If yes, then Amazon is not "bowing", and it is The Guardian who is playing word games here. If not, then it would seem to imply that we are OK with western powers using their capital (instead of gunboats) to impose their ideology on other cultures in the world.
Now, one may argue that the customs and values of some countries are incompatible with those of the West and may even be considered "backward" to the point that western companies should completely withdraw from those markets because providing services to such markets equates to empowering those backward social values. That can be a fair assessment, but just remember not to blame them for "banning western companies" in the future.
If you're strictly in the business of making money, then by all means conduct your business but stfu about it.
A cynic might even suspect the value signal is more about marketing than deeply held belief.
i.e. we should not take corporate Pride as sincere support, but as an indicator of the zeitgeist.
American companies are banned from paying foreign bribes. They’re not given a free pass with suporting genocide or terrorism, regardless of where it happens, even if that’s the law or custom somewhere else.
If we place domestic profits over sex trafficking or death penalties for gay people, so long as it’s there not here, then fine, let’s live with that sociopathy. It’s an abysmal moral space to occupy, but I also can’t argue with putting food on one’s table.
I would argue our value system is vastly superior, but I would never demand someone take my values as their own.
- sociopathic corporation, profits above people… and stop pushing rainbow symbols all month domestically
- actually find your backbone and push rainbows globally
I think customers should refuse to tolerate the abuser mentality of corporations screaming at people who already agree about “gay rights” while refusing to actually stand up for them globally.
They may do that, but then playing a champion of the opposing values when it's convenient (pride month in the western world) is hypocrisy and it should be pointed out. If they didn't have an LGBTQ-based PR campaign in the West, then this move wouldn't merit a mention. Alas, it does.
In a way the world was easier during the cold war, good and bad was clearly distinguished, human rights didn't matter in the public opinion as log it was "our" guys doing the violations and things like LGBTQ, minority and women rights were a mere fringe phenomenon in West anyway. I like today's environment better.
People not liking to eat cheese or beef or rice porridge is different than human rights issues. In general, I am not a fan of pushing or maintaining an ideology over another when it comes to economic and other such policies, but when it comes to human rights violations, I don't think that's something that should be bowed to.
Not local customs and values but local laws and regulations in their respective jurisdiction because even in these seemingly mono-cultural places, there's still variety and diversity when it comes to traditions and conventions.
No, definitely no. Corporations (especially american ones) know better. Corporations don't respect customs they respect growing value. /s
“impose their ideology” is a disingenuous frame for this situation. They are censoring search results. As in, the customer, who Amazon makes money off by showing them what they want, is not being shown items that relate to what they searched for.
That’s not a pop-up that says “Muhammad was bisexual.”
In any case, cultural relativism is a liberal cop-out. American companies should use their capital to promote American values.
Like how Facebook bans all nudity, even in countries where nudity is much less of a big deal (eg Germany)? Or apple has a blanket ban on “adult” apps in their App Store, because in America violence is ok but sex is bad?
I hear what you’re saying, but as an Australian, exported American cultural values can be pretty odious too. I don’t have any simple answers though.
I'm confused about what makes it liberal.
You can hardly argue that LGBT acceptance is an American value; our Supreme Court just hinted at repealing it.
But that happens in the US too, if I want to ISIS's propaganda magazine on Amazon is it censorship that I can't find those? If I look for porn on youtube, is it censorship I can't find it?
My sense is that the corporate decisions are easier because they're depersonalised, but I don't see much of a moral distinction between the two.
Clearly there's a difference in the directness of interaction when it's a person or a company. But speaking personally I would never compromise my core ethical beliefs (which include not working in an environment where gay people are executed because of who they love and secret service agents are sent to kill critical journalists overseas) just so my company could make more money.
This isn't to say that I don't think politicians shouldn't talk to those regimes, but that feels quite different.
Not saying bin Salman is any better (he's not) but my point is that things aren't so cut and dried, and ultimately companies are just going to do what is best for them even if it means accepting some shady stuff. If all workers were that strict about the morals of the companies they work for, most of us would be out of a job.
"I don't want to support Mohammed bin Salman" needs to be traded off against "I don't want to make 34 million people have worse lives".
In my view, in nearly every case, the latter effect outweighs the former.
At least in my experience, a censored version of a foreign website is always much better than the stuff developed locally, and there are some political reasons for this I won't go into.
In my opinion, it's pure virtue signalling to argue that "a company compromising morals in a different country is bad", at least in the general case. I would totally rather use a censored version of Google over Baidu.
Arguing that "companies operating in China while censored hurts the Chinese people" is pure nonsense. The only people that care that {some company} is censored in China are distinctly people outside of China.
Also, while we're on the topic of moral dilemmas, I would like to add some spice by pointing out that buying almost anything from the supermarket funds someone like Mohammed bin Salman, because their oil was used in the production and transportation of the product or its components.
Edit: My reference to "change" here is about transitioning from fossil fuels so governments like that of Russia and Saudi Arabia have less hold on other governments.
> but I don't see much of a moral distinction between the two.
The key here is that you will have to elaborate how you think the two are similar. And then we can discuss whether those reasons also applied to (c) and (d), or additional (x), (y), (z) or not. This slippery slope is quite long, so we can't easily hand-wave things awaay
One set of despotic rulers deposits the majority of their oil money in Wall Street firms, one set of despotic rulers does not. That's entirely why the Saudi/UAE war on Yemen and the blockade of Yemen ports and the resulting famines and deaths are quietly ignored by the New York Times / CNN / FOX etc., and why the war in Ukraine gets daily front page coverage.
It's fairly obvious that if the likes of Putin and Assad cut the same kind of deal over oil money and recycling petrodollars to Wall Street, they could persecute their own people and wage local wars with not a murmur of disapproval from 'the world leader on human rights and democracy', just as Saudi Arabia and the UAE do.
For me at least, the willingness to take Uber rides I know are subsidized by Saudi money is little (if at all) different from a moral perspective than working directly for a fully Saudi funded entity, although I am sure many will attempt to define a spectrum between these two that happens to align well with general conveniences
What? No! The Uber driver is getting a paycheck; you're getting a ride; and the Saudis are getting ripped off.
I think people often mistaken "region based marketing" for genuine political statements. If promoting pride yields a net positive increase in reputation and revenue in Western countries, one would be foolish not to jump on that bandwagon.
Same goes for Hollywood preaching. It would be a lot better, if they did nothing and never commented on politics, than the charade they're playing.
It's worse than that. Many of these companies donate to political parties actively undermining those rights.
Anyway, Gay Pride and especially the Castro Halloween celebration went from being subversive to mainstream and the celebration itself literally became more exclusive, with fences and then ticket sales. Now it's the theme-park version of itself.
Same with Haight St. and the hippie culture: packaged up into a theme-park of itself. The actual hippies are marginalized in favor of tourism and consumerism.
You literally explained what a woke corporation is, while simultaneously denying its existence.
However, it's a fallacy because those making these decisions are not "corporations", but, in fact, humans, and many of them (optimistically, most of them) are not sociopathic monsters, and therefore like the idea of engaging in benevolence. (You can make an argument that all benevolence is merely atavistic tribe/family-protection behavior on a long enough timeline, and that's another topic, but it is a good analogy for the "true benevolence" vs "false benevolence" theory of corporate behavior). All desires inescapably inform decisions to some extent, no matter how shrewd a person is - therefore, genuine benevolence plays a part in corporate benevolence. It's unrealistically pessimistic to assume all corporate benevolence is purely false, and it seems like that accusation is frequently used to make shallow arguments about social politics.
Wokism is a dominant religion (not demographically) in the US, therefore corporations there pray to wokism and observe its rituals. Anti gay islam is a dominant religion in the Middle East, therefore corporations there will do the same things they do to wokism elsewhere, if grudgingly.
This is quite different than what the employees of a corporation might think, which will depend on the cultural milieu they were raised in. The corporation itself, however, is an emergent non-human intelligence, and it tends to abhor non-profit-related conflicts.
Dictionary tells me it is "alert to injustice in society, especially racism". But the vast majority of time I see someone talk about 'wokeness' or 'woke culture', they use the word in a derogatory manner.
So I'm guessing the 'woke' mentioned is not "being alert to injustice" (as it is a pretty reasonable stance to be alert to injustices). In your case, you go as far as to call it a religion. Is being alert to injustice really a religion in your view? Or, how are you defining 'woke' and 'wokism'?
Probably a reaction 'what they do in the bedroom' being made literally illegal for a long period of time. I can imagine wanting to throw a parade to show the 'good people of society' that you're just as human as they are, with the expected goal being to ward off further persecution in the future.
I feel like it's reasonable to have LGBTQ people hosting events to try and let these people know that you shouldn't be ashamed of a perfectly normal thing.
Despite that attitude being the norm for much of human history, to advocate such a position now is literally modern heresy, and the end to your career and any public life.
Diversity of opinion is trivial if we agree only to differ on the easy stuff and not the difficult stuff.
You are saying that the Arab countries do this because they want to love or respect these people?
Maybe not stoning them to death might be more helpful. Just saying.
> Diversity of opinion is trivial if we agree only to differ on the easy stuff and not the difficult stuff.
This is the thing... I don't think this is the difficult stuff at all. It's just nobody else's business if people are gay.
Its all just kowtowing to the power of the Global American Empire legislated by misguided civil rights legislation, enforced by the politcommissars in HR. Every culture has a right to protect its values.
I would to know more as to why you this civil rights legislation, or presumably court rulings as well, are "misguided"
>Every culture has a right to protect its values.
Cultures that discriminate against people for innate characteristics like sex, sexual orientation, race, etc. are backwards. Label me biased by Western propaganda I suppose, but a person's right to participate fully in a society shouldn't depends on any cultural or societal norms or traditions.
Did you mean to write "shouldn't"?
What "value" that would be? Oppressing gay people?!
You have the moral high ground in this debate, how's that even fathomable?!
I swear it's always a moral panic/mass hysteria with these people when it comes to discussing controversial social issues.
They also seem to be very fixated and invested in the talking point that with the proper and right formula of marketing, you can convert straight people to gay people, or make them engage in homosexual activities which is quite absurd and ridiculous if you ask me but here we go again.
We see what's coming, we see how things are unfolding in the rest of the world, so taking preventative action is only the smart and rational thing to do. You might not agree with it, but these are our culture and norms, and we've survived for over 1,400 years now.
I cannot fathom being the person at Amazon who makes that call. Do they sleep well at night? Do they feel good about themselves?
Can you phrase the attack you imagine they need defense from in a way that doesn't assume your worldview is the universal position (or that tries to achieve a universal position) everyone must adhere to?
Some things are simply wrong. This is one of those things. If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter.
Why not apply your same maxim to the UAE and see where you get? Why do gay people in the UAE have to submit to what the UAE requires to be universal?
Shame is pride's cloak. Shaming people who aren't proud, isn't going to provoke revelation of their truth and meaning.
Most of the anti-gay arguments are derived from a 'natural law' and Platonic interpretations of sexual function.
Do they feel good about themselves?...They don't have to do that...I bet most people don't even feel "good" about their corporate jobs.
Basically, Amazon had two options; Tell the UAE to pound sand and risk being kicked out of the country or cave in to their demands. Should we really expect another response from a soul-less, union-busting corporate overlord company like Amazon?
Im not naive; I know they won’t. But I can still be disgusted that they won’t.
If we demand a better response hard enough we can pressure them into being better. So... yes?
But you expect anything different from a corporation? Their only purpose is to make profit. It’s just basic economics. They don’t care about politics or LGBTQ, they care about money. The only reason they ever seem to care about LGBTQ is because they saw the group as a market. A Market to exploit.
My guess is the blame gets dilluted and people are really good at rationalising their work by hiding behind the corporation image, or "someone else will do it anyway", or "yeah, but look at what happens in X", etc
Amazon is a private organization with lots and lots of customers. Some of those customers (and potential customers) are upset with what Amazon is doing, and they're voicing that opinion. They can't force Amazon to do anything, unlike the government, but they can certainly persuade them.
I'm sure they sleep fine. It's not the role of a retailer to promote a particular political agenda. If we all only transacted with people we agreed with, we wouldn't have a society.
Standing up to an authority that declares some lives less valuable than others (e.g. gays, women, having slaves) is maybe a political agenda but it is moreso a moral position, and that is the thing to emphasize.
The trouble is, ultimately people tend to not care enough to stick their necks out (lose money, lose a job) to stand up for what's right, unless it affects them very directly. And it is rational to not forego your own wellfare for the sake of some other group, I just wish the circle of empathy people have were larger.
People and organizations have been putting money ahead of enlightened ideals as long as there’s been money or ideals.
I’m not trying to let Amazon off the hook here per se, but a cursory reading of history shows that such calls are on average, basically everyone ever.
We venerate King and Milk and Ghandi and others because they stand out.
This is business as usual not for Amazon, it’s business as usual in recorded history.
Don't you think calling this LGBT craze an enlightened ideal is a bit overselling it ?
Some people are simply sociopaths and do not care- whatever makes money and gets them promoted is fine by them. Some just ignore the problem and defer to those above them: if <senior leader> says it's okay, I guess we have to do it. And some will churn the entire problem in their head until they can justify it. They find some reason why this makes sense because 'if you think about it, really it's better this way'. Takes a lot of work, but they find a reason.
And that's human nature. People want to believe they are good people, they don't want to lose their job, and they want to find an excuse for taking part in unethical projects.
I feel good that I stood up for what I believed in and left rather than participate. Because in the end, the Government decided that Amazon was wrong on that particular call: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/02/02/amazon-se...
People in positions being able to make country wide or above decisions at entities like Amazon generally do not care about human life at all. They first and foremost care about being financially successful (and maybe having power) themselves, secondly about their company being financially successful and thirdly their companies public image.
Do you really think there is someone ready to say: "Dear Mr. Bezos, we are no longer allowed to sell in UAE because we didn't bow to their anti LGBTQ laws. Too bad." ?
If you think there is any similarity between the UAE/KSA and even the most regressive US states in how they treat LGBT rights, you should really really take a step back and reconsider. Yes, it's funny to call those states the equivalent "American talibans" or whatever, but it doesn't make it true.
It's so weird to see that people unironically repeat the most blatantly hyperbolic, obviously partisan and inflammatory rhetoric to the point of actually where they start believing it themselves.
