Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Page 8 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

08 Dec 2020, 7:28 am

I will also clarify that even the ABC as it is is not perfect with what actual Left issues are. This coming from the fact that it is affected by people like conservatives complaining that it is being too leftwing for their liking, and has to play to stupid game of trying to appeal more open to the different sides of the political scale. And one of those sides is the one that buys into garbage economics, does not want to feel guilty about climate science or economy for younger generations, and wants to blame all problems on foreigners. While also pretending there are no social problems like racism, and anything LGBT related.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,623
Location: Long Island, New York

08 Dec 2020, 1:06 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Mikah wrote:

I always liked Vox Day's "five stages of corporate convergence."

Convergence describes the degree to which an organization prioritizes social justice. There are five stages of corporate convergence:

1. Infiltrated. The corporation has been entered by people devoted to social justice, but they do not have any significant influence or authority within the company. Employees are hired, fired, and promoted on the basis of either merit or connections. The marketing tends to reflect the company's products and services.

2. Lightly Converged. The social justice infiltrators have begun to move into their preferred areas, such as Human Resources and Marketing, but they don't have any real influence over the corporation's policies or corporate strategies. The company starts to make occasional noises about "outreach" and "diversity", but doesn't actually change its employment practices. The marketing is still mostly about the company's products, but now features improbably diverse scenarios.

3. Moderately Converged. Social justice advocates now control Human Resources, which is used as a corporate high ground to exert influence over other departments as well as the executive team. The corporate marketing begins to devote more attention to signaling corporate virtue than selling its products. Managers are encouraged to hire diverse candidates and to stop holding low-performance employees accountable. HR begins holding mandatory awareness sessions and hiring diversity consultants. The corporation's customer service begins to go downhill.

4. Heavily Converged. Social justice advocates now control the corporate high ground and the strategic centers. Significant elements of the executive team and the board are devoted to social justice, often in a very public manner. Implicit hiring quotas are imposed and it becomes almost impossible to fire anyone for anything short of murder in the workplace. HR openly dictates corporate policy to employees, often without consulting the executives. The marketing materials not only signal corporate virtue, but openly advocate various social justice issues. The corporation shows indifference to its core customer base and begins to obsess over new markets that mostly exist in its imagination.

5. Fully Converged. The corporation devotes significant resources to social causes that have absolutely nothing to do with its core business activities. Human Resources is transformed into a full Inquisition, imposing its policies without restraint and striking fear into everyone from the Chairman of the Board on down. The CEO regularly mouths social justice platitudes in the place of corporate strategies and the marketing materials are so full of virtue-signaling and social justice advocacy that it becomes difficult to tell from them what the company actually does or sells. The corporation now shows open contempt for its customers.


Even if I took the time to deconstruct all the garbage and nonsense present in this corporate convergence baloney, nobody here would read it, simply because it would have to be several pages long. But hey, if anyone does, let me know and I'll take the time. Suffice to say, if a business ever tried to actually "run" itself like this, it would fail before it got past step 3, if not sooner. It's certainly a wordy conspiracy, and I'd wager that makes it at least look viable to those who don't know better, but it's little more than a fanfic about "evil liberals and their conspiracy to hand the world over to minorities at the expense of the population". It is not based in reality, aside for the barest amount necessary to make it not completely untrue.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Most companies do not deliberately commit financial suicide. Before taking action how the market for their product will react to woke messaging is thoroughly researched. When Nike took the "Betsy Ross Flag" off of their sneaker last year conservatives screamed and their profits skyrocketed. Why? OK boomer conservatives were not buying their sneakers anyway so calls to boycott Nike were mostly virtue signaling. Facebook these days is an older person's social media platform. My guess is Facebook is looking for a younger market. Advertisers want a younger adult cohort because it is understood older adults are harder to convince to change brands. They probably correctly figure their older adult membership will complain but not drop them because they are set in their ways.

All these companies going "woke" is a reflection of the hip wealthy cohort thinking that way.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,958
Location: I'm right here

08 Dec 2020, 1:39 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Human resources have to a large extent, been taken over by the political left who favour positive discrimination towards minority groups.
From what I heard, graduates from some humanities courses have few opportunities to find employment other than jobs such as in "Human Resources".

Once there, they create an enclave of like thinking people, until the culture of the business has virtually been taken over.
This type of left-wing political coup has happened in the Australian ABC, and so much for diversity of thought.

It is a problem in many businesses these days, EA, the computer game entertainment company, being just another victim. That left-wing culture virtually destroyed Battlefield 5 because of the SJW interference.

You have to hand it to the left of politics.
They plan ahead. 8)


Almost all medium-large organisations follow the principles of best practice Pepe. Under best practice they establish human resource departments to engage in talent search/staff recruitment. They create standard position descriptions which seek staff who are both competent in terms of skills but also have exceptional/outstanding communication and capacity for teamwork. These three things are universal.

The probability that an HR department would be screening potential applicants for socialist values is almost zero. This is why the allegations made by the liberal party about the ABC and universities being a hive/hornets nest of left wing agitators is quite untrue. My best guess is that the Libs wanted to interfere with how broadcasters portray their party to the public so created that narrative to interfere with the running of the ABC.

That highly intelligent people in the ABC and/or universities are naturally drawn toward social justice is only natural as such people also tend to be more ethical (a number of professions teach ethics as part of professional practice).


Hasn't it's a conspiracy been the default explanation for why portions of society rejects conservative values for quite some time? Anywhere people who question conservative ideals congregate gets accused of being part of a shadowy left-wing plot with the goal of forcing everyone to agree with them.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,958
Location: I'm right here

08 Dec 2020, 1:40 pm

Mikah wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Mikah wrote:
5. Fully Converged. The corporation devotes significant resources to social causes that have absolutely nothing to do with its core business activities. Human Resources is transformed into a full Inquisition, imposing its policies without restraint and striking fear into everyone from the Chairman of the Board on down. The CEO regularly mouths social justice platitudes in the place of corporate strategies and the marketing materials are so full of virtue-signaling and social justice advocacy that it becomes difficult to tell from them what the company actually does or sells. The corporation now shows open contempt for its customers.[/i]


I'm curious if you could provide one example of a private company (please don't use foundations, companies with the word "ethical" in their description, NGOs, NFPs or charities) that actually puts social justice ahead of company profits??


Off the top of my head... Gillette?


Perhaps they weren't anticipating such a vicious response from triggered reactionaries.

Considering they changed course when they got that backlash I'd say they're not a good example to make your case with.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

08 Dec 2020, 3:15 pm

There seems to be two assumptions embedded in the arguments being presented here.

Pepe insists that he's "seen" the "bias", but all that proves is that Pepe considers anything "left" of his own views to be "bias", even if he does fancy himself Da Orakle Of Troof, and Da Most Impartial 8) Perhaps it's not that "everyone is to the left" as it is YOU are more to the right, and drew your own line of demarcation, and are now saying "I'M not biased, everyone ELSE is!" Just a thought. There was a time in my life when I thought everyone was being mean to me - and then I realized I was being a jerk to everyone, and didn't realize it. I stopped being a jerk, and now people are much nicer to me. It was like magic. When one finds themselves in a mindset where its "me vs everyone", it might be time to take a step back and ask some hard questions.

One could reply with "you would say that, you're one of them" or something similar, or perhaps invoke the idea of gaslighting. But the former is merely circular logic (you are, because you are) and the latter might best be described as an attempt at a false-fallacy (I can make it look like it is, therefore it must be).

The other assumption, from Mikah, seems to be that if a corporation does anything at all that even looks like a "liberal agenda", that MUST mean that the company has been totally infiltrated by SJW's, and no longer cares about anything except pushing an agenda. Companies are allowed to have views on social issues, and express them, so long as they correspond to the actual views and values the company wishes to project or present. The idea that a company MUST be "infected" with SJW types in order to do such a thing as express an opinion completely ignores the fact that companies are allowed to have opinions, and that maybe those opinions are valid, and the only reason you see them as biased is cos they disagree with your views.

Seeing a commercial about toxic masculinity and thinking "wow, pushing an agenda, eh?" really says more about that person's opinion of toxic masculinity than it does about the company's "agenda". If the individual believes that toxic masculinity is "just a liberal agenda", then of course that same person would think the company has been "overrun" with liberal SJW's, because "only THEY would dare to do such a thing, or even believe such a thing", failing to realize just how much of their own bias that reveals.

The reply to that is often similar to, "that's not bias! Toxic masculinity IS just a scam to make men weak (or something)!" - which is in fact a biased opinion, even if the person adamantly believes it to be true.

Mikah has also switched feet between arguing that "companies fight for justice causes at all cost, including the complete sacrifice of all money-making activities in favor of social justice" to "companies will NEVER sacrifice the bottom line ever for any reason". Those are two very different situations, and to compare them is unreasonable.

Companies make calculated risks all the time. That's part of business. Companies will also make decisions that will lose them money, in the short term, for greater gains in the long term. Such as moving to a larger facility. This is completely different from suspending ALL money-making activities indefinitely, and pouring all remaining finance and labor into purely biased acts of agenda pushing. If one actually did that, they would go bankrupt in months, if not weeks. Then, when they have no money, they also have no labor, and no resources, because they have no money to pay for anything. So it all falls apart. Stockholders and stakeholders would all pull out, likely LONG before that. Unless they too shared the "agenda" to begin with, in which case, it was always their company to do with as they pleased to begin with, and thus was not "infiltrated", but belonged to "the agenda" in the first place.

The idea is essentially akin to attempting to stay alive while lost in the woods by eating your own arms and legs for food.

The corporate convergence theory is based on just enough slivers of semi-truth to not be completely untrue, but is still essentially garbage, saying little more than "I'm not biased, YOU'RE biased!"



Last edited by uncommondenominator on 08 Dec 2020, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Dec 2020, 3:27 pm

Regarding corporations. Any practice that fundamentally harms the performance of the company will die out in the long run by the law of competition.*

*Exception for when the company or practice is being propped up by the government


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

08 Dec 2020, 3:33 pm

Antrax wrote:
Regarding corporations. Any practice that fundamentally harms the performance of the company will die out in the long run by the law of competition.*

*Exception for when the company or practice is being propped up by the government


Businesses which accept government money have stricter restrictions on what they can or can't do. If they engaged in an unlimited SJW crusade as is being implied, the government could, and would, cut off the funds. There's a good chance the company would be on the hook to pay some of the money back, too. Unless the government is also in on the "agenda".

Government money is not like a gift from grandma, and once you have it you can do whatever you want with it. Businesses with government involvement are NOT free to do as they please.

Side note - a tax break isn't money from the government - it's relief from otherwise owed taxes relating to assets and income. Tax breaks do not help a business that is not making money.



Last edited by uncommondenominator on 08 Dec 2020, 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Dec 2020, 3:38 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Regarding corporations. Any practice that fundamentally harms the performance of the company will die out in the long run by the law of competition.*

*Exception for when the company or practice is being propped up by the government


Businesses which accept government money have stricter restrictions on what they can or can't do. If they engaged in an unlimited SJW crusade as is being implied, the government could, and would, cut off the funds. Unless the government is also in on the "agenda".


I was speaking generally. You really shouldn't worry about a SJW crusade in business unless the government starts heavily intervening to make it happen.

As far as I can tell no successful businesses is engaged in SJW crusades. I see many offering up SJW appeasement in order to promote their public image. I also see others recognizing that some minority markets are untapped and there's opportunity there if they can find the right angle.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Last edited by Antrax on 08 Dec 2020, 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

slam_thunderhide
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

08 Dec 2020, 3:38 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:

All these companies going "woke" is a reflection of the hip wealthy cohort thinking that way.


That is just delusional. The elites decide what they want, and then they manufacture consent - not the other way round. If some companies are responding to the "woke" opinions of young people, it's only because those young people have had those "woke" opinions put into their heads by elites in the media and academia, not because those young people have figured anything out for themselves.

The naivety on this sub-forum is remarkable. I'm sure that only a few years ago it wasn't this bad.



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

08 Dec 2020, 3:42 pm

Antrax wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Regarding corporations. Any practice that fundamentally harms the performance of the company will die out in the long run by the law of competition.*

*Exception for when the company or practice is being propped up by the government


Businesses which accept government money have stricter restrictions on what they can or can't do. If they engaged in an unlimited SJW crusade as is being implied, the government could, and would, cut off the funds. Unless the government is also in on the "agenda".


I was speaking generally. You really shouldn't worry about a SJW crusade in business unless the government starts heavily intervening to make it happen.

As far as I can tell no successful businesses is engaged in SJW crusades. I see many offering up SJW appeasement in order to promote their public image. I also see others recognizing that some minority markets are untapped and there's opportunity there if they can find the right angle.


Some of them are even just trying to do the right thing, and be better for it's own sake.



slam_thunderhide
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

08 Dec 2020, 3:45 pm

I remember a time not too long ago when a large number of leftists were all about opposing capitalist exploitation and opposing wars of imperialism. Now, like well-trained pets, most leftists have had their attention re-directed (by those same elites they used to oppose) into various forms of 'woke' nonsense.

This thread is a case in point. Facebook makes billions while conducting mass surveillance and paying piddling amounts in tax. Maybe that's the sort of thing leftists should be focusing on? But no. Instead we have them cheering on Facebook as Facebook introduces some racially discriminatory policy, just because Facebook dress it up in the language of social justice. After all, silencing ordinary people who use bad words online is what the Left should really be concerned with, isn't it?

Leftists who fall for this stuff are the sort of people who are going to cheer on the next US invasion of the Middle East if the US army waves around the LGBT flag while they're doing it. :lol:



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Dec 2020, 3:46 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:

Government money is not like a gift from grandma, and once you have it you can do whatever you want with it. Businesses with government involvement are NOT free to do as they please.

Side note - a tax break isn't money from the government - it's relief from otherwise owed taxes relating to assets and income. Tax breaks do not help a business that is not making money.


I think you added this part after my original response. Agreed on the first part. A business taking money from the government must then follow the governments rules. This can result in what would otherwise be harmful business practices being propped up by the government. The agenda comes from the government not the business.

Tax breaks decrease costs. Sure if you're operating at a loss and don't pay any taxes it won't help you. But say your profit margin is 11%. You implement a practice that hurts your business for a government tax break. That is without the tax break it, the practice would drop your profit margin to 9%, but with the tax break your after tax profit margin
rises to 12%. The government artificially makes it favorable to implement that practice.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

08 Dec 2020, 3:51 pm

slam_thunderhide wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

All these companies going "woke" is a reflection of the hip wealthy cohort thinking that way.


That is just delusional. The elites decide what they want, and then they manufacture consent - not the other way round. If some companies are responding to the "woke" opinions of young people, it's only because those young people have had those "woke" opinions put into their heads by elites in the media and academia, not because those young people have figured anything out for themselves.

The naivety on this sub-forum is remarkable. I'm sure that only a few years ago it wasn't this bad.


Calls people delusional, cites a conspiracy theory.

You can't make this stuff up, folks...



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

08 Dec 2020, 3:53 pm

Antrax wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:

Government money is not like a gift from grandma, and once you have it you can do whatever you want with it. Businesses with government involvement are NOT free to do as they please.

Side note - a tax break isn't money from the government - it's relief from otherwise owed taxes relating to assets and income. Tax breaks do not help a business that is not making money.


I think you added this part after my original response. Agreed on the first part. A business taking money from the government must then follow the governments rules. This can result in what would otherwise be harmful business practices being propped up by the government. The agenda comes from the government not the business.

Tax breaks decrease costs. Sure if you're operating at a loss and don't pay any taxes it won't help you. But say your profit margin is 11%. You implement a practice that hurts your business for a government tax break. That is without the tax break it, the practice would drop your profit margin to 9%, but with the tax break your after tax profit margin
rises to 12%. The government artificially makes it favorable to implement that practice.


But if you're making zero money, then you have zero money. Not paying taxes on zero money doesn't make more than zero money magically appear. Tax breaks do not reduce cost, they increase retained revenue. You just get to keep more of what you've made.



slam_thunderhide
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

08 Dec 2020, 3:59 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

All these companies going "woke" is a reflection of the hip wealthy cohort thinking that way.


That is just delusional. The elites decide what they want, and then they manufacture consent - not the other way round. If some companies are responding to the "woke" opinions of young people, it's only because those young people have had those "woke" opinions put into their heads by elites in the media and academia, not because those young people have figured anything out for themselves.

The naivety on this sub-forum is remarkable. I'm sure that only a few years ago it wasn't this bad.


Calls people delusional, cites a conspiracy theory.

You can't make this stuff up, folks...


Lololol. You know, I sometimes wonder why people on this sub-forum are so abnormally fond of the term "conspirsacy theory". I guess to some people with A.S. the idea of other people actually working together to achieve a goal is too incredible to contemplate.

When I compare some of the old threads on this sub-forum with the rubbish that gets posted now, I really do find it remarkable how low this sub-forum has sunk.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Dec 2020, 4:06 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Antrax wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:

Government money is not like a gift from grandma, and once you have it you can do whatever you want with it. Businesses with government involvement are NOT free to do as they please.

Side note - a tax break isn't money from the government - it's relief from otherwise owed taxes relating to assets and income. Tax breaks do not help a business that is not making money.


I think you added this part after my original response. Agreed on the first part. A business taking money from the government must then follow the governments rules. This can result in what would otherwise be harmful business practices being propped up by the government. The agenda comes from the government not the business.

Tax breaks decrease costs. Sure if you're operating at a loss and don't pay any taxes it won't help you. But say your profit margin is 11%. You implement a practice that hurts your business for a government tax break. That is without the tax break it, the practice would drop your profit margin to 9%, but with the tax break your after tax profit margin
rises to 12%. The government artificially makes it favorable to implement that practice.


But if you're making zero money, then you have zero money. Not paying taxes on zero money doesn't make more than zero money magically appear. Tax breaks do not reduce cost, they increase retained revenue.


Your statement is technically more correct than mine. Although the finer points of corporate tax law are beyond my expertise. I'm not entirely certain a company operating a loss won't be subject to any taxation. More often we hear about companies that make a lot of money not paying any tax, but it might be industry dependent. I know for example of the tricks hollywood studios use to keep the tax bill down, but those tricks won't work for an oil company.

I think a possible misconception here is that a company making any amount of money is a successful company. A company making barely more than cost on an average year, won't be able to grow, and if some adverse event hits like say a global pandemic or a recession will go under.

I don't want to get too bogged down in this. I think we can both agree that the government can influence corporate policy with contracts, subsidies, and tax breaks contingent on certain practices.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."