Corporate virtue signalling?

[servodude]

All political activism is predicated upon one class of people seeking to gain some kind of benefit or advantage, at the expense of some other class of people.

So whether it is white versus non-white, protestant versus catholic, landlord versus tenant, employer versus worker or whatever, the underlying theme is basically derived from Karl Marx, which I always interpreted thus:

1) Divide people into two classes. Forget that they are individuals. Just classify them.

2) Then make some argument that one of these two classes is inherently more worthy than the other class. Paint one as good and one as bad.

3) Justify activism, protests, pressure, revolution and any other effort based on the moral superiority of one class over the other, predicated rather conveniently on the arbitrary classifications and generalisations that you made in (1) and (2) above.

Bingo. Cue endless whining and kvetching about oppressors and victims, all in the name of some contrived and self-serving sense of "justice".

Not a fan of universal suffrage are we?

- sd

That's a nice leap.

I just don't see how it fits with:


All political activism is predicated upon one class of people seeking to gain some kind of benefit or advantage, at the expense of some other class of people.


Did it come at the expense of men?
Or was it simply equality that was gained through activism?

-sd

[UncleEbenezer]

I just don't see how it fits with:


All political activism is predicated upon one class of people seeking to gain some kind of benefit or advantage, at the expense of some other class of people.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with "at the expense of": activism isn't (necessarily) a zero-sum game. But I suspect it is true of the activism known as Identity Politics.

Did it come at the expense of men?
Or was it simply equality that was gained through activism?

-sd

Both. Feminism has striven - with a fair degree of success - both for equality and supremacy. Not of course the same individuals, but within the movement as a whole.

[servodude]

I just don't see how it fits with:


All political activism is predicated upon one class of people seeking to gain some kind of benefit or advantage, at the expense of some other class of people.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with "at the expense of": activism isn't (necessarily) a zero-sum game. But I suspect it is true of the activism known as Identity Politics.

Did it come at the expense of men?
Or was it simply equality that was gained through activism?

-sd

Both. Feminism has striven - with a fair degree of success - both for equality and supremacy. Not of course the same individuals, but within the movement as a whole.

I think it's the part you "don't necessarily agree with" that I actively disagree with.

Do we really think it is at the expense of men that women have the vote?
Or consider any other class of people who have been granted that right, through activism, after having previously been denied it?
Have thay been granted that at the expense of anyone?

They do not take someone's vote; I'd say they simply add their voice to the democratic process.

-sd

[Lootman]

Do we really think it is at the expense of men that women have the vote?

Or consider any other class of people who have been granted that right, through activism, after having previously been denied it?
Have they been granted that at the expense of anyone?

They do not take someone's vote; I'd say they simply add their voice to the democratic process.

I think one can make a reasonable argument that any change that advances one class of people will necessarily disadvantage another class of people, if it involves a diversion of resources or power. The fact that such a change may be seen as "progress" or "justice" doesn't change that. But there are strong and weak examples.

A weak example would be abolishing slavery. That adversely affected those who owned plantations, and some were in fact financially compensated for that loss. Another weak example would be giving women the vote, which lowered the influence of every male voter.

A strong example would be affirmative action. Some white kids who would otherwise qualify for University are denied a place in favour of non-white kids with lower grades. Or if tenants are given more rights, e.g. just cause eviction or controls on rent increases, then that negatively impacts those who provide homes.

So one has to take each case on its own merit. And the issue here is whether a rather mindless promotion of one class of people is universally good or whether it is actually divisive. Much of what is going on with BLM strikes me as merely symbolic and totemic, not to mention polarising and self-absorbed.

[scotia]

"Lives Matter" would be the most inclusive and non-racist slogan

I strongly agree - and everyone could, and should, have applauded such a message

which I suspect, is the point the aeroplane banner sought to make.

I'm not sure that it was. I suspect it was a deliberate attempt to polarise opinions.

[UncleEbenezer]

Did it come at the expense of men?
Or was it simply equality that was gained through activism?

-sd

Both. Feminism has striven - with a fair degree of success - both for equality and supremacy. Not of course the same individuals, but within the movement as a whole.

I think it's the part you "don't necessarily agree with" that I actively disagree with.

Hmmm?

Do we really think it is at the expense of men that women have the vote?

How is a single good example[1] on one side of my "both" a disagreement with it?

[1] Or any number of selected examples?

[Clitheroekid]

Has anyone else noted that CK can post a new topic on quite an interesting and /or controversial subject and then, having set the hare running, contributes not another thing? Is this I wonder deliberate sh*t stirring or what?

I do humbly apologise for my lack of response to your comments, but unlike, I suspect, the majority of regular posters on here, I do actually have a day job, and I don’t eagerly visit LF every day desperately seeking responses to my posts and opportunities to correct other posters.

In any case, the original question was quite clearly posed as a general question, with a view to initiating a discussion. I was – and am – very interested to hear other people’s reactions to a piece of news that has for one reason or another interested / annoyed / pleased / disturbed me. However, whilst I will often add my own comments if I feel like doing so I certainly don’t feel under any obligation to do so, and I’m often quite happy just to read the responses.

Having said that ...

I'm not sure that it was. I suspect it was a deliberate attempt to polarise opinions.

I suspect you're right. The perpetrator has fairly serious form, as does his equally noxious girlfriend (with apologies for the DM link) - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... stunt.html

[Dod101]

Has anyone else noted that CK can post a new topic on quite an interesting and /or controversial subject and then, having set the hare running, contributes not another thing? Is this I wonder deliberate sh*t stirring or what?

I do humbly apologise for my lack of response to your comments, but unlike, I suspect, the majority of regular posters on here, I do actually have a day job, and I don’t eagerly visit LF every day desperately seeking responses to my posts and opportunities to correct other posters.

In any case, the original question was quite clearly posed as a general question, with a view to initiating a discussion. I was – and am – very interested to hear other people’s reactions to a piece of news that has for one reason or another interested / annoyed / pleased / disturbed me. However, whilst I will often add my own comments if I feel like doing so I certainly don’t feel under any obligation to do so, and I’m often quite happy just to read the responses.

Having said that ...

I'm not sure that it was. I suspect it was a deliberate attempt to polarise opinions.

I suspect you're right. The perpetrator has fairly serious form, as does his equally noxious girlfriend (with apologies for the DM link) - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... stunt.html

Thanks. MY comment was not really very helpful and I am grateful to you for responding as you have.

Dod

[servodude]

How is a single good example[1] on one side of my "both" a disagreement with it?

[1] Or any number of selected examples?

sorry for confusing

I meant that I disagreed with the en-boldened bit below (in a group discussion rather than as direct reply to yourself)

All political activism is predicated upon one class of people seeking to gain some kind of benefit or advantage, at the expense of some other class of people.

I just didn't think that this was always the case

- sd

[UncleEbenezer]

sorry for confusing

I meant that I disagreed with the en-boldened bit below (in a group discussion rather than as direct reply to yourself)

Ah, I see. We were in subtly different contexts according to which sub-thread of the discussion we were responding to. I suspect my brain was frazzled: my (home) office is the loft room, and it can get a bit on the warm side when the summer sun beats down on it.