re: Will rampant viewpoint discrimination be a permanent fixture in American life?

quote:

---

And internal corporate emails? I know my company pushed out an internal email supporting social changes and commenting on the Floyd murder. There were no customers targeted by the email, no money to be made, there were no employees threatening to burn down our assets....they just felt the need to comment and show support. I'm sure it pissed some employees off but the overwhelming majority of not only employees, but Americans in general, feel that this is a time of reckoning and my employer was letting us know that they're supportive of that reckoning.

---

Play this out

What happens if they don't put out the statement? Angry employees go public that Coke hasn't said shite about BLM. Do you think it's more likely they're genuinely worried about employee concerns about Coke's silence, or do they know and expect that their statement will be released to the public and/or that their silence will be discussed in public?

Now, to argue against myself a bit, I do think we're also seeing the fruits of letting the nutjobs get off the campuses. For years we said "Oh, it's just Berkley" and now the Berkley kids are directors of diversity at Coke. So I do suspect some political influences in the structures of these corporations are helping to push narratives and messaging. But I think both internal and external statements are largely motivated by fear.

quote:

---

It's not my assumption. It's a direct response to a premise you presented regarding corporations acting in their interests by appealing to minority dollars.

---

I've gone back over my posts here, and I don't believe I've ever referenced "minority dollars." As I've said before, I think corporations are responsive to social movements to the extent that it will make them money, and I believe a large part of why they're publicly supportive of BLM right now is because that movement has support that crosses racial lines.

quote:

---

I might, if the LGBT crowd was burning down stuff like elements of the BLM crowd are. But regardless, as mentioned repeatedly, stigma promotes fear just as physical destruction & violence does.

---

"Stigma" is a very strong term for "people viewing your company unfavorably." Why are you arguing as if this is the first time companies have ever felt pressure to avoid a negative brand image? They manage their public perception constantly, and they have been for a very long time.

Again, what is the alternative to allowing people to view companies unfavorably based on their actions and allowing companies to respond to public opinion by shaping their brand image? People are judging companies based on their actions and statements, and companies are responding to consumer sentiment by positioning themselves to be as profitable as possible, and it seems to me that those are both things that ought to be allowed in a free society.

quote:

---

. It also ignores the underlying threat of violence that has been raised, 

---

There isn't a threat of violence on a level that would concern any major corporation. (I'm keeping this discussion on the level of large corporations because that's what we've been discussing in the past few posts.) Your entire view on this issue is based on the premise that corporations are essentially being forced into social compliance by the threat of violence, and I find that laughable. Looting and vandalism are of course, wrong in and of themselves. That said, the vast majority of protesters are peaceful, and the looting that has happened is sporadic and local. These are crimes of opportunity, not a coordinated plan to force Fortune 500 companies into compliance. The people who looted a Target in Florida didn't stop to check whether or not Target had posted a pro-BLM statement on Instagram before they broke into the store. There's no evidence to prove any correlation between a company's public statements and whether or not one of their franchises gets robbed. This scenario of executives quaking with fear over the safety of their property while they plead with the marketing department to shape a tweet that will be sincere enough to keep looters away just isn't based in reality.

quote:

---

I assume, that if the tide turned and the silent majority of Americans began telling BLM to shut up, perhaps with some destruction and violence thrown in to bolster the demand, and corporations responded to that by public statements disavowing protestors as terrorists, you'd maintain your stance that this is freedom and the free market at work?

---

If there wasn't widespread public support for anti-police brutality movements, companies wouldn't be making these statements. I have no expectation of any company, much less publicly traded ones, to do anything that isn't linked to making them more money. In such a scenario, yes, I would expect companies to put out "Blue lives matter, we stand with our brave police" type statements, and yes, I would be arguing that it's their right to do so and that we're just seeing the free market at work. I would have my rights to judge a company for making those statements and to decide if I ever wanted to do business with them again, and so would everyone else, which is exactly what's happening right now.

quote:

---

Again, what is the alternative to allowing people to view companies unfavorably based on their actions and allowing companies to respond to public opinion by shaping their brand image? People are judging companies based on their actions and statements, and companies are responding to consumer sentiment by positioning themselves to be as profitable as possible, and it seems to me that those are both things that ought to be allowed in a free society.

---

The alternative is the proposal this conversation began with - a critical mass of the majority which is silent right now standing up and saying "enough".

I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue for something outside of letting the free market work, aside from a factor I've continually raised, which is governmental authorities not doing their job to appease the mob.

quote:

---

This scenario of executives quaking with fear over the safety of their property while they plead with the marketing department to shape a tweet that will be sincere enough to keep looters away just isn't based in reality.

---

It seems odd to use a Target example considering they've been specifically targeted in multiple cities and are based in Minneapolis. But the point isn't that if Auto Zone doesn't post a black square Auto Zone will get burned down (although it's hard to argue that concern would be at least somewhat rational). The point is that the movement we're discussing has an element of violence and destruction to it. On a macro level, the movement (in which "peaceful protestors" proclaim all cops are bastards, pigs should fry like bacon, and that there will be no peace without their vision of justice) is creating pretty widespread havoc and destruction and is demanding to be appeased with ritualistic submission and absolution before things can return to normal.

Surely you'd agree that March for Life, which doesn't engage in violence or destruction on any noteworthy scale, poses less business threat than a movement where buildings burn, glass is broken, curfews are enacted and businesses are forced to shorten their hours?

The violence and destruction amplifies the voices of the extremist minority. No, it may not mean Coke trucks get burned (although it might), but it bullies individuals into going along with whatever the extremists want from Coke. "Not sure we should go to the pro-Trump restaurant because I don't want my tires slashed." The person making that decision isn't a legitimate free speech actor expressing a view against a restaurant supporting Trump. They're avoiding the restaurant because of fear of the mob. And the restaurant, to stay in business, has to kneel in order to get back in the good graces of the mob so the reasonable man can return and spend his money.

quote:

---

I probably should know better than to give ANY thought to a corporation having any sense of empathy

---

Yep, pretty much. At the point where large corporations are putting out bland statements vaguely supporting a cause that was considered extreme decades ago, you've accomplished very real change. As a person who spent part of the Nineties arguing that it was stupid that gay people couldn't get married, I've seen it happen,

quote:

---

We've just spent pages debating whether corporate PR is actually reflecting public viewpoints or whether it's reacting to intimidation.

---

These PR strategies are heavily rooted in social media research. They essentially need to get the pulse of the most vocal and potentially violent/ruinous voices in order stay ahead of the outrage game. PR is now relegated to preventing the mobs from destroying your brand, not promotion.

quote:

---

SOMEONE WHO TRULY BELIEVES ALL LIVES MATTER.....

---

Stay home

quote:

---

Lawsuits for what?

---

Harassment
Extortion
Criminal Mischief
Blackmail
Doxxing is a crime in many states
Intent to commit assault

It already was.

Corporations and large companies issue public statements on LinkedIn to control brand management. The smallest portion of incentive is out of genuine support. The majorly of incentive is out of precaution. They are trying to get out ahead of the mob. 1.They build the “fall back on “ content and publish it beforehand so they can point back to their “published” policy in the event that they become the cause de jour. 2. They also do it to help dissuade would be cancelers from attacking them in the first place.

Make no mistake.....it is an act of self preservation based on fear and intimidation learned over the last 8-12 years.