Gay Pride

Ahleckz said:
I love these threads, it’s great to be able to add names to the gammon database.



It’s not a lifestyle choice though. That’s pretty much why we need Pride. People who are gay don’t choose to be gay. They are. And unfortunately there is still a lot of stigma around that. Thats why we need Pride to show people that differences shouldn’t be scary and should be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, it's not a lifestyle choice and there is unfortunately still a lot of discrimination. However, the key message that underpins 'acceptance' is that gay people are just like everyone else. Well, gay parade and the images around that does a good job of contradicting that.

"Let's remove the stigma (usually around sexual deviancy) by showing that we're all the same by showing how different we are"

But meh, whatever. Companies don't want to lose customers or damage their reputation so they go by what makes business sense.
 
Murphy said:
So when i said "i couldn't care less but it's fun to see how much it triggers some people." and you said "You think that companies being disingenuous about their support of minorities is great? That's a bit sick." you were in fact not disagreeing with my statement that i didn't care?

That when i said...

And you replied by saying that you couldn't make sense of what someone posted you were in fact not disagreeing? That you truly couldn't make sense of the English language.

That in actual fact you agree with me when i say i couldn't care less? Because if so this exchange seems rather pointless as all you seem to be doing is raging against someone you agree with.
Click to expand...

I'll state again. The original questions posed was 'what do you think about this'. Whereby a video shows that some companies are clearly being dishonest about their support of various communities.

Your response was that you thought it was great.

So you think that companies being disingenuous and lying about their support of oppressed groups is great.
 
No, the original question was "What are peoples views on companies changing logos for a month but only in certain countries?". I assumed the video was some examples and didn't watch it. As a result I didn't assume Murphy was commenting on the dishonesty of the practise, rather on the practise itself.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
No, the original question was "What are peoples views on companies changing logos for a month but only in certain countries?". I assumed the video was some examples and didn't watch it. As a result I didn't assume Murphy was commenting on the dishonesty of the practise, rather on the practise itself.
Click to expand...

The thread, raising the fact that they only do it in some countries is about the dishonesty of it. Not the practice itself. That would have neglected to mention the 'only in certain countries' bit.
 
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. You are entitled to hold it and I am not downplaying it in any way, but please don't tell me it is the only meaing that can logically be taken. Either way, it is not worth more than three posts of anyone's time.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. You are entitled to hold it and I am not downplaying it in any way, but please don't tell me it is the only meaing that can logically be taken. Either way, it is not worth more than three posts of anyone's time.
Click to expand...

Everyone else seems to have understood it.
 
There is more than one reason why a company might behave differently in different territories. It might be to conform to local legislation, or to maximise profit (my personal position), or because they are dishonest. I'm sure there are others. Some countries (including the UK) legally oblige listed companies to try to maximise shareholder returns, regardless of morality. Or we can discuss whether it is merely insincere rather than dishonest.

That's my three posts :p
 
Reality|Bites said:
I asked the question so.... Murphy got it wrong and Dis86 got it correct?
Click to expand...

In the interest of bringing this to a close I submit that you asked the question wrong and as such should be stoned to death by Dis86 and Murphy. In order to heal the devastating wedge that your transgression has caused between two posters who, let us face it, were as brothers before this incident, they should hold hands as they hurl their bricks of penitence at you.

I look forward to the 7 page argument about who gets to throw with their left hand and who gets to throw with their right, and a further 7 pages of argument about whether favouring one hand or the other is an 'ism of some kind.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
There is more than one reason why a company might behave differently in different territories. It might be to conform to local legislation, or to maximise profit (my personal position), or because they are dishonest. I'm sure there are others. Some countries (including the UK) legally oblige listed companies to try to maximise shareholder returns, regardless of morality. Or we can discuss whether it is merely insincere rather than dishonest.

That's my three posts :p
Click to expand...

Huh, where is there a law that says a publicly listed company in the UK must maximise returns to shareholders?

Large companies are almost universally scummy as hell and will do pretty much anything to maximise profits because the people making decisions benefit directly from having the morals of a cat. All these companies doing their pride month thing is just another marketing ploy. The vast majority of them that operate in China as well as the UK don't put pride or anti racism related in China because it won't play well.
 
FishFluff said:
But when you do that, its apparently 'cancel culture' which also triggers some of our forum members.
Click to expand...
For an individual it's expressing free will privately. As a concerted internet or social media campaign it could be construed as cancelling said person or company.

I cancel Amazon daily for all sorts of reasons but I don't make a big thing about it.
 
Dis86 said:
I'll state again. The original questions posed was 'what do you think about this'. Whereby a video shows that some companies are clearly being dishonest about their support of various communities.

Your response was that you thought it was great.

So you think that companies being disingenuous and lying about their support of oppressed groups is great.
Click to expand...
Look i know you struggle when it comes to understanding words and all that stuff but nowhere does the video posted by the OP says anything about being dishonest, that's all on you bud. It's also why i think it's great because like i said i couldn't care less about what a private company choose to do but if it triggers people like yourself into crying into your beer about how you think they're being dishonest then that's what's great IMO, it's great because it exposes people like yourself for who they truly are.

Unlike you i don't care enough about what a private company does if it doesn't effect me, like i said i care so little about it that i couldn't give two hoots if they're "being disingenuous and lying", unlike you I'm not pretending that i know if they're being genuine or not, and I'm not doing that because, and I've told you numerous time now, i don't care if they are or are not. What i care about is seeing people like yourself having a hissy fit over something so inconsequential.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Companies Act 2006, section 172 (1) a to f.
Click to expand...

Thats nothing to do with maximising profits its just saying you should try and be successful. Monetary success is only one metric of a successful business.

That section also says you should think of the interests of employees, the community and the environment. I think we can probably all agree that most companies don't give a single **** more than they have to about any of those.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
My point is companies can (and do) behave despicably but can hide behind this section. "We were trying to act in our members' best interests."
Click to expand...

In my experience it's generally when they use the line "it's for the needs of the service".

In my view, service < employees
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom