Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. The #metoo movement should take a look at some of these companies.
How easy or even feasible is it to track where the money is coming from? Let's say you're a startup and a VC wants to invest in you. Can you ask for that information?
If you go public, you have zero control of who owns your company. It's not more ethical - it just launders your ethical responsibility.
There are plenty of people or organizations - who also happen to have a horrific ethical record - who can buy shares in a private company. And there's nothing you can do to stop that.
I don't care who they answer to, I care about what they do. The CIA has a history of torture and terrorism. The DOD has most recently, caused the deaths of a couple hundred thousand people in the Middle East.
Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures.
I mean, I would prefer ethical sources of funding, but drawing the line at "Sadui bad, China bad, Russia bad, American agencies/companies/individuals good" is tribalism.
The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head.
If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.
The empire was governed by Parliament.
The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. The Koch brothers have power. Aristocrats, throughout history have had power, even if they have no formal posts in government. Just because a few well-connected individuals have power in a country, doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy.
> The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head.
> If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.
Those are both wrong. It was settled in 1911 when George V made clear he would intervene by appointing new life peers if necessary to assure passage of reforms which would strip the House of Lords of its power to reject legislation, which finally settled that the Commons would henceforth be effectively the sole decisive ruling body of the Empire.
Prior to that, the Commons (democratic, approximately) and Lords (decidedly not) had an ebb and flow of power, with the Lord's sometimes being more powerful and the Commons sometimes being more powerful (including, for a period, the Commons abolishing the Lords with Cromwell's support, but that, like Cromwell, didn't last.)
It wasn't a binary change, from absolute power to none. Those events represented shifts in degree from the crown to Parliament. AFAIK, King George III still had significant power, for example, during the American Revolution.
Also, I've never heard the UK of that era referred to as a democracy. Here it says that under Queen Victoria (1837-1901), the role of the monarch transformed from one that exercised real power to one that was purely ceremonial:
> The British empire was a parliamentary democracy
Not particularly; I mean, the Commons was democratic and Parliament largely governed the Empire, but the Commons wasn't really the sole meaningful house of Parliament during most ifthe period of the Empire.
This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).
Except the figure head of #metoo was found to be as guilty as the rest of them [1]. Every actor or celebrity screaming #metoo is a hypocrite who was happy for the status quo to be a culture of assault and degradation, until it became convenient for them to say otherwise.
Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social breakdown [2].
There is no doubt that humans are shitty. Was that ever in question? The #metoo movement has brought forward, and into public discourse, a problem. Had this not been brought forward even Argento's indiscretions wouldn't be known. The things highlighted by the #metoo movement are impactful and important to the advancement of our society and civilization. These actions should not be considered "OKAY" and most people who say the #metoo movement is filled with witch hunting and should be stopped are effectively discounting any of its gains. Nothing is perfect, but we can all strive to be better—and maybe with #metoo visible in the world we can avoid the problems of the past in our future.
I believe the other two persons arguing with you here are simply saying that #metoo has a noble agenda but was quickly hijacked to push other people's agendas. Which is sadly a pretty classic scenario IMO.
Most are against due process? As in most supporters of #metoo or as in the most visible and loudest supporters that you have focused on? Do you have any kind of real statistics about the supporters of #metoo or are you making an inference from what makes the headlines from your chosen media?