|
On October 14 2019 02:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2019 21:12 Samsakzerg wrote:
Except being silent on cruelty that is taking place right now is also a political statement, Blizzard sided with Chinese government.
Free Hongkong and Uyghurs So blizzard are also making a political statement by not coming out against Trump. Are they also making a political statement by coming about against Uzbekistan? What about Blizzard's shocking silence on the current treatment of LBGT people in Brazil? Are all of these silences political statements?
The difference is blizzard has just silenced an expression made about Hongkong, and i believe blizzard has made pro LGBT statements before, maybe in subtle ways but they have.
|
Technically they are hypocrisy both cases whether they support LGBT or cater for Chinese market. It is a company that is after profit and that is the only thing that matters.
Supporting LGBT will make it look like a progressive modern accepting company in western market? Profit.
Silencing anything related to HK to cater for Chinese market that is controlled by government? Profit.
No company in the world is a trust worthy and everyone has their own believes whether they support X or do not support Y for example.
I always laugh when a company says that they are "proud" of being "inclusive" and using these retarded words to sound like they are good or something. They all after money after all. For me, just give me a good product and convince me with it instead of being a pathetic hypocritical spineless parasite to get money.
|
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
|
On October 15 2019 07:58 GGzerG wrote:
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
I have been actively anti blizzard for years. Which some of these upset people freaked out about during the pre-remastered hype.
Just because they made some good games doesn't mean they aren't a like all other stock selling companies.
They are Ryandian in nature and moral-less unless profitable. Which is an amoral philosophy.
Gotta give them credit for sc2. That game isn't very fun to play but it is very fun to watch.
|
On October 15 2019 07:58 GGzerG wrote:
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
This post is specifically about Blizzard's hypocrisy, so...
|
Can companies have morals? Should they?
|
On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they?
no and no. but i believe it is good press to have morals. and press can lead to additional $$. this is probably very contrived and they try to figure out how much $ they can get from displaying good morals from externalities vs loss they suffer from potential backlash. would like to be a fly in the wall on this decision for the nba
|
On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they?
This is a funny question, and I would argue that if countries can have morals, it should be possible for companies to as well. There is usually a kind of moral leadership in countries, and whether that set of morals are alien or familiar, it is a guiding and moving force. In terms of the direction of legislation, and in terms of what sorts of wars a country becomes involved in.
Maybe the trouble is that no company is a democracy. They are all little dictatorships, where the greed of one or a few individuals is never put into check, and that rare human who can have so much power and still be benevolent seems almost mythical. There is corruption in politics, but every effort is made by every political thinker to contrive ways to keep it in check and to reduce it. It would be lovely if one day companies were forced to adopt some of these checks. Imagine if leadership in a company had to be elected! And could be impeached! Who knows how such a system would work out.
|
On October 15 2019 07:58 GGzerG wrote:
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
An incredebly weak accusation. This topic is now blizzard relavent, right and centre after the recent incident. This is a StarCraft forum, hence the discussion now.
People have been taking action, now China CCP and its growing threats are simply discussed more, its only natural that more action is taking place.
|
People want to take the moral high ground when it benefits them, and then slither away into the shadows when it makes them uncomfortable.
This is the only sentence of your statement I disagree with.
More accurate to say "People are willing to support the moral high ground when it is safe, but then slither away into the shadows the moment it threatens their financial bottom line to do the right thing."
|
no and no. but i believe it is good press to have morals. and press can lead to additional $$. this is probably very contrived and they try to figure out how much $ they can get from displaying good morals from externalities vs loss they suffer from potential backlash. would like to be a fly in the wall on this decision for the nba
This is a funny question, and I would argue that if countries can have morals, it should be possible for companies to as well. There is usually a kind of moral leadership in countries, and whether that set of morals are alien or familiar, it is a guiding and moving force. In terms of the direction of legislation, and in terms of what sorts of wars a country becomes involved in.
Maybe the trouble is that no company is a democracy. They are all little dictatorships, where the greed of one or a few individuals is never put into check, and that rare human who can have so much power and still be benevolent seems almost mythical. There is corruption in politics, but every effort is made by every political thinker to contrive ways to keep it in check and to reduce it. It would be lovely if one day companies were forced to adopt some of these checks. Imagine if leadership in a company had to be elected! And could be impeached! Who knows how such a system would work out.
so is the question more around a company's power structure, or around the external incentives such a power structure rests upon?
|
On October 28 2019 07:00 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +no and no. but i believe it is good press to have morals. and press can lead to additional $$. this is probably very contrived and they try to figure out how much $ they can get from displaying good morals from externalities vs loss they suffer from potential backlash. would like to be a fly in the wall on this decision for the nba Show nested quote +This is a funny question, and I would argue that if countries can have morals, it should be possible for companies to as well. There is usually a kind of moral leadership in countries, and whether that set of morals are alien or familiar, it is a guiding and moving force. In terms of the direction of legislation, and in terms of what sorts of wars a country becomes involved in.
Maybe the trouble is that no company is a democracy. They are all little dictatorships, where the greed of one or a few individuals is never put into check, and that rare human who can have so much power and still be benevolent seems almost mythical. There is corruption in politics, but every effort is made by every political thinker to contrive ways to keep it in check and to reduce it. It would be lovely if one day companies were forced to adopt some of these checks. Imagine if leadership in a company had to be elected! And could be impeached! Who knows how such a system would work out. so is the question more around a company's power structure, or around the external incentives such a power structure rests upon?
I don't know if this has been discussed in any level of detail but I personally would be excited to hear knowledgeable people discuss the effect of the pressures external to Blizzard which influenced the decisions they ended up making, especially the regulatory framework they're in.
American companies that are publicly traded have incentives to behave in this way and I assume it's the case in many countries. Regardless of what POTUS or Congress has to say about the HK protests, Blizzard's power structure is largely bound by laws which place the execs in the awkward position where (I think) it could be argued in court that in the event that they failed their fiduciary duty by alienating one of their most lucrative markets, they could be held responsible in court for that failure to uphold that duty and losing money for their shareholders.
Whenever you discuss the notion that some systems should be put in place to promote ethical behavior by corporations, there's always going to be some smart guy pointing out that corporations exist to generate profit as if it were a truism and not something that even should be up for debate; it goes without saying that it's how it is and therefore it's how it ought to be. But it seems to me like in a globalized world, the US has every incentive to rework some of its laws about the fiduciary duty of corporations which trade internationally, especially since these laws appear to sometimes lead to behaviors such as the one of Blizzard and the NBA which are contrary to its own foreign policy interests. If these things were to be articulated differently, maybe US commerce could be used as a diplomatic tool on top of economic sanctions to promote ethical behavior.
I don't know how such things could be implemented, but how about corporations pay taxes (not a given in the current climate) and get tax credits for commercial decisions which are aligned with the US's. Reward ethical corporate behavior. Help executives feel like their country will have their backs if they do the right thing by loosening fiduciary duty when humanitarian concerns lead to loss of revenue. Maybe straight up subsidize orgs which further the US's foreign policy goals to their own detriment. Smarter people might come up with better ideas.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they?
yes and yes. Not that they necessarily do, but the idea that we [i]should[/] have powerful, amoral entities operating in the world is completely backwards.
Morality isn't 'easy', topics relating to morals that we actually discuss is pretty much always operating within some gray area, we try to do our best with limited information, we try to do out best while staying out of harms way, sometimes people are selfish jerks, but the answer to the difficulty of establishing a consistent moral that can have more universal agreement is not to abandon the quest, but rather to give it a stronger effort while also accepting that sometimes we fall short.
|
Whenever you discuss the notion that some systems should be put in place to promote ethical behavior by corporations, there's always going to be some smart guy pointing out that corporations exist to generate profit as if it were a truism and not something that even should be up for debate;
The funny thing about that is that labour laws are a precedent for lawmakers needing to intervene in order to establish a moral baseline for companies. Otherwise there is always the excuse that if you behave morally, your competitors will undercut you and you'll be out of business, the world no better. It can be extremely helpful to give companies a safe way to behave morally while staying competitive.
|
On October 28 2019 17:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they? yes and yes. Not that they necessarily do, but the idea that we [i]should[/] have powerful, amoral entities operating in the world is completely backwards. Morality isn't 'easy', topics relating to morals that we actually discuss is pretty much always operating within some gray area, we try to do our best with limited information, we try to do out best while staying out of harms way, sometimes people are selfish jerks, but the answer to the difficulty of establishing a consistent moral that can have more universal agreement is not to abandon the quest, but rather to give it a stronger effort while also accepting that sometimes we fall short.
Agreed. Morality is a luxury good that poor people sometimes purchase in spades and rich people forsake altogether
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
