- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.
I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.
What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?
The OP is too general in terms, imo.
Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?
I think this is an interesting discussion to have. But I have to ask - would you mind being more specific? I don't mean to debate/discuss that particular instance. I mean so I understand it better.
Too many people in this country, particularly on the right-wing, seem to operate under the premise that it is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. They do horrible things and let horrible things slide until someone forcibly calls them out on it. So long as that is the case we have no choice, but to watch them like halks and demand every mea culpa we can get. They want to play dumb and pretend they just didn't realize it was wrong, but in reality, the should know better from the start.
As I just told Rex (I know you didn't see it as of your posting) the specifics don't actually matter as the concept would be the same and while YOU might not mean to debate/discuss that particular specific others will use a specific to bog down the discussion. I want to try and avoid that if possible.
Too many people in this country, particularly on the right-wing, seem to operate under the premise that it is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. They do horrible things and let horrible things slide until someone forcibly calls them out on it. So long as that is the case we have no choice, but to watch them like halks and demand every mea culpa we can get. They want to play dumb and pretend they just didn't realize it was wrong, but in reality, they should know better from the start.
I hear from the right all the time that we didn't need the civil rights movement because the free market would solve everything. If businesses discriminated they would be punished by consumers who vote with their feet. It's a load of bull****, but unfortunately, sometimes it's the best weapon we have and we must hold companies feet to the fire when they don't do the right thing.
So you agree with the premise that silence is tactic approval?
I actually really think your question has merit. I hope you understand I'm struggling to really answer it, because I don't know what you may be asking about. Is it something that directly impacts the company (like animal testing in China, for instance). Or is it what an employee does on social media in his off time? Or is it generally speaking that, say, an ad campaign triggers some segments of the population (like that Gillette ad).
I realize I am hijacking your thread against your wishes and I do want to apologize for that. Just wanted to get some more context around it. Even a made up scenario.
So you agree with the premise that silence is tactic approval?
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.
I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.
What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?
I understand. I'll make up an absurd scenario in order to (hopefully) avoid the bogging down and focus of a specific.
Person A on YouTube says that the sky is is beautiful. A group of people that thinks the sky is ugly sees that YouTube is allowing advertisements to be shown on Person A's video and calls for a boycott because they believe that YouTube is endorsing what Person A said even though YouTube could care less whether the sky is beautiful or not.
Hope that helps?
Not always, but it certainly can be. Governments often use silence as an intended "green light" signal to another nation.
Ah but governments are meant to be political. Companies are, more often than not, just out to make a profit. Non-political organizations meant to help poor people just want to get the word out in order to help more people etc etc.
Difficult times for businesses and anybody in the limelight. Liberals have cornered the market on "if you're not with us, you're against us".
Most conservatives don't care one way or the other. They will support what they feel is right and ignore what they don't agree with.
Liberals, on the other hand, will seek out the reason why you are not supporting certain causes and stamp on your forehead their above mentioned motto.
Remember Chick-fil-a. Never the slightest comment against gays, but did not financially support any gay organization ... and we all know how they were branded.
Difficult times ... being silent is no longer an option, live-and-let-live has gone to pots. Another trademark of the progressive movement.
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.
I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.
What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?
This I agree with. Government by its very nature is steeped in politics. Companies are in the business of business.
I am not certain what the OP is trying to flesh out, but to the bolded, this is learned behavior in childhood. It doesn’t take too long to figure out that the punishment for disobedience is much more severe than the punishment for just ****ing up!
That does help. Thanks!
In that scenario, I think the company should give them a big old f you.
I don't think companies are responsible for the words of their staffers or the people who use the company goods or service to deliver a message. I think in that example it would be the height of ignorance for the sky haters to say "YouTube thinks the sky is beautiful. They suck. Shut the down.".
I guess maybe I'm saying First Amendment and all that, and delivering a message should be allowed without backlash or interpretation that the message deliverer agrees with the message.
Does that make sense?
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
Kal, Does this old poem factor in what you are digging for?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.. —Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?