
Corporations and the Culture Wars - raleighm
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/03/23/corporations-and-the-culture-wars/
======
stcredzero
_Data show that diverse boards lead to better performance, risk management,
and returns._

[citation needed]

As far as I know, the studies show a correlation, but no one has been able to
show there's causation. Is anyone aware of a study that shows causation?

Also, what kind of diversity? It would make the most sense that diversity by
social class and diversity by subcultural group would make much more sense
than, say, having approximately equally privileged people with different skin
colors all coming from the same schools.

Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is
racism. Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of
highly salient surface characteristics is bigotry.

The significant differences between people are primarily cultural. The most
powerful generator of value is the mind. There is usually more diversity
within most such easily defined groups than there is between groups. Most such
divisions result in greatly overlapping normal distributions. This is
precisely why we should strive to see the "content of character" within each
other.

~~~
perfmode
If "better performance, risk management, and returns" lead to diverse boards,
what's the difference?

> Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race
> is racism.

Oh, please.

~~~
stcredzero
_> Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race
is racism._

 _Oh, please._

Listen and believe. I've been racially bashed, to the extent that police
investigators got involved. I've literally been told that I am a less real and
inferior order of human, with less real feelings. I've been in times and
places where I could reliably predict what people would be saying to me in the
near future, because so many of them would jump to conclusions about me due to
race. I literally broke down sobbing in the shower just before I graduated
high school, so convinced I was of my inner lesser-humanity -- and all of it
was based on things directly said to me.

Racism is reducing someone to their race. To be Liberal is to honor the value
of people and to attempt to see a person for their character.

This is why the recent trend of attributing racism and other guilt to people
_on the basis of their racial characteristics_ is just about the most racist
thing I've ever seen. The fact that such ideas can propagate is another stark
indictment of the failure of the education system to get people to actually
think.

~~~
snowwrestler
Your argument seems to be that racism is perpetuated by any discussion of
race.

Another perspective is that race is obvious, and racism is a particular view
of race that is passed down through family and culture--so therefore we can
only fight racism by consciously acknowledging and addressing it.

~~~
stcredzero
_Your argument seems to be that racism is perpetuated by any discussion of
race._

No. What I'm actually saying is that it's acerbic groupthink that engenders
more acerbic groupthink. It's blame and acrimony that engenders more blame and
acrimony. It's an eye for an eye making the whole world blind, as Ben
Kingsley's character said in the movie. If it happens to be about race, then
it's racism.

 _so therefore we can only fight racism by consciously acknowledging and
addressing it._

We can only fight toxic group-think by acknowledging it. It's hard to
acknowledge and easy to fall into. The danger that the struggle against racism
would itself fall to such group think is something that both MLK and Gandhi
were keenly aware of; a level of self awareness which is starkly lacking
today. Ascribing guilt to people on the basis of their skin color, eye shape,
nose shape, or any other indelible characteristics is obnoxious and wrong.
It's bigotry. People should be judged on the content of their character, not
on their characteristics.

------
AndrewKemendo
_Friedman cautioned decades ago that “the doctrine of ‘social responsibility’
taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every
human activity.”_

This is one of the things that always struck me as odd in my undergrad
economics classes. That somehow we can realistically de-couple our actions in
one domain (work) from those of another (politics) when in fact they all lie
in the space of human action. This is where I found myself in agreement with
Mises - in that all actions have impact socially and thus all economic
activity has a social impact.

Thinking or behaving otherwise is a cop-out and a way to try and mentally
compartmentalize behavior - it's cognitive dissonance and I see it all the
time when people try and "separate" their work life from their personal life.
It's a synthetic distinction.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
Most people spend a little bit more than half of their time working, and the
rest of their time aggressively not working. For most people, the distinction
between public and private self is the most important one in their lives.

~~~
stcredzero
_For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most
important one in their lives._

Marx and Engels would have called this, "alienation." I think that they are
onto something in this dimension of their critique. Isn't a part of the
startup ethos a rebellion against this?

~~~
mnemonicsloth
My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction by
spending 100% of your time in work mode.

~~~
stcredzero
_My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction by
spending 100% of your time in work mode._

My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction between
work-mode and personal-fulfillment mode, thus making yourself 100%
productive/engaged and 0% alienated.

~~~
hnuser1234
You say that like it's a good thing. Having work take over your life is pretty
definitively worse than being able to have some private time.

------
mi100hael
_> Delta—under public pressure—ended a discount available to members of the
National Rifle Association to travel to their annual convention, a type of
discount routinely offered to many other groups. Delta announced that this
step was an attempt “to refrain from entering this debate and focus on its
business.” Nonetheless, Delta immediately encountered fierce political
pushback from the State of Georgia, where the airline is based, as well as
from the NRA and its supporters, which resulted in Delta losing a $38 million
tax break._

Whenever I see these sorts of controversies blowing up, I always wonder if it
wouldn't have been better for the company to just play deaf and not
acknowledge the controversy to begin with.

~~~
zrobotics
I think you may be onto something there. Sure, by continuing the discount they
may have lost some business, but it is also possible that there would have
been no #boycottDelta, or that it would have been another case of temporary
social media posturing that is soon forgotten. However, by taking proactive
action they almost guarantee that it will be picked up by the media, and will
be noticed and anger NRA supporters. They may have faced backlash, but then
again there hasn't been any uproar about NRA corporate discounts after other
shootings, so why take the chance?

------
santoshalper
I agree with the basic premise - that the best way for companies to be good
citizens is to be good, ethical, companies. Pay your employees fairly, provide
good benefits, obey the spirit of the law (not just the letter), and do the
right thing for your customers. Companies that spend a lot of time vocally
supporting social issues while being bad corporate actors are just virtue
signalling for PR purposes

~~~
stcredzero
_Companies that spend a lot of time vocally supporting social issues while
being bad corporate actors are just virtue signalling for PR purposes_

This is common sense. Persons are best judged by their actions. As Shakespeare
once wrote, you can tell where people are truly crazy by how they spend their
money.

------
jacksmith21006
The problem is going to be companies not doing what they should in fear of
being accused of not supporting free speech.

Google can not monetize Alex Jones on YouTube yet they allow the content to
still exist and Google pays the bills in supporting through infrastructure
cost.

They should just remove when no advertisers.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Youtube is not solely funded by advertisers, they have a paid ad-free
subscription service.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Yes but is minimal and not sure how it even matters?

Why on earth would someone buy a subscription for content that has NO ads?

Can you explain?

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>Why on earth would someone buy a subscription for content that has NO ads?

Are you being satirical? Because ads are terribly annoying, a waste of my
time, and I prefer not to be manipulated into buying things I don't need.

~~~
jacksmith21006
There is NO ads. So there is nothing terribly annoying.

Why your comment on buying a subscription for something without ads does NOT
make any sense?

------
LifeLiverTransp
Corporations have no stakes in the culture wars- the only interest they got is
to ursurp the Original Cooperation that contains the ecosystem they move in.
So they will support whatever side it takes to weaken the state and propel
there interest.

You can have a left and liberal party, but when cooperations support you- all
that will be left is a liberal party.

You can have a right-wing and conservative party, but when cooperations
support you- all that will be left is a big interst- conservation party.

Cooperations with a surplus of influence, will use that influence to corrode
away the containment system of the state. Thats why they are taxed. If they
are not taxed, the contained usefull accid eats through the stomache and kills
societys stability. And in a wicked, twist, as there is always a biggest fish-
something like amazon, can burst free- and become state instead of the state.

Unfortunatly, people trading on non-amazon plattforms, have to pay a little
extra, for the disruption they cause to the logistic masterpiece.

Its not a tax. Its your ticket to a priviliged life style.

Have you paid your prime today?

