Serious Political Correctness and Race

[orch]

My views have evolved a bit since my last posts on this thread. In my opinion, your position on this topic depends on your views on essentialism, the theory of mind, and political brainwashing.

Both sides have the partial truths.

The political left are right about:
Race is a category error.
IQ is a category error.
People have racist behaviors for some reason(s).

The political right are right about:
Genetics determine your potential.
Egalitarianism is not possible and false.
People have racist behaviors for some reason(s).

I think that the right wing positions are ultimately more honest, *because* of their acceptance of racism in order to maintain their positions in power. They recognize that humans naturally create hierarchies and it must be enforced somehow. Racism is an easy way to do this, as that the skin color is very visible and misleading in terms of which class you belong in. The misleading info create conflicts which require the government to solve.

The leftists are socially modifying the racist white people's behaviors, but lately it's making the race relations worse. This is happening in my opinion because: they are not socially modifying the racist people in different races at the same time. In fact, they are giving them passes in form of "power imbalance" because of the historical racist behavior from white people. So, these white racists are recognizing this unfairness and are lashing out politically.

IMO, how this works: racism is false, and we should punish all racists, or racism is true and we should allow it.

 

[Cresselia~~]

My views have evolved a bit since my last posts on this thread. In my opinion, your position on this topic depends on your views on essentialism, the theory of mind, and political brainwashing.

Both sides have the partial truths.

The political left are right about:
Race is a category error.
IQ is a category error.
People have racist behaviors for some reason(s).

The political right are right about:
Genetics determine your potential.
Egalitarianism is not possible and false.
People have racist behaviors for some reason(s).

I think that the right wing positions are ultimately more honest, *because* of their acceptance of racism in order to maintain their positions in power. They recognize that humans naturally create hierarchies and it must be enforced somehow. Racism is an easy way to do this, as that the skin color is very visible and misleading in terms of which class you belong in. The misleading info create conflicts which require the government to solve.

The leftists are socially modifying the racist white people's behaviors, but lately it's making the race relations worse. This is happening in my opinion because: they are not socially modifying the racist people in different races at the same time. In fact, they are giving them passes in form of "power imbalance" because of the historical racist behavior from white people. So, these white racists are recognizing this unfairness and are lashing out politically.

IMO, how this works: racism is false, and we should punish all racists, or racism is true and we should allow it.

Racism is wrong, at least morally.
But leftist movements such as affirmative action and BLM creates even more problems.
It's like how modern day Western feminism wants women to have more rights than men. They'll never publish articles that don't fit their victim-based stance-- such as, in the UK, females under 25 years old are paid more than men.
Affirmative action really hurts Asians, and Asians aren't even paid well in jobs to begin with.
Many Asians had to become self hired, because people won't pay them as much as the whites.
But does that mean that liberal companies should hire more Asians than whites, or pay more to Asians than whites?
I don't think so.
With a "handicap" given to the disadvantaged, it's making things worse, as in, it's even more difficult to achieve equality.

And I don't think equity works in society, at least financially, because there'd be a lot of arguments.
You can't really measure how much a woman is disadvantaged, so you can't really come up with a good salary that reflects their "handicap". You'd tend to come up with a salary that is way too much, that makes it unfair to men.

PS: It's ok if very few companies are doing it. But it's not ok if like 50% or more companies are doing it.

 

[Myzozoa]

The political right are right about:
Genetics determine your potential.
Egalitarianism is not possible and false.
People have racist behaviors for some reason(s).

how do genetics determine your 'potential' that sounds like an incredibly reductive view of human potential that would be toxic to a positive outlook on social life. this reminds me of incels that belive they are losing a biologically (pre)determined competition for 'the females'. You're saying they're right? Well if you must, but don't go on into shooting schools please.

I think that the right wing positions are ultimately more honest, *because* of their acceptance of racism in order to maintain their positions in power. They recognize that humans naturally create hierarchies and it must be enforced somehow. Racism is an easy way to do this, as that the skin color is very visible and misleading in terms of which class you belong in. The misleading info create conflicts which require the government to solve.

Yeah it's all a big government conspiracy! They're fooling the sheeple on 'the left' and 'the right'.

The leftists are socially modifying the racist white people's behaviors, but lately it's making the race relations worse. This is happening in my opinion because: they are not socially modifying the racist people in different races at the same time. In fact, they are giving them passes in form of "power imbalance" because of the historical racist behavior from white people. So, these white racists are recognizing this unfairness and are lashing out politically.

source?

IMO, how this works: racism is false, and we should punish all racists, or racism is true and we should allow it.

Or maybe these things are actually more complicated than " 'the left' are making racism worse by doing a bad job of dealing with it, so 'the right' are correct about eugenics" which if you read your post is the main take away, but it isn't a valid seeming argument.

Ok now lets move on to a leftist that makes race relations worse:

Racism is wrong, at least morally.
But leftist movements such as affirmative action and BLM creates even more problems.

source?

It's like how modern day Western feminism wants women to have more rights than men.

lol again, source? good luck giving any type of evidence of this.

They'll never publish articles that don't fit their victim-based stance-- such as, in the UK, females under 25 years old are paid more than men.
Affirmative action really hurts Asians, and Asians aren't even paid well in jobs to begin with.

cool, i know those leftists dont publish narratives that go against their theories, but do you have ANY sources that show 'females' are paid more than men in the UK. I know leftists dont publish these things, but surely enlightened non leftists such as yourself can cough up the cold hard facts. so do it.

Many Asians had to become self hired, because people won't pay them as much as the whites.
But does that mean that liberal companies should hire more Asians than whites, or pay more to Asians than whites?
I don't think so.

no one is telling companies to do either of those things, what are you even talking about?

With a "handicap" given to the disadvantaged, it's making things worse, as in, it's even more difficult to achieve equality.

And I don't think equity works in society, at least financially, because there'd be a lot of arguments.
You can't really measure how much a woman is disadvantaged, so you can't really come up with a good salary that reflects their "handicap". You'd tend to come up with a salary that is way too much, that makes it unfair to men.

Yeah as we all saw in that meme, equity is just too hard. Thats why we dont need women's bathrooms without urinals, everyone can use the same facilities because we all have the same needs. oh wait.

PS: It's ok if very few companies are doing it. But it's not ok if like 50% or more companies are doing it.

no companies are doing it (it being having a mandated policy to hire more asians than whites or to pay asian more than whites, which is grammatically what the 'it' in this sentence refers to)

I always enjoy hearing political views from these users

 

[Cresselia~~]

source?

lol again, source? good luck giving any type of evidence of this.

cool, i know those leftists dont publish narratives that go against their theories, but do you have ANY sources that show 'females' are paid more than men in the UK. I know leftists dont publish these things, but surely enlightened non leftists such as yourself can cough up the cold hard facts. so do it.


no one is telling companies to do either of those things, what are you even talking about?


Yeah as we all saw in that meme, equity is just too hard. Thats why we dont need women's bathrooms without urinals, everyone can use the same facilities because we all have the same needs. oh wait.

no companies are doing it (it being having a mandated policy to hire more asians than whites or to pay asian more than whites, which is grammatically what the 'it' in this sentence refers to)

I always enjoy hearing political views from these users

You need source for what people feel? lol

no companies are doing it (it being having a mandated policy to hire more asians than whites or to pay asian more than whites, which is grammatically what the 'it' in this sentence refers to)

So? Still doesn't mean it won't become a problem in the future.

Women's urinal isn't about handicap, it's about physiological difference which isn't considered a handicap.

 

[Myzozoa]

uh yes, if youre asserting your 'feelings' are that western feminists want more rights for men than women and other such non sense then yes, i would like sources for them or for you to express feelings that are actually grounded in reality (instead of victom complexes and reactions to conspiracy theories)

i know reality, what a thing to be grounded in in 2019.

you cant just have a personal feeling that women are being paid more then men and expect that to be taken seriously as your feelings

as they say:

fuck ur feelings

 

[vonFiedler]

Don't come into cong and advocate for racism. Don't even do it in this cheeky "maybe it's correct and honest MAYBE who knows" way. It's so transparent.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Don't come into cong and advocate for racism. Don't even do it in this cheeky "maybe it's correct and honest MAYBE who knows" way. It's so transparent.

I'm not saying that at all.
Maybe I've worded it badly though.

 

[vonFiedler]

I'm not saying that at all.
Maybe I've worded it badly though.

This was not nearly as much directed at you.

 

[Cresselia~~]

source from a reliable news source
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds

I hope you've at least learnt that women in their 20s earn more than men of same age after reading this post. :)

 

[Myzozoa]

Fucking source from a reliable news source that you won't believe anyway lol
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds

I hope you've at least learnt that women in their 20s earn more than men of same age after reading this post. :)

yay, now you just need all the other sources i asked for.

i hope you learned from the article that men still make piles more money in their lifetime than women, but which is really not my intention to get into yet again, in a different thread than is already going on it.

 

[tcr]

let's be very clear here, Watson didn't get discredited because of the sjw lynch mob, he got discredited by academia because he repeatedly pushes anti-academic ideas, such as ideas of the generalization of race with respect to IQs and extrapolating that to some hierarchy of racial status. Whether or not he was hugely influential and necessary for the fields regarding DNA is suspect to begin with (Rosalind Franklin says hi!), he continued to peddle anti-science rhetoric, abusing his position in his field to spout off the wall Alzheimer's theories, that have been disproven through empirically inclined experiments over the past few decades.

calling racists out for their rhetoric instead of letting them sweep all tense race relations under the rug doesn't make race relations worse in the fundamental, healthy society-esque sense, and appeasement to racists is most certainly not the goal that we as a society should pursue. It's incredibly disingenuous to infer that genetics can influence your potential (as you stated), which is just flatly not true. The core dichotomy of nature vs nurture doesn't surround itself around the 'potential' of humans, and to start with I'd ask anyone who wants to defend orch's views to start with defining potential. The nature vs nurture issue will most likely never be solved or quantified in any way, with the only understanding being that it is a mixture of both, but to somehow suggest a hierarchy based on your nature is ludicrous and anti-science, its not "race realism" as its so often put its just plain old racism.

 

[orch]

Don't come into cong and advocate for racism. Don't even do it in this cheeky "maybe it's correct and honest MAYBE who knows" way. It's so transparent.

That wasn't my intention.

Yeah it's all a big government conspiracy! They're fooling the sheeple on 'the left' and 'the right'.

I never said that it was a conspiracy. Do you realize how difficult it is for government to do anything at all? If people see an effective propaganda that they can use to improve their ability to govern, they will use it. Racism was and is still a popular topic among the public. It also get people fired up for action. All of political media discuss about racism and most of the medias shame the racists publicly as they should.

source?

Social modification:
There are various workshops, courses, and so on that you can offer to your institution to educate people about racism. I have participated such workshops.

Race relations worsening:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/key-takeaways-race-and-inequality/
the public’s views of race relations are more negative now than they have been for much of the 2000s.

Minority racism getting passes:
Affirmative action
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_graduate_admissions_test.html
The persisting racial gap on these standardized tests demonstrates the continuing need for race-sensitive admissions programs at our leading graduate and professional schools.

White racists lashing out:
2016 Trump

Or maybe these things are actually more complicated than " 'the left' are making racism worse by doing a bad job of dealing with it, so 'the right' are correct about eugenics" which if you read your post is the main take away, but it isn't a valid seeming argument.

I agree that racism is very complicated and difficult to tackle. I think that my take away is: the issue still remains from racists' perspective. Why should they stop being racists? None of leftist morality arguments seem to work on them. Maybe, it's the time for the radical solutions? Let's unpack the genetics part...

how do genetics determine your 'potential' that sounds like an incredibly reductive view of human potential that would be toxic to a positive outlook on social life. this reminds me of incels that belive they are losing a biologically (pre)determined competition for 'the females'. You're saying they're right? Well if you must, but don't go on into shooting schools please.

It's not pretty, but it's (to my best knowledge) empirically true. I don't line up with incels' beliefs. I do think that their insight into sexual behaviors of humans do have a limited merit.

genetics can influence your potential (as you stated), which is just flatly not true.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners
"There are 17 American men in history who have run under 2:10 in the marathon," Epstein says. "There were 32 Kalenjin who did it in October of 2011."

The core dichotomy of nature vs nurture doesn't surround itself around the 'potential' of humans, and to start with I'd ask anyone who wants to defend orch's views to start with defining potential. The nature vs nurture issue will most likely never be solved or quantified in any way, with the only understanding being that it is a mixture of both, but to somehow suggest a hierarchy based on your nature is ludicrous and anti-science, its not "race realism" as its so often put its just plain old racism.

I never suggested that the issue was about nature vs nurture. It's pretty clear from epigenetics that both nature and nuture play role in one's upbringing. Humans naturally creating hierarchy through social interactions is far from ludicrous and anti-science. I concede that the hunt-gatherers were most likely egalitarianist. However, when they settled down and created communities that required complicated organizational solutions. The communities turned into status-based societies.

Not the point anyways...

I believe that the society should have so many niches, that everyone with all of their genetics are able to find their place in the world. This is not a simple solution. It requires a complexification in our society that we haven't seen yet.

 

[PDC]

those inferior gened people shall feel the wrath of my superior trust fund genetics. in my ideal hierarchy the common people accept me as their philosopher king.

back in my day i could say the n word freely -- why is everybody getting so upset about it now? race relations are the worst they've ever been!

 

[orch]

it's interesting to see what your conception of an ideal hierarchy is.

 

[Myzozoa]

That wasn't my intention.


I never said that it was a conspiracy. Do you realize how difficult it is for government to do anything at all? If people see an effective propaganda that they can use to improve their ability to govern, they will use it. Racism was and is still a popular topic among the public. It also get people fired up for action. All of political media discuss about racism and most of the medias shame the racists publicly as they should.


Social modification:
There are various workshops, courses, and so on that you can offer to your institution to educate people about racism. I have participated such workshops.

Race relations worsening:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/key-takeaways-race-and-inequality/
the public’s views of race relations are more negative now than they have been for much of the 2000s.

Minority racism getting passes:
Affirmative action
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_graduate_admissions_test.html
The persisting racial gap on these standardized tests demonstrates the continuing need for race-sensitive admissions programs at our leading graduate and professional schools.

White racists lashing out:
2016 Trump


I agree that racism is very complicated and difficult to tackle. I think that my take away is: the issue still remains from racists' perspective. Why should they stop being racists? None of leftist morality arguments seem to work on them. Maybe, it's the time for the radical solutions? Let's unpack the genetics part...


It's not pretty, but it's (to my best knowledge) empirically true. I don't line up with incels' beliefs. I do think that their insight into sexual behaviors of humans do have a limited merit.


https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners
"There are 17 American men in history who have run under 2:10 in the marathon," Epstein says. "There were 32 Kalenjin who did it in October of 2011."

I never suggested that the issue was about nature vs nurture. It's pretty clear from epigenetics that both nature and nuture play role in one's upbringing. Humans naturally creating hierarchy through social interactions is far from ludicrous and anti-science. I concede that the hunt-gatherers were most likely egalitarianist. However, when they settled down and created communities that required complicated organizational solutions. The communities turned into status-based societies.

Not the point anyways...

I believe that the society should have so many niches, that everyone with all of their genetics are able to find their place in the world. This is not a simple solution. It requires a complexification in our society that we haven't seen yet.

You're confusing many political forces here, I'm glad you've participated in those work shops on structural racism and can assure you I am familiar with the actual process of getting an institution involved with these workshops, so allow me to remind you that:

It costs money to pay for these workshops, usually upwards ~2k for a whole institution, or about $250-500$/individual. So, usually the institution, and I'm just gonna say it's a mental health institution as I rehearse this because thats what I am familiar with, will pay for you to go if you are a supervisor and they like you, so you already have to have a masters degree and be in mid level position. In addition, the institution will expect you to either do nothing with the knowledge you learned or else teach the higher ups in your unit (i.e your supervisors who sent you to the workshop) what you learned including doing the emotional labor of dealing with their resistances without getting a raise (but hey they paid for you to go to a work shop on systemic racism). As always, real institutional change will still be slow as the model for institutional cultural change here is modification from top to bottom. So anyway, I would just say this is not a simple thing. The fact that medical institutions are paying to send their employees to these workshops instead of intentionally sterilizing black people (I hope they arent doing that still) or keeping them as slaves is a sign to me that 'race relations' aren't really at their 'lowest point in history'.

One many errors of Clinton-Obama type neoliberalism was assuming and asserting that American systems and institutions were 'post-racial', when in reality they were still quite far from such. Trumpian republicans are seemingly similar to neoliberals, except they don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, instead they make of show of ignoring the problems of marginalized Americans. No one is arguing that neoliberalism and its adherent politicians are not a big problem, but I wouldn't say anything about Trump or Christian American nationalism can be taken seriously as an alternative. Thats just defeatist talk.

So to get back to the main argument I see in your post, which is that neoliberalism got America trump and/or a resurgence in white nationalism. I think this is an adequate partial account, but disagree that conservatism turned towards flirting with white nationalism, or what some would view as 'merely' trumpian neoliberalism is a good way to go because neoliberalism got us to it. I don't think the answer to the failures of neoliberalism is to swing the other way towards 1928 on account of its crises.

I'm not gonna touch the whole part about why people who are racist ( i.e a lot of people, after all, those institutions are sending their employees to these workshops BECAUSE racism is a problem) should want to not be racist since the 'duh' answer is 'empathy' and it's too sad to have to argue for that. I can't argue you out of the unfalsifiable ad hoc explanatory complex that says people always do what their self interested in doing so they will always act according to systemic racist logics because the system that feeds them requires them to somehow. I believe we can learn about how to make our systems and institutions more equitable and change them to be more equitable, after all, otherwise I wouldn't see any point to anti-racism education, it would be hopeless.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Race relations worsening:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/key-takeaways-race-and-inequality/
the public’s views of race relations are more negative now than they have been for much of the 2000s.

I think your conclusions are pretty off but this line is pretty crazy how much the surveyed public's perceptions get alerted by news events.

 

[TheValkyries]

I think your conclusions are pretty off but this line is pretty crazy how much the surveyed public's perceptions get alerted by news events.

I don't understand what you're saying? Like, yes people change their minds as the news coverage exposes the results of open racism, like Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or the death of Trayvon Martin highlighted that things were not nearly as hunky dorey as people pretended.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

I don't understand what you're saying? Like, yes people change their minds as the news coverage exposes the results of open racism, like Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or the death of Trayvon Martin highlighted that things were not nearly as hunky dorey as people pretended.

From pew:

About six-in-ten blacks (61%) say race relations are generally bad, while about equal shares of whites say race relations are good as say they’re bad. Overall views on race relations are more positive now than they were a year ago, following the unrest in Baltimore over the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who died while in police custody. Even so, the public’s views of race relations are more negative now than they have been for much of the 2000s.

Not a single law changed between 2015 and 2016. Police killings stayed about the same (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/). What made people surveyed think that race relations had improved at all? It's shocking that without a constant high profile police murder case that people think things are fine. Police killings have been routine for years but nobody in media cares until you get a bankable story. The public thinks violent crime is on the rise when it isn't but refuses to believe that we have a police problem unless a 14 year old gets shot ever year.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Looks like a lot of people are angry about this Gillette ad

How do you feel about this ad?

Even VICE has made a short film about this ad

A lot of men are now saying "vote with your wallet"
and the Youtube video has more dislikes than likes, even after Gillette bought likes and bot comments.

=========
I personally think that while the ad was trying to share a positive message, Gillette's Youtube post is awful

Bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get? It's only by challenging ourselves to do more, that we can get closer to our best. To say the right thing, to act the right way.

It's like saying that all men bully/ harass people?

Also, when feminists have always complained about men telling women to "do the right thing, act the right way", this advert is basically women telling men to "do the right thing, act the right way".
This bit is unnecessary.
You can have a feminist campaign without telling men to "do the right thing, act the right way".

 

[Oglemi]

I don't think that it's the ad itself that has gotten people riled up, I think it's more of a feeling of like "oh God now even the razor company is spewing this kind of thing," which I think has pushed a lot of people over the edge. It's always tough to enact self reflective change when you can isolate yourself in an echo chamber, and this ad happened to come from a company that was able to pierce the right bubbles to get viewed by the people that works against their internal viewpoints. If anything, South Park's last two seasons should have had this same effect as it also resides within this echo chamber and they are much more direct with their message, but I suppose the veil of comedy was able to prevent them from experiencing backlash (they do pretty heavily make fun of both sides but the latest seasons have had a much heavier liberal undertone than previously).

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the ad imo, the guys that are saying "well we're not ALL like that!!!" are the same ones that say "ya well it's not just BLM it's All Lives Matter!!!!" i.e. if the ad caused you to self reflect and you found yourself not guilty of the message they're sending then it did its job just as well.

 

[Charmflash]

Looks like a lot of people are angry about this Gillette ad

How do you feel about this ad?

Even VICE has made a short film about this ad

A lot of men are now saying "vote with your wallet"
and the Youtube video has more dislikes than likes, even after Gillette bought likes and bot comments.

=========
I personally think that while the ad was trying to share a positive message, Gillette's Youtube post is awful

It's like saying that all men bully/ harass people?

Also, when feminists have always complained about men telling women to "do the right thing, act the right way", this advert is basically women telling men to "do the right thing, act the right way".
This bit is unnecessary.
You can have a feminist campaign without telling men to "do the right thing, act the right way".

My favorite part was when this dude tries to speak to a female on the street and the other man holds him back - hey man. not cool

 

[kilometerman]

I don't think that it's the ad itself that has gotten people riled up, I think it's more of a feeling of like "oh God now even the razor company is spewing this kind of thing," which I think has pushed a lot of people over the edge. It's always tough to enact self reflective change when you can isolate yourself in an echo chamber, and this ad happened to come from a company that was able to pierce the right bubbles to get viewed by the people that works against their internal viewpoints. If anything, South Park's last two seasons should have had this same effect as it also resides within this echo chamber and they are much more direct with their message, but I suppose the veil of comedy was able to prevent them from experiencing backlash (they do pretty heavily make fun of both sides but the latest seasons have had a much heavier liberal undertone than previously).

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the ad imo, the guys that are saying "well we're not ALL like that!!!" are the same ones that say "ya well it's not just BLM it's All Lives Matter!!!!" i.e. if the ad caused you to self reflect and you found yourself not guilty of the message they're sending then it did its job just as well.

What if it was filled with blacks doing bad things that are more prevelant in the black community than others, such as violent crime? And then send a basic message that blacks need to improve? Would you be okay with that?

The reason both this ad and the hypothetical black ad are awful is that you can't hold a group responsible for the actions of a few. The majority of men aren't rapists, douches, sexists, etc. The majority of blacks aren't murderers, muggers, gangsters, etc.

On a happier note, another company Egard Watches released an ad celebrating good men and all that they do. They even focus on firefighter brothers which is nice.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Multibillion dollar international corporations do not care about social justice. They care about the bottom line. Political pandering and Twitter banter between companies is the worst thing to come out of the 21st century corporate culture. Remember the pepsi kendall Jenner ad?

 

[Myzozoa]

not really, it's better to have companies falling in line and modifying their practices, it's the radical alternative to the guillotine. if all they care about is their bottom line, then it's better that profit is on the side of 'social justice', w.e you mean by that. it's hardly the worst thing to come out of the corporate culture: Bell Pottinger, Catholic high schools hiring mitch mcconnell's pr firm to gaslight america through the media, all the shit with Bush Jr admin and their corporations did with the wars make trump's look like an amateur when they get caught up in stories seeming to violate the emoluments clause by selling hotel rooms in DC.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

not really, it's better to have companies falling in line and modifying their practices, it's the radical alternative to the guillotine. if all they care about is their bottom line, then it's better that profit is on the side of 'social justice', w.e you mean by that. it's hardly the worst thing to come out of the corporate culture: Bell Pottinger, Catholic high schools hiring mitch mcconnell's pr firm to gaslight america through the media, all the shit with Bush Jr admin and their corporations did with the wars make trump's look like an amateur when they get caught up in stories seeming to violate the emoluments clause by selling hotel rooms in DC.

But are the companies actually modifying their practices? It's nice to say that your company supports the metoo movement but when it gets its clothes from myanmar with a 10 cent wage it's hard to believe. Its nice to know that coca cola thinks that we should occupy wall street but it comes off flat when nestle steals the nation's water supply. It's dishonest for google to chant that it hires people of all races for fair wage but doesn't follow its own advice.

Preaching social justice on Twitter via corporation is just a marketing tactic to win the hearts and minds of a social justice generation. At least companies that are profiting off bombing iraq aren't claiming that they're making the middle east a happy utopia. I believe that the two-faced nature of woke capitalism actually hurts social change bc it makes ppl think that the corporations are on "their side"