You're Either 100% In or You're Not
So I was browsing LinkedIn and see all these banks and firms have their logo in the LGBTQ+ colors. No issue there for me.
But what I want to know is if you are supporting the current racial injustice movement, are you obligated to support the LGBTQ+ movement? Both are marginalized and have suffered discrimination for years.
Can you pick and choose who you want to support in this day in age? Rhetorical question. It seems if you are supporting the racial inequality movement, you should support the LGBTQ+ movement right? Cause if you support one and not the other, do you really want to see equality or are you simply selfish in your own desires that you only care about what affects you or someone you know directly.
I don't know the true answer but want to know what you guys think.
People should support equality in all forms.
"Inequality anywhere is a threat to equality everywhere"
That said, most people only have the bandwidth for so many things. There's nothing wrong with picking fewer causes to actively support via your time and money while believing in causes beyond those which you actively participate in.
I agree with this -- including the bandwidth part. For that reason I personally believe that right now is a moment for Black people to speak and others to listen. It's not super helpful when the movement gets co-opted by LGBTQ+, the Bernie Sandernistas, etc all grabbing the mic. There will be plenty of time to discuss everything that's wrong but you can't work on everything all the time.
I understand in theory the discussion about "well, income inequality is the real underlying problem" etc... but it just doesn't sit right with me. Racism is the real problem, or at least a very distinct separate problem, which is why black athletes, professors, managers, Congressmen, and others are still profiled when they put on jeans and a T-shirt.
straight up, you speak facts man.
People are compelled to support the LGBT movement, unless they are Muslim, which in that case they get a pass on the account of them being a favored and protected diversity group for liberals.
Liberals love to virtue signal the strong and brave muslims of the world and their rich diversity, while conveniently ignoring the fact its is the MOST homophobic religion on earth, and where gays face state sponsored death and violence in muslim majority countries.
But yes, lets be sure to include a girl wearing a hijab in every advertisement and corporate communication.
I'm starting to get bored of these...
Then why'd you comment? You of all people don't have a stance on this?
Fairly sure I'm expressing a widespread opinion. Just wait.
You understand that while some firms might care deeply on it, the vast majority are expressing their support to avoid being dinged by the consumer right? Saw a survey shoing that some ~60% of people would consider either buying more of a company's product or boycotting depending on how their responded to this crises (supporting considered a positive / not supporting a negative / not saying anything a negative).
It's important to support equality broadly, but just understand it's just a profit motive for these companies. That's why you see massive companies putting out a statement and making a $1ml dollar fund (which while something is better than nothing, is not a meaningful sum considering how big the issue is).
Maybe it's a positive that consumers expect corporate activism, or maybe it turns out to be token. I think it is probably a positive but less impactful that you might expect.
On individual people, like CRE said, every person has their own bandwith. Someone who tries to push everything is likely virtue signaling vs. being impactful, and virtue signaling has never been bigger given social media...
I wonder what the result of all this will be, if it's just another Occupy Wall Street that fizzles out or if actualy system change, only it's not so obvious how the latter would happen as the law at least on paper is supposed to treat everyone equally (vs. in Civil Rights Movement where law didn't do that and that presented clear opportunity for change).
Spot on, I've been privately comparing this (unfavorably) to OWS which accomplished nothing because of the way it was organized.
Whether this fizzles out or not will depend on whether legislation or civil changes get passed. OWS had no leaders, no aims, no goals, and probably a huge overlap of current-day protesters. They should have learned a lot of lessons from the past; only time will tell.
The phrase "defund the police" literally sounds to me like how a right-wing outlet would characterize the left's demands. I can't believe this current movement has willingly developed and used this phrase. It's very attention grabbing but wow, it will not get traction in the general public. When you have to backtrack and explain, "Well, actually, it's really talking about having more community based outreach and changing the budget to be focused more on training etc..." that's not going to work as a soundbyte. And more problematic still are the "true believers" which are the loudest ones getting the media attention, who really do want to disband the NYPD. I know I'm the hated "radical centrist" but whatever, this is my opinion, it's a counterproductive phrase.
Porro facilis deleniti sunt minima enim omnis. Suscipit aliquid aut dicta nihil. Repellendus dolorem modi libero libero.
Fuga ratione aut ullam rem. Est autem voluptates est omnis repellat impedit. Asperiores ducimus dolores sit aut voluptatem neque. Aut omnis assumenda necessitatibus.
Eum placeat et iste facilis enim in molestiae dolores. Consequatur quia non et unde. Voluptas eligendi sit placeat enim optio facere.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...