[Barrin92]

The positive framing of this phenomenon is strange. Someone muting his criticism against an open segregationist because his voters buy sneakers is probably one of the more cartoonish examples of market logic and self-interest crowding out people's values.

And I mean this even in a value neutral sense in regards to the topic itself. It's as if a devout Christian would start selling abortion pills or a pacifist became an arms dealer.

When the article uses the phrase 'tribalism' it seems to me they just mean 'political'. People have started to prioritize values over economic calculus again after the monoculture of the 90s, which this kind of a thing was a product of.

[DubiousPusher]

> People have started to prioritize values over economic calculus again.

I'm actually pretty skeptical of this. I think that in most cases, when corporations are taking a "stand" it is because they have calculated that not taking a stand will be more financially damaging to their prospects.

I think the business school lectures that keep coming of late about not alienating consumers are skewd towards a time when

1) The American consumer was more homogenous.

2) Companies had less insight into who their customers were.

What's more, analyses like these seem to take for granted that companies risk alienating an equal number of customers taking any stand other than the center. But the consumer base is not the electorate. Conservative leaning Republicans make up less than half the electorate and their cultural preferences are generally held by well below the majority of people.

The strangest part of all of this talk is that it has exploded in the discourse at a time when the positions corporations are taking have generally been about issues facing minorities of race, sexual oreintation or gender orientation.

Yet dozens of large companies have taken conservative stands in recent decades. And while occasionally the media does question the ends of such stands, i.e. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, there isn't this endless hand wringing about whether businesses ought to be taking culturally controversial positions. The most pointed part being that in a case like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby ACTUALLY affected the lives of millions of people. Most of the things business bloggers grouse about of late is corporations throwing out some utterly token signal of wokeness.

[rayiner]

Having different spheres of society, including some where we can interact without having to hash out our differences in values is necessary for a pluralistic society to exist in a peaceful way. America, in particular, was not created to be a homogenous place where we share values. It was created by a bunch of different religious fundamentalist groups who mostly wanted to be left alone. Indeed, these value-neutral interactions are often a great way to reduce conflict between different groups.

You're never going to win. You're not going to achieve final and total victory over white southerners. Even if you did, then you'll have to battle conservative Latinos, Asians, Muslims, etc. Look over at Muslims in France to see what happens you try to have diversity without a pluralistic social structure that allows groups to leave each other alone over value differences.

[madrox]

I'm more interested in the question of by what right do we demand others to endorse candidates and be publicly political? Jordan provided that response out of pressure for an explanation for why he didn't endorse anyone. It's wild to me that somehow democrats felt they were owed his support. They certainly don't enjoy it when someone comes out in support of the opponent.

[mikkergp]

Yeah, reading his statement again, I realize he's not saying Republicans are people too, or businesses shouldn't discriminate, or any of another positive things he could say that I think others are reading into, he's basically admitting, whatever my values, I can make money. Some articles say he said it as a joke, but it doesn't really say what the joke was.

[bdowling]

> Someone muting his criticism against an open segregationist ...

You're assuming that there was criticism to mute. Many people just want to live their lives without being dragged into politics and forced to choose a side.

[resters]

On the other hand, commerce creates mutual dependency and reduces the willingness of participants to view their political enemies as completely evil, increasing the chances at political compromise and reducing the effectiveness of dehumanization propaganda from either side.

Political beliefs that are prejudiced are usually just people who haven't thought very deeply about the issue and find the emotional aspect of the political cause appealing. Dependency on members of politically opposed groups fosters empathy.

[xwdv]

Unless you are a politician, there is no reason for anyone to know your own personal political views. Any announcement of such views is signaling. It serves no other purpose.

[scarface74]

Let’s say I’m a corporation who gives marital benefits. But some of my employees can’t get married because the state doesn’t allow gay marriage. Should the corporation not take a stance?

Should corporations not have taken a stance about doing business in South Africa before apartheid was abolished?

[xwdv]

Taking a stance does nothing in either of these scenarios except send signals to people.

[scarface74]

So they shouldn’t extend health care benefits to an employees partners when they couldn’t legally get married?

Even paying for birth control as part of a woman’s health care benefit is consider political

[xwdv]

As a single man living in a single income household who also struggles to get married why don’t I get benefits to compensate for my lack of a partner?

[mikkergp]

How are you defining the word “signaling?” Are you being as definitive as you sound when you say serves no other purpose, or do you mean few other purposes? Some would say that celebrities have influence they can use to champion causes they believe in.

[xwdv]

After a certain point there is no reason to champion a cause. If a cause is popular enough people have already made up their minds and all you are doing is boosting your image among those who agree with you. You will not change a mind.

[mikkergp]

Is this ever really true in a capitalist system where causes are constantly competing for dollars?

[zmgsabst]

I don’t think that’s true — there’s second order effects in play, beyond shallow virtue signaling.

People respect Jordan unlike Kapernick or James, because Jordan didn’t hypocritically involve himself in politics — unlike those two who haven been outspoken against racism and slavery… except for the slaves making the shoes they advertise. They’re perfectly fine profiting from those slaves.

- - - - -

I also think your example is ridiculous: not vocally criticizing is nothing like actively participating.

[faizshah]

I think it’s almost the exact opposite, people respect Kapernick for his politics and activism and respect Lebron and MJ for their basketball. I have never heard of anyone respecting Michael Jordan for his politics.

[alex_young]

Just to paraphrase a bit, are you suggesting that any athlete with any merchandise is hypocritical for stating any socially progressive opinion? That seems like a very rigid standard IMO.

[zmgsabst]

No, what I said was very narrow — if you outspokenly condemn historic slavery in the US while profiting from companies that use slave labor, you’re the definition of a hypocrite.

There are “progressive” opinions unrelated which wouldn’t be hypocritical, eg, advocating for universal healthcare while profiting from slaves.

Edit: example related to healthcare here, since I hit the posting cap —

I think the closer example would be advocating for universal healthcare while receiving money from people who actively lobby against it to promote their product, eg, insurance companies.

But part of why they’re “hypocrites” rather than “sellouts” is their lack of speaking out against Chinese slavery, the way Enes Freedom has done.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/590392-ene...

[alex_young]

While I respect your position, I do think there seems to be something else going on here I don't understand.

According to the standard you've outlined, wouldn't someone be hypocritical if they advocated for universal healthcare while profiting from selling products made by those living in a place without universal healthcare?

[selectodude]

As somebody who grew up in Chicago during his time with the Bulls, I can assure you that we all love Michael Jordan as a basketball player but I don't know anybody who has ever had a positive interaction with the guy. He's not somebody anybody respects.

[whimsicalism]

I don't really find this a compelling critique, but beyond that - the suggestion that what is experienced in the average modern-day sweatshop making your shoe is akin to the historical chattel slavery of the middle passage is absurd and hyperbolic.

[zmgsabst]

I was referring to forced labor from Uyghurs.

[whimsicalism]

Even that, which I have not seen evidence that the median shoe is produced by Uyghur labor, is not comparable to the middle passage & chattel slavery.

[zmgsabst]

In what way do you believe they are substantially different?

[whimsicalism]

In places where colonial chattel slavery was practiced, like Brazil, mortality rates were massive, living conditions were unimaginable, and people were bought and sold.

The average African slave in Brazil lived to be 23 years old.

The forced labor of interned Uyghurs, while reprehensible, is just not the same. Moreover, most shoes are not made with forced labor AFAIK.

[awinder]

I would love to know how one generalizes & measures a respect delta between Labron James and Jordan, and then correlate it to social stances. Tiger Woods took issue with racism and exclusion in golf, no one is going around claiming Nicklaus is more widely respected because he doesn’t have a Nike sponsorship lol.

[bragr]

>not vocally criticizing is nothing like actively participating.

That's not what we decided about the collective guilt of nazi germany.

[zmgsabst]

You’re wrong:

We prosecuted those who actively participated at Nuremberg and still hunt Nazi soldier to this day… while we didn’t, in general, prosecute the German people.