of moral value against rape? No....of course not. I would be pro rape in that purely hypothetical scenario.

So when the left says "we're against racism/for diversity" and you point out that doesn't actually include everyone....they go "well yeah...we don't care if anyone is racist towards them."

They aren't actually against racism.

There's a senator or rep or someone who embarrassed some trans activists who were supposed to be part of this shaming session against Republicans for advocating violence against the government on social media or something like that.

This is basically a perfect example. They pretend to have values they care about.....but they don't actually hold any values.

 

[Larniavc]

So when the left says "we're against racism/for diversity" and you point out that doesn't actually include everyone....they go "well yeah...we don't care if anyone is racist towards them."

Let me guess: white people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me guess: white people.

See? I didn't even have to say it.

 

[IceJad]

Why would a mega corporation pander for profit?

Gee. What a mystery.

Gee why would a person who see such pandering criticizing it? Maybe because there is something morally wrong.

I don't parade myself as a saint but if I do people should measure me against my own standards regardless of my true intention.

Only proves one thing wokeness is nothing but a ideological tool. Even people who profess to believe in its merit will not put their "ally" (in this case hypocritical corporations) to task as along as the "ally" serves their ideologically cause locally. If it is truly a moral standard it should be universal. Unfortunately there are too many that come to the defense of their clearly inconsistent "ally". Tribalism short and simple.

So comes this conundrum for people who believe in woke ideology:
1) If they believe it is a moral standard then they should hold it universally (that is what a moral standard is)
2) If they know full well that the virtue signaling corporations are disingenuous yet turn a blind eye and support the corporations regardless then what does that say about them.

(PS: I have always seen wokeness as political/social ideology not a moral one)

It is the same standard I measure religious people as well. If you say your believe system holds this certain value why do you or even myself act contrary to it?

 

[Larniavc]

See? I didn't even have to say it.

Ah yes. The most victimised of demographics. When will white people ever catch a break?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah yes. The most victimised of demographics. When will white people ever catch a break?

I imagine we have one coming if they repeal Affirmative Action and they keep firing these DEI ....consultants? I don't know what companies call them.

 

[stevevw]

Disney Self-Censors 'Simpsons' Episode Critical Of Chinese Government

A censorship expert says that the removal of the episode on Disney+ in Hong Kong is likely Disney's way of protecting "the company’s ties, current and future, in mainland China.”

www.cartoonbrew.com

Report: The Walt Disney Company And Marvel Studios To Educate Actors In Order To Placate Communist China

A new report claims that The Walt Disney Company and Marvel Studios will begin educating their actors and executives in order to placate communist China to ensure the release of future films into the country.

boundingintocomics.com

Over the past year or so many western based companies have gone full far-left ideology in their operations. Instead of remaining apolitical they have clearly chosen a side. From their political contributions to public messaging and even core products. That will be all you will notice if you're in Western countries. Warner Bros., Disney and the list goes on. They only cater to one side of the political spectrum and have openly antagonized the other. All for standing on some form of "righteous principal". An example is LGBT rights are human rights. Seems admirable that it is the hill they are willing to die on. With legions of activists backing them up.

Or so it appears on the surface. Come China! One of the largest if not arguably the largest authoritarian entity in the world. They have far worse stances on LGBT, race and freedom in general. And records of oppression they desperately tell the world to ignore at the expense of cutting you off their markets. Now these "staunch uncompromising" woke companies are more than willing - in fact self-initiated - to cater to the needs and feelings of known authoritarians. Aren't what they stand for and promote paramount to human rights? No compromise. Just look at how they act in their own borders. Same applies to their diehard activist backers.

My question is why that morality stops at the doorsteps of communist China? I know they prostrate and make low themselves for other not-so-free nations as well, China is the biggest heel-turn they make in most cases. So China is a stand-in of sorts for the others. If these companies are willing to fight the government of their countries why are they unwilling to do the same on CCP?

Rhetorical I know. RMB RMB RMB RMB.

Another big company using PC but this time in reverse. Usually its all about being woke for locals to show how in touch they are as being woke is good for PR and the public now expect big business not to just be ruthless in making profits but show some social repsonsiblity. Like with climate change and inclusive workplaces.

The movie industries PC and woke is showcased at award nights like the Oscars where the stars get up and virtue signal and get all political. But people started to turn off as they knew it was all superficial.

Morality becomes a comodity and because morality is relative I am sure some justification will be argued about doing a deal with China like being able to get movies into China may help educate them about western ways of thinking. Thats while we are becoming more like China in the west as we muzzle free speach and cancel ourselves out in the name of PC and woke. Its all a mishmash and no wonder people don't have faith in our governments and big corporations.

 

[BPPLEE]

Ultimately, a company like Disney wants to make money for their shareholders. Indeed, they have a legal obligation to do so. And not many people will be so offended that they stop doing business with Disney if they remove certain programming in China, whereas Disney is supported by many LGBT persons, both as employees and as guests at their parks, and as producers and consumers of their media. So it's not really inconsistent.

Doesn’t it offend those LGBTQ people when Disney censors LGBTQ content to appease China?

 

[IceJad]

Doesn’t it offend those LGBTQ people when Disney censors LGBTQ content to appease China?

I highly doubt they cared enough about actual LGBT rights. To me (at least by observation) activists only care for social power and control. The ability to exploit people's guilt and conscience to enforce their interpretation of societal law. Anything that is outside their ability of influence they don't care. So you won't see them stretching their necks out for LGBT in other nations beside Western ones. Even in Western nations, I have seen activists actively harass LGBT people who voice disagreement with their methodology and principles. But I'm getting off topic.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's lots of things one might criticize Disney for, but their supposed "hypocritical" stance on LGBT rights isn't one I'd take seriously. They are corporation, their job is to make money. To say otherwise is to fall into similar rhetoric to the woke scolds who want to punish people for being insufficiently woke.

Woke scolds or anti-woke are just two sides of the same coin. Both are basically little more than concern trolling, and not serious discussion of substantive issues.

 

[IceJad]

There's lots of things one might criticize Disney for, but their supposed "hypocritical" stance on LGBT rights isn't one I'd take seriously. They are corporation, their job is to make money. To say otherwise is to fall into similar rhetoric to the woke scolds who want to punish people for being insufficiently woke.

Woke scolds or anti-woke are just two sides of the same coin. Both are basically little more than concern trolling, and not serious discussion of substantive issues.

I think the companies make money aspect is not the appropriate excuse for inconsistent behavior especially when it involves a moral stance. You have to ask yourself why a social issue as business strategy? What are the benefits of said strategy? How would said strategy backfire if I don't follow through in other markets? No one ask them to use social issue as brownie points. But since they use it, it is only natural to question their inconsistency.

It is substantive because you see how detrimental submitting to an authoritarian regime is like. It is no longer what happens only within their borders but companies have actively enforce foreign nation policies within the borders of own nations. Self censorship, refusing hire people due to opposition from the other nation, and lobbying on the other nations behalf to protect market access. All these are in contradiction of the values held by their own nations. You think these have no substantive effect? Then I suggest you read up more on the "Chinese United Front" and how they operate.

Woke companies are willing to fight their own governments for "moral principles" yet forward the "immoral principles" of authoritarian nations. The more people see and hear about these hypocrisies, the more pressure on the woke companies to restraint.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the companies make money aspect is not the appropriate excuse for inconsistent behavior especially when it involves a moral stance.

It's not a moral stance, ultimately, it's a business stance. Almost nobody seriously expects Disney to be a moral authority in western societies. They expect them to make entertainment for a mass audience.

You have to ask yourself why a social issue as business strategy? What are the benefits of said strategy? How would said strategy backfire if I don't follow through in other markets? No one ask them to use social issue as brownie points. But since they use it, it is only natural to question their inconsistency.

They offer different products in different markets? That's only "inconsistent" if you see it through a moral lens. They just see it as good business.

 

[stevevw]

There's lots of things one might criticize Disney for, but their supposed "hypocritical" stance on LGBT rights isn't one I'd take seriously. They are corporation, their job is to make money. To say otherwise is to fall into similar rhetoric to the woke scolds who want to punish people for being insufficiently woke.

Woke scolds or anti-woke are just two sides of the same coin. Both are basically little more than concern trolling, and not serious discussion of substantive issues.

Where does one draw the line with profits before people. If a company sells arms to a barbaric regime that kills innocents is that ok because it brings profits to the shareholders. The movie industry often virtue signals about protecting minorites rights. Isn't that a bit hypocritical doing deals with a country that denies minorities their rights. Sort of sends a mixed signal an undermines all their wokeness. Surely thats not good for business ie image and reputation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where does one draw the line with profits before people. If a company sells arms to a barbaric regime that kills innocents is that ok because it brings profits to the shareholders.

Arms companies are in the business of selling arms to people with cash. If selling things to people who use them to kill or harm others is a problem for you, you shouldn't be in the weapons business.

The movie industry often virtue signals about protecting minorites rights. Isn't that a bit hypocritical doing deals with a country that denies minorities their rights. Sort of sends a mixed signal an undermines all their wokeness. Surely thats not good for business ie image and reputation.

Oh, sure they get a little backlash from activists, but they get to make money selling their "woke" product where it is popular and omitting them when they sell the rest in places where they wouldn't get to sell anything if they were stubborn about politics. If this seems a cynical view of corporate politics, then it is the correct one. Corporations don't back a political/social position because they have some underlying need to, but rather to keep their customers or employees happy. Sure they lose a few absolutists, but the ground they make up is much more profitable.

 

[stevevw]

Arms companies are in the business of selling arms to people with cash. If selling things to people who use them to kill or harm others is a problem for you, you shouldn't be in the weapons business.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that because its cash and hidden its morally OK. I would think it was a problem for people if they learnt that a some individual, organisation or secret government deal for cash was being done especially if it was to those who kill indiscriminately or for any negative situation that puts people at risk or exploits them. I think we've been down that road before.

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In fact we are still at it. Even though cash is not involved which sort of makes it worse as its using tax payer money and hiding its purpose in a controversial and complicated war and taking sides.

Documents reveal Australia's secret arms deals

The Australian Government approves the export of dozens of shipments of military items to Middle Eastern countries embroiled in the bloody Yemen war, a conflict dogged by accusations of war crimes and indiscriminate civilian killings.

www.abc.net.au

Oh, sure they get a little backlash from activists, but they get to make money selling their "woke" product where it is popular and omitting them when they sell the rest in places where they wouldn't get to sell anything if they were stubborn about politics.

I think its risky business nowadays with social media which gives an aweful lot of power to individuals and groups to destroy reputations and even bring down individuals and businesses. Being socially responsible and woke is now a big part of good business. Companies are getting involved in supporting locals and charities. They could get more than a little backlash but actually lose reputation which will inevitably effect their bottom line.

The Growing Importance Of Social Responsibility In Business

The Growing Importance Of Social Responsibility In Business

Businesses can no longer operate with the sole aim of making profits at the expense of the environment, society, economy, consumers and employees.

www.forbes.com

From memory a few companies have been caught out for being socially irresponsible like Nike or Adidas or maybe it was a clothing company. BUt they were using poverty wages and workers in poor conditions to make their products. Now we see labels with products such as responsibly obtained or produced or environmental ratings to signify they are socially responsible.

If this seems a cynical view of corporate politics, then it is the correct one. Corporations don't back a political/social position because they have some underlying need to, but rather to keep their customers or employees happy. Sure they lose a few absolutists, but the ground they make up is much more profitable.

That doesn't make sense. The very idea of political/social positions is one one that holds a wide range of positions asnd as we know in politics and religion it can become very deivisive because not everyone holds the same view and people become emotional. So a company taking a specific position one side of the other is going to upset and put off a fair number of their own customers and employees.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that because its cash and hidden its morally OK. I would think it was a problem for people if they learnt that a some individual, organisation or secret government deal for cash was being done especially if it was to those who kill indiscriminately or for any negative situation that puts people at risk or exploits them. I think we've been down that road before.

I thought I was pretty clear: If you are selling arms, you can't really complain that people use them. Nearly all weapons of war are designed to either kill/wound people or destroy things that contain people (vehicles, buildings). If you are squeamish about your product being used to kill people (innocent or not) you shouldn't be making or selling weapons of war.

 

[stevevw]

I thought I was pretty clear: If you are selling arms, you can't really complain that people use them. Nearly all weapons of war are designed to either kill/wound people or destroy things that contain people (vehicles, buildings). If you are squeamish about your product being used to kill people (innocent or not) you shouldn't be making or selling weapons of war.

But we are not talking about how the company itself feels about selling their products as that would be a conflict of interest but how the public feels. The whole furore is over whether Disneys actions of doing a deal with China is right or wrong in the public eye. Why would Disney get upset at itself for doing a deal with China. So its the public outcry that will do damage to a companys reputation and inevitably its profits.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But we are not talking about how the company itself feels about selling their products as that would be a conflict of interest but how the public feels. The whole furore is over whether Disneys actions of doing a deal with China is right or wrong in the public eye. Why would Disney get upset at itself for doing a deal with China. So its the public outcry that will do damage to a companys reputation and inevitably its profits.

So you're done with "selling weapons" then. (Not sure why it got brought up, oh well.)

As for Disney and China, the public largely doesn't care. Nor do they care that the NBA kowtows to China. This goes even for most of the "woke" public. They want their basketball and Star Wars.

 

[stevevw]

So you're done with "selling weapons" then. (Not sure why it got brought up, oh well.)

I was trying to bring up a better scenario with what would be considered a clear ethical breach that most people agree with like selling arms to a country we know commits indiscriminant killing so that we can apply the same logic that making profits before ethical considerations is OK. I was pointing out that I don't think too many people would support profits before ethics.

Heck theres a growing number of people who don't like capitalism fullstop. So Disneys venture into China would not only be seen by some as unethical but others will be against Capitalist nations and global corporations expandeing their reach and power.

As for Disney and China, the public largely doesn't care. Nor do they care that the NBA kowtows to China. This goes even for most of the "woke" public. They want their basketball and Star Wars.

Not sure if the Chinese are Woke. At least not in the way we are in the West. People wouldn't have a chance in China to push their ideologies on governments, institutions and the public or protest in the first place. China is more totalitarian than the West.

As for "the public largly doesn't care" are you saying they 'don't care' because its not something their interested in or that they 'don't care' becuase its not seen as doing anything wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not sure if the Chinese are Woke. At least not in the way we are in the West. People wouldn't have a chance in China to push their ideologies on governments, institutions and the public or protest in the first place. China is more totalitarian than the West.

China is run by an oppressive regime that has no interest in bolstering their own minorities. On this they do align with the "anti-woke"* movement in the US.

As for "the public largly doesn't care" are you saying they 'don't care' because its not something their interested in or that they 'don't care' becuase its not seen as doing anything wrong.

What I am saying is that the number of basketball fans that refuse to follow the NBA because they bow down to the demands of Peking to not cause "trouble" in China is rather small. Likewise the number of basketball fans that have abandoned the NBA because they have supported BLM and related racial justice movements. There are some, but not that many. A lot of the "complainers" are those that never really paid much attention to the NBA. (I have never followed the NBA, other than some causal awareness of things going on, and am not a source of revenue for them, so they really don't have any financial reason to care what my opinion of them is.)


*I'm tired of this term "woke" as it is so ill defined and to the extent it has a "meaning" it only refers to American white/Christian cultural conservative grievances. (Not all complaining about "woke" are white & Christian, some are non-Christian whites and others are non-white Christians, but let's face it, the primary nexus of such is with white American Christians.)