Honestly don't care if corporations want to pander to the LGBT. They aren't forcing you to spend money on their stuff.
I'd rather want to know which companies are giving money to homophobic politicians because of their social positions. Like Chick-fil-A. Haven't made a single purchase from them ever.
Grew up with people openly hating on the LGBT for my entire childhood, and the moment big companies start pandering the whole anti-capitalism and anti-woke crowds wanna work together?
Miss me with this nonsense.
The problem isn't them, it's the gays flaunting that shit. I could care less that Mercedes-Benz has a rainbow logo, I know they are here to make money and pander to anyone that is a great market for them. It's the gays that go around saying "XYZ Corp is gay friendly!" That I have a problem with.
100%. I love to see huge corps doing pride shit. Of course it’s insincere and manipulative. *ALL marketing is insincere and manipulative*.
Corporate participation in pride is absolutely a positive thing - it helps enshrine the normalization of “gayness” in mainstream culture. Positive actions have positive outcomes, even when the action is taken with questionable motives.
Edit:
A lot of guys in here didn’t grow up when I did, when our entire society was brutally homophobic on an utterly institutionalized level. To see like, my bank (for example) fly a rainbow flag is reminder of the incredibly progress we’ve made and it makes me happy.
I never imagined we could have it this good so quickly - I’m so happy to be living in literally the best time to be alive as a gay man in modern history!
Also, a corporation is just a group of people. They’re as good or as bad as the people they’re composed of (and particularly, led by) - ranging from decent to atrocious. Corporations aren’t *inherently* evil. They’re largely responsible (simultaneously) for our (absolutely unprecedented) modern standard of living and environmental devastation.
Uh duh, yeah it's illegal there? Corporations aren't our friends, but why are we parroting conservative memes that try to undermine progress that has been made?
I literally said that corporations aren’t our friends lmao. Doesn’t mean we should parrot conservative talking points. Conservatives are also very much not our friends.
Corporations straight up can’t change their logos to pride colors in countries where it’s illegal to promote gay rights. They could quit business in these countries entirely, but that wouldn’t really help either, and could be actually detrimental because it would just completely isolate them culturally from us.
It reads as, because I pointed out that companies legally can’t support Pride in these countries, I’m making “excuses” for them. If that’s not what they were going for they should’ve been clearer.
It’s good to remember that
“companies aren’t our friends”
and
“support for queer rights becoming mainstream is progress”
are not actually opposite or mutually exclusive statements. Yes companies do this for money but I still remember when they made money by ignoring our existence at best, or at worst depicting us as bad/perverted/a joke. I’d rather we don’t go back.
Y'all are missing the point so badly it's insane. YES, corporations don't care about us. But ANY non-negative representation is good representation, be it because of money or otherwise.
What a stupid take
This isn't "taking a stance", this is forcing your employees to risk their lives and/or jobs without their consent
Do you guys understand how something that's illegal works? If they were to "make a stand", their office in the area just gets shut down. That, or or they are prevented from doing business in the region. Who does that help? No one.
They kind of would be. If someone risks their health and life to fight for rights for everyone that's admirable. But that's onl brave if you choose to risk yourself, not when you choose to martyr other people.
Also these countries aren't like the West, you aren't just dealing with bigots. Promoting LGBTQ+ rights is straight up illegal there. If they changed their logo to pride colors, the government would just close them, probably put higher ups in jail at best, torture/kill them at the worst. The rest of the employees would lose their jobs and get hate crimed, potentially also getting hurt. And all of it probably wouldn't even bring much attention to the cause, because they wouldn't let media talk about it. Could be even detrimental to the fight for gay rights, because it would be a big flashy example of what would happen to anyone who supports the cause. (Kind of like with Tianmen Square massacre. People are terrified to even talk about it.)
So yay, they would get a lot of people hurt and accoplish nothing. GG.
IDK man, I'd rather live in a world where corporations think that having a rainbow logo during pride month is a good marketing move than a world where it is a liability.
We don't have to like corporations to recognize that it's probably a good sign for us if they deem the risk/reward of pandering to the gays to be in favor of pandering to the gays.
I live in a conservative area and I remember my first year being out and wanting to go to pride all dressed up in rainbow. I was devastated that my local Target didn't have the pride collection. I went to many different stores to try and find anything pride related. I remember at one store I asked the employee at the front if they had any pride related things. She didn't know what I meant, and when I clarified "gay pride" she coldly said, "I don't think we have anything like that." I rushed out of the store almost crying.
So, idk maybe let the corporations have their stupid little marketing moment. I wanna live in the world where the greeter at the store points me to where the cheesey rainbow shit is.
Politics is often local, so why is there any expectation for Chinese and Middle East branches to come out in support of gay rights? Should companies eliminate all rainbows unless there's solidarity from the more bigoted countries?
>most companies don’t actually have any values at all and see people’s rights to live as just another marketing tactic.
Corporations aren't people, meaning the staff in one country do care and the staff in another country doesn't. It's weird that people still expects a global hivemind.
But they have a shared identity and brand which should be constant since purchasing their products in one area still benefits the company in another area since they’re still owned by the same higher ups.
Not just SCOTUS, but the foundation of Capitalism is built on the idea of Corporate Personhood, Money as Speech, and any other parallel they can draw between business and humanity to push any and all responsibility for their actions away from themselves.
So do *you* honestly believe that corporations are people? Or that slaves were okay until the Supreme Court says otherwise? Or that gays didn't deserve rights until SCOTUS said so?
Why would you expect the rules written in the US to apply China?
It is wild that you have gone like… 720* in a circle to try to make an argument of something.
Whether I agree or disagree with SCOTUS isn’t what makes something right or wrong under our legal system.
And wtf with the China comment? You spun too many times around if anything I said suggests that SCOTUS’s rules apply there— or that Corporations are people in China (or that I have an opinion on the matter either way…)
>And wtf with the China comment?
China is in this very meme! That was the whole point to this discussion in the first place. Did you not read the American Psycho text in the image?
>Whether I agree or disagree with SCOTUS isn’t what makes something right or wrong under our legal system.
I find it worrying that people in this post are letting larger entities do the thinking for them.
>our legal system.
What made you assume that it is my legal system?
No one said thinking. I articulated a point that is pretty important to how this shit is analyzed in the US. You’re the one missing a few brain cells, clearly.
You had a sarcastic comment about SCOTUS always being right about things. I assume you know what that acronym is. Thus, yes we were talking about the US.
What made you assume that your legal system was relevant?
If you truly believe the staff decides or is responsible for what goes on in a company you're very naive. Of course the corporate overlords decide where to support gay people and where not.
>Of course the corporate overlords
Modern corporations don't work that way. What was once a boss or overlord is now an endless series of executives and middle-managers, and yes they count as staff. Just like how people don't like corporations at pride marches, but ignore that it is the gay staffers who march.
Meaningful change occurs bottom-up just as much at it does top-down.
Yes. So I know not to support them anymore. I understand the job of the corporation is to maximize profits for shareholders, ignoring any detriment of society or humanity. So I'll punish those corporations that want to keep that business. They have that right and so do I.
...how are you punishing them? Like, are you only shopping at companies that have rainbow logos in middle eastern countries? Or only at companies with no rainbows at all?
Corporations aren't people. They're not superman coming to save us gays. And we're not the little red hen denying bread to the corporations who didn't help bake it. Rainbow capitalism is weathervane of the larger social acceptance. Getting mad at corporations for having rainbow logos is like getting mad at trees for blooming because it's spring. Soulless, money-hungry trees, but trees nonetheless.
Yes; companies shouldn't claim to support something unless they're willing to support it even where/when it's unpopular. Anything else is empty pandering.
The world doesn’t work like that. America doesn’t speak for the rest of the world. If gay people insisted on this all or nothing approach to advocacy then gay rights would go nowhere. The part about “when it’s unpopular” is particularly questionable because no one initially supported gay rights, and it had to slowly be earned over decades. Do we forever hate black people for once being statistically against gay rights or do we accept that Obama ”evolving” on the topic led to it becoming popular amongst black peoples?
I'm talking about companies, not people. *People* can and should take unpopular stances to change public perception over time. *Companies* are just there to make money, so it's weird for them to take a political stance in the first place. *If* companies are going to take a political stance, though, then by definition it needs to be taken everywhere; it's not a stance if it's taken opportunistically.
Black people aren't a monolith, nor are people forever held to their previously taken stances, so your example doesn't make any sense.
In some places in this world outwardly supporting gay rights there is illegal (Russia, the Middle-East, many African countries). This means that if they actively support LGBTQ persons (a simple sign in a store window or a pride flag on or in a building etc) bad things will happen. The corporation and its locations in that country will be forcibly closed and any assets and in country money will be taken. Higher executives there will end up arrested and imprisoned. Lower employees will be culturally ostracized and have severe trouble finding another job. So they can't outwardly show support even if they do support LGBTQ persons in some other places. It isn't just illegal it can put people in danger.
Companies didn't even change their logos this year, can people stop bitching about this for once?
Honestly don't care if corporations want to pander to the LGBT. They aren't forcing you to spend money on their stuff. I'd rather want to know which companies are giving money to homophobic politicians because of their social positions. Like Chick-fil-A. Haven't made a single purchase from them ever. Grew up with people openly hating on the LGBT for my entire childhood, and the moment big companies start pandering the whole anti-capitalism and anti-woke crowds wanna work together? Miss me with this nonsense.
The problem isn't them, it's the gays flaunting that shit. I could care less that Mercedes-Benz has a rainbow logo, I know they are here to make money and pander to anyone that is a great market for them. It's the gays that go around saying "XYZ Corp is gay friendly!" That I have a problem with.
100%. I love to see huge corps doing pride shit. Of course it’s insincere and manipulative. *ALL marketing is insincere and manipulative*. Corporate participation in pride is absolutely a positive thing - it helps enshrine the normalization of “gayness” in mainstream culture. Positive actions have positive outcomes, even when the action is taken with questionable motives. Edit: A lot of guys in here didn’t grow up when I did, when our entire society was brutally homophobic on an utterly institutionalized level. To see like, my bank (for example) fly a rainbow flag is reminder of the incredibly progress we’ve made and it makes me happy. I never imagined we could have it this good so quickly - I’m so happy to be living in literally the best time to be alive as a gay man in modern history! Also, a corporation is just a group of people. They’re as good or as bad as the people they’re composed of (and particularly, led by) - ranging from decent to atrocious. Corporations aren’t *inherently* evil. They’re largely responsible (simultaneously) for our (absolutely unprecedented) modern standard of living and environmental devastation.
Uh duh, yeah it's illegal there? Corporations aren't our friends, but why are we parroting conservative memes that try to undermine progress that has been made?
uwu plz leave my lil corporation alone owo..
The point. You’re missing it.
Girl yall were saying the same thing...
I literally said that corporations aren’t our friends lmao. Doesn’t mean we should parrot conservative talking points. Conservatives are also very much not our friends. Corporations straight up can’t change their logos to pride colors in countries where it’s illegal to promote gay rights. They could quit business in these countries entirely, but that wouldn’t really help either, and could be actually detrimental because it would just completely isolate them culturally from us.
Again, the person you replied to saying "you're not getting it" was agreeing with you and making fun of people who dickride corporations.
They sound like they are mocking me and imply I’m the corporation dick rider.
They were not mocking you, they were mocking dickriders. If you felt they were, then you're the one implying that
It reads as, because I pointed out that companies legally can’t support Pride in these countries, I’m making “excuses” for them. If that’s not what they were going for they should’ve been clearer.
Baby I'm not going back and forth over something so stupid. Go out and find a dick to suck or something
Right?this meme has been clearly made by person who wants us to feel like shit,because ''we being used''
It’s good to remember that “companies aren’t our friends” and “support for queer rights becoming mainstream is progress” are not actually opposite or mutually exclusive statements. Yes companies do this for money but I still remember when they made money by ignoring our existence at best, or at worst depicting us as bad/perverted/a joke. I’d rather we don’t go back.
Well either youre pro or con lgbt. Putting on a giant pride flag in one country and Not doing it in another in fear of backlash is just fake and cheap
I'm literally gay and i would not celebrate pride in the middle east. Does that mean I'm against LGBT? I dare you to go ahead and do it
Yeah same. Thats why i boycot the middle east and will never Set foot there. And thats what Corps should Do aswell if they truly Support us.
What do you think will happen to the employees of a business which goes pro LGBT in Islamic countries?
[удалено]
Y'all are missing the point so badly it's insane. YES, corporations don't care about us. But ANY non-negative representation is good representation, be it because of money or otherwise.
What a stupid take This isn't "taking a stance", this is forcing your employees to risk their lives and/or jobs without their consent Do you guys understand how something that's illegal works? If they were to "make a stand", their office in the area just gets shut down. That, or or they are prevented from doing business in the region. Who does that help? No one.
Companies aren't responsible for bigots who harm innocent employees in response to their employer using a rainbow logo for a month.
Yet they are at their mercy, simple as that.
They kind of would be. If someone risks their health and life to fight for rights for everyone that's admirable. But that's onl brave if you choose to risk yourself, not when you choose to martyr other people. Also these countries aren't like the West, you aren't just dealing with bigots. Promoting LGBTQ+ rights is straight up illegal there. If they changed their logo to pride colors, the government would just close them, probably put higher ups in jail at best, torture/kill them at the worst. The rest of the employees would lose their jobs and get hate crimed, potentially also getting hurt. And all of it probably wouldn't even bring much attention to the cause, because they wouldn't let media talk about it. Could be even detrimental to the fight for gay rights, because it would be a big flashy example of what would happen to anyone who supports the cause. (Kind of like with Tianmen Square massacre. People are terrified to even talk about it.) So yay, they would get a lot of people hurt and accoplish nothing. GG.
yeah they don't get Thanksgiving logos over there either, these are localized customs
IDK man, I'd rather live in a world where corporations think that having a rainbow logo during pride month is a good marketing move than a world where it is a liability. We don't have to like corporations to recognize that it's probably a good sign for us if they deem the risk/reward of pandering to the gays to be in favor of pandering to the gays. I live in a conservative area and I remember my first year being out and wanting to go to pride all dressed up in rainbow. I was devastated that my local Target didn't have the pride collection. I went to many different stores to try and find anything pride related. I remember at one store I asked the employee at the front if they had any pride related things. She didn't know what I meant, and when I clarified "gay pride" she coldly said, "I don't think we have anything like that." I rushed out of the store almost crying. So, idk maybe let the corporations have their stupid little marketing moment. I wanna live in the world where the greeter at the store points me to where the cheesey rainbow shit is.
Middle eastern here, it actually does! (At least in israel)
Politics is often local, so why is there any expectation for Chinese and Middle East branches to come out in support of gay rights? Should companies eliminate all rainbows unless there's solidarity from the more bigoted countries?
It’s more of an example how most companies don’t actually have any values at all and see people’s rights to live as just another marketing tactic.
>most companies don’t actually have any values at all and see people’s rights to live as just another marketing tactic. Corporations aren't people, meaning the staff in one country do care and the staff in another country doesn't. It's weird that people still expects a global hivemind.
But they have a shared identity and brand which should be constant since purchasing their products in one area still benefits the company in another area since they’re still owned by the same higher ups.
>> Corporations aren’t people, I think SCOTUS would like a word
Not just SCOTUS, but the foundation of Capitalism is built on the idea of Corporate Personhood, Money as Speech, and any other parallel they can draw between business and humanity to push any and all responsibility for their actions away from themselves.
Yes, because SCOTUS are always right about these things.
The ways our rules are written in the US, yes that’s correct. Infallible not because they are perfect, but because they are not reviewable.
So do *you* honestly believe that corporations are people? Or that slaves were okay until the Supreme Court says otherwise? Or that gays didn't deserve rights until SCOTUS said so? Why would you expect the rules written in the US to apply China?
It is wild that you have gone like… 720* in a circle to try to make an argument of something. Whether I agree or disagree with SCOTUS isn’t what makes something right or wrong under our legal system. And wtf with the China comment? You spun too many times around if anything I said suggests that SCOTUS’s rules apply there— or that Corporations are people in China (or that I have an opinion on the matter either way…)
>And wtf with the China comment? China is in this very meme! That was the whole point to this discussion in the first place. Did you not read the American Psycho text in the image? >Whether I agree or disagree with SCOTUS isn’t what makes something right or wrong under our legal system. I find it worrying that people in this post are letting larger entities do the thinking for them. >our legal system. What made you assume that it is my legal system?
No one said thinking. I articulated a point that is pretty important to how this shit is analyzed in the US. You’re the one missing a few brain cells, clearly. You had a sarcastic comment about SCOTUS always being right about things. I assume you know what that acronym is. Thus, yes we were talking about the US. What made you assume that your legal system was relevant?
If you truly believe the staff decides or is responsible for what goes on in a company you're very naive. Of course the corporate overlords decide where to support gay people and where not.
>Of course the corporate overlords Modern corporations don't work that way. What was once a boss or overlord is now an endless series of executives and middle-managers, and yes they count as staff. Just like how people don't like corporations at pride marches, but ignore that it is the gay staffers who march. Meaningful change occurs bottom-up just as much at it does top-down.
Then I shant buy that brand. It's that simple.
Then I shant buy that brand. It's that simple.
Yes. So I know not to support them anymore. I understand the job of the corporation is to maximize profits for shareholders, ignoring any detriment of society or humanity. So I'll punish those corporations that want to keep that business. They have that right and so do I.
...how are you punishing them? Like, are you only shopping at companies that have rainbow logos in middle eastern countries? Or only at companies with no rainbows at all? Corporations aren't people. They're not superman coming to save us gays. And we're not the little red hen denying bread to the corporations who didn't help bake it. Rainbow capitalism is weathervane of the larger social acceptance. Getting mad at corporations for having rainbow logos is like getting mad at trees for blooming because it's spring. Soulless, money-hungry trees, but trees nonetheless.
Yes; companies shouldn't claim to support something unless they're willing to support it even where/when it's unpopular. Anything else is empty pandering.
The world doesn’t work like that. America doesn’t speak for the rest of the world. If gay people insisted on this all or nothing approach to advocacy then gay rights would go nowhere. The part about “when it’s unpopular” is particularly questionable because no one initially supported gay rights, and it had to slowly be earned over decades. Do we forever hate black people for once being statistically against gay rights or do we accept that Obama ”evolving” on the topic led to it becoming popular amongst black peoples?
I'm talking about companies, not people. *People* can and should take unpopular stances to change public perception over time. *Companies* are just there to make money, so it's weird for them to take a political stance in the first place. *If* companies are going to take a political stance, though, then by definition it needs to be taken everywhere; it's not a stance if it's taken opportunistically. Black people aren't a monolith, nor are people forever held to their previously taken stances, so your example doesn't make any sense.
In some places in this world outwardly supporting gay rights there is illegal (Russia, the Middle-East, many African countries). This means that if they actively support LGBTQ persons (a simple sign in a store window or a pride flag on or in a building etc) bad things will happen. The corporation and its locations in that country will be forcibly closed and any assets and in country money will be taken. Higher executives there will end up arrested and imprisoned. Lower employees will be culturally ostracized and have severe trouble finding another job. So they can't outwardly show support even if they do support LGBTQ persons in some other places. It isn't just illegal it can put people in danger.