• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Silence v Endorsement

But do you feel this way in ALL cases? Or are there some things that you think silence is tactic approval? I gave an innocuous example so its easy to say "the company should give them a big old **** you", "first amendment" etc etc. But would the same apply for something more serious?

For instance, about a year ago Mike Rowe, who strives to be apolitical in order to help more people, was told that he was a white supremacist because he refused to speak out on political topics.

I don't know who Mike Rowe is. Can I Google that and get back to you?

I can't say I feel that way in all cases. I can't say that about anything. If a company ignores animal abuse, then IMO they are sanctioning it, and I would never give them my business as a result of it.
 
That was pretty much the case, til about 20+ years ago. Large corps have become more politically active, in many ways to influence laws and regulation to benefit them.

A handful of SCOTUS rulings have helped in that effort.

I oppose Citizens United with every fiber of my being.
 
That depends on what one considers to be "company policy".

Such a question could be framed in many ways: "Mr. Y, known to work for your company, said A to his neighbor yesterday - what is the company policy on A?" or "Your company placed an add running on the Z show, during which the host said A - what is the company policy on A?". In those cases stating that company policy does not address such matters is perfectly fine and is in no way an endorsement (or condemnation) of A.

If that was how it went then I don't think we'd have the problem as outlined. As it stands its "Mr. Y said this to his neighbor yesterday and since Mr. Y is still working at your company then you must agree with Mr. Y and therefore you are bad also".
 
No. I'm talking about people, companies etc etc being hollered at and accused of something simply for not speaking up on political topics because they simply do not care about political topics or wish to avoid them in order to do more good in the case of organizations that only strive to help people. Think Mike Rowe of Mike Rowe Works.

Still not sure what your tack is; large businesses are entwined in politics via self-interest and favorable legislation, bought through lobbying and contributions.
 
I don't know who Mike Rowe is. Can I Google that and get back to you?

I can't say I feel that way in all cases. I can't say that about anything. If a company ignores animal abuse, then IMO they are sanctioning it, and I would never give them my business as a result of it.

You really should get to know him. He's one of the very few people on this Earth that I have mass respect for. All he cares about is helping people get jobs that will set them up through out life.

Rest: Many companies are silent about animal abuse. Does that constitute as "ignore"?
 
If that was how it went then I don't think we'd have the problem as outlined. As it stands its "Mr. Y said this to his neighbor yesterday and since Mr. Y is still working at your company then you must agree with Mr. Y and therefore you are bad also".

What you describe is assuming that company X supports (or opposes) A simply because of their connection to someone employed by them or appearing on a TV show running their ad. Company X should reply that we neither base our continued employment of personnel on their personal (or political) opinions nor do we base our advertising decisions on the content of a particular statement made on a TV show. Whether one agrees with or opposes A on their own time has no bearing on company X products/services - company X does not address A as company policy or in our ads.
 
You really should get to know him. He's one of the very few people on this Earth that I have mass respect for. All he cares about is helping people get jobs that will set them up through out life.

Rest: Many companies are silent about animal abuse. Does that constitute as "ignore"?

If animal abuse doesn't cross over into a company, then the company not weighing in on the issue isn't offensive to me. For instance, if there is no animal abuse in any facet of Bic Pens' business, and none of their suppliers are known to be engaging in animal abuse, I don't expect Bic Pen to give their opinion on animal abuse. I would like them better if they did, but I wouldn't hold it against the if they don't. If that makes sense.

I looked up Mike Rowe. Is that the Dirty Jobs guy?
 
Still not sure what your tack is; large businesses are entwined in politics via self-interest and favorable legislation, bought through lobbying and contributions.

But only in so far as it makes a profit for the company.

Take Mike Rowe Works for example. It's an organization dedicated to training people and getting people to work in blue collar jobs. Nothing about his organization is for or against any particular identity group. Everyone is treated equally. The only time he gets political is to encourage politicians to encourage the populace to look into blue collar work. That's it. The rest of the time he is completely apolitical. Yet he has been called a white supremacist because he's apolitical. If someone were to get help through his foundation, gets trained, gets a job, and then later on is found out to be a white supremacist do you think that Mike Rowe should also be considered the same even though he remains apolitical?
 
If animal abuse doesn't cross over into a company, then the company not weighing in on the issue isn't offensive to me. For instance, if there is no animal abuse in any facet of Bic Pens' business, and none of their suppliers are known to be engaging in animal abuse, I don't expect Bic Pen to give their opinion on animal abuse. I would like them better if they did, but I wouldn't hold it against the if they don't. If that makes sense.

So, if a company has a stake in X then they should speak up about it? I can agree with that.

I looked up Mike Rowe. Is that the Dirty Jobs guy?

Yep. :)
 
I would argue that depending on the severity of the subject silence is certainly not good enough. When you're talking about things like choosing to advertise on Fox News for example. There is enough information about what Fox News is out there that if you're still allowing your adds to be run there then you know what you're supporting.

With something like youtube or twitter for example. They make money based on the volume of consumption. If they're allowing trolls, racists, misogynists a platform to spew their hatred then if they don't outright support it we can assume they care more about money than they do about what is morally right. Making sure they understand that allowing a platform for such hate is going to be bad for their bottom line is one of the few weapons we have for making them do the right thing.

See, I can't agree with this. You are essentially forcing your own beliefs onto other people in a setting where they simply should not have to care because that is not their objective. If it was their objective then I could understand. If its not then its simply you using force to push your beliefs onto others. In your view everyone should care about what you care about. At least that is how your post comes across. I don't believe in such things.
 
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.

Well, you were a bit ambiguous until your scenario in Post #11.
 
See, I can't agree with this. You are essentially forcing your own beliefs onto other people in a setting where they simply should not have to care because that is not their objective.
Well, then you don't appear to agree with the free market. That's how it works son. Are you sure you're a capitalist?

it's simply you using force to push your beliefs onto others.
Again, you try to use this word beliefs as if somehow there is no way to for us to assign a value to beliefs and make objective judgments about them. As if somehow you should be able to believe anything you want without people looking down upon you. I suggest you check in on this thread...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/346096-can-opinions-better-worse.html

It seems readily apparent that a lions share of posters are in agreement that at least some opinions can be judged as better or worse in a way that is reasonably objective. We're not forcing people to like our favorite pizza toppings, or agree on who the best Spice Girl is. We are demanding that people adhere to the founding principle that our nation was dedicated to. The idea that "All Men Are Created Equal." If your actions, statements, and beliefs do not follow from that Axiom and are contradictory too that principle then as Americans we must hold you accountable for that.

Virtually all of the greatest wars and conflicts that have been fought in our nation's history have all been fought over this exact principle. You don't get to debate it or disagree with it. You will either accept this principle or you will be forced to leave. No exceptions.
 
Well, then you don't appear to agree with the free market. That's how it works son. Are you sure you're a capitalist?

Not a capitalist. Sorry. :shrug: Not that it matters, your concept has nothing to do with capitalism. It uses capitalism, but it is not a part of capitalism. Capitalism, in what we're talking about, is about taking your money and going somewhere else with it because you don't agree with X companies personal policy or product while letting those that do agree or simply don't care about their policy or product to continue going to that company. Your concept uses capitalism to force that company to comply with your standards for everyone regardless of what everyone else thinks. That's not a free market. That's forcing the market to do what you want it to do.


Again, you try to use this word beliefs as if somehow there is no way to for us to assign a value to beliefs and make objective judgments about them. As if somehow you should be able to believe anything you want without people looking down upon you. I suggest you check in on this thread...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/346096-can-opinions-better-worse.html

It seems readily apparent that a lions share of posters are in agreement that at least some opinions can be judged as better or worse in a way that is reasonably objective. We're not forcing people to like our favorite pizza toppings, or agree on who the best Spice Girl is. We are demanding that people adhere to the founding principle that our nation was dedicated to. The idea that "All Men Are Created Equal." If your actions, statements, and beliefs do not follow from that Axiom and are contradictory too that principle then as Americans we must hold you accountable for that.

Virtually all of the greatest wars and conflicts that have been fought in our nation's history have all been fought over this exact principle. You don't get to debate it or disagree with it. You will either accept this principle or you will be forced to leave. No exceptions.

Of course there is a way to assign value to beliefs and eve make objective judgments on them. But that doesn't mean that you should force your beliefs, be they objective or not, onto others with differing beliefs unless you can prove that X belief is violating Y persons Rights. Problem with that is that X Belief in and of itself does not violate anyone's Rights. Someone on Youtube saying "I hate all <insert color here> people" does not harm anyone. It will certainly offend people. But it does not harm anyone. And YouTube should not be punished just because they don't police peoples beliefs that harms no one.
 
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>.



What do you think?



Oh, yes, silence can often signal approval or at least indifference.

So that's why ordinary people (such as I) are often afraid to stay silent.


For example, I favor a wall at the border.

But if I am asked my opinion, I would try to smile my way out by saying something like "Oh, I don't know anything about politics" and try to walk away.

But if I were still working and I was asked to sign a petition against a wall, I would not have the guts to refuse signing it. Otherwise, the word would spread that TheParser is against immigrants. Not a good career move (here in Los Angeles).

This fear is why many advertisers have deserted that Carlson dude on FOX.
 
Last edited:
So, if a company has a stake in X then they should speak up about it? I can agree with that.



Yep. :)

Yes. A stake in X or any connection to X, if X engages in animal abuse. If they don't speak out against X's abuse, that means they condone it (IMO).

No connection to X? No expectation from me that they have to comment on the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom