Post: #51

The costs of doing this is relatively small to a corporation and builds goodwill with a large segment of their customer and shareholder base.
Private corporations don't really give a fuck. I know of a private corporation that is still moving hundreds of employees to Charlotte despite the SJW butthurt.

Once the publicity dies down and the SJWs find something else to cry about, I expect many of these corporations will continue operating in NC as if nothing happened.

Post: #52

@ offthereservation

Quote:I looked at this first list. Then it hit me, other than Jabra and Levis, none of these "corporations" make anything.

Did you miss IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Marriot, Apple?

Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Post: #53

(04-09-2016 01:29 PM)Different T Wrote:  @ offthereservation

Quote:I looked at this first list. Then it hit me, other than Jabra and Levis, none of these "corporations" make anything.

Did you miss IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Marriot, Apple?

Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Doesnt change my point at all whether its "other than two" or the majority of companies, or to add a few names.

Dont be an ass with your wikipedia entry noob.

Post: #54

Quote:Doesnt change my point at all whether its "other than two" or the majority of companies, or to add a few names.

That's my point.

Post: #55

The mayor of Honolulu banned public travel to North Carolina:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-n...ssissippi/

I doubt this will make any difference whatsoever, but hey get on the bandwagon.

Aloha!

Post: #56

(04-09-2016 11:33 AM)Grit Wrote:  You make a feminist or a gay guy the CEO and pretty much guarantee that they will be pushing for their blanket acceptance. You make a first generation immigrant a CEO and now he empathizes with softening immigration.

That about covers 70% of the list, Jews included.

The rest of the CEOs rely on foreign workforces or foreign customer markets. That would explain why this election is not so much liberal vs conservative so much as it is nationalist vs globalist. I think Trump could be stronger on these companies that milk free cows in China and the third world.

Good point. Also worth noting is that CEO's aren't actually in control of a company. They answer to the firm's shareholders, a controlling stake of which is typically in the hands of institutional shareholders.

For Paypal's Case:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=PYPL+Major+Holders

They don't own enough to directly own the company, but between those major institutional investors they own enough to effectively control the makeup of the executive suite.



You can do that for ANY of the companies pushing LGBT crap. That will give a lot of insight into why those companies are so radical about the agenda.

Post: #57

(04-09-2016 11:20 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  For Paypal's Case:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=PYPL+Major+Holders

You can do that for ANY of the companies pushing LGBT crap. That will give a lot of insight into why those companies are so radical about the agenda.

Every single corporation in USA has the same major shareholders: Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, FMR, as well as a mix of other big banks/funds (most commonly JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America). The names of the people associated with these companies are almost always the minority shareholders, only there for marketing purposes.

Basically the entire corporate world (and in turn the politicians funded by that corporate world) is controlled by a few investment fund managers. I'd wager that their total number is less than a thousand people all in all - a new feudal class of the western world.

Post: #58

Exactly. I was just hoping that people would look up a few of those companies and realize it themselves rather than having one of us spoonfeed that conclusion.

Also funny you should mention those names. I've got an interview coming up with one of those firms you mentioned....Even if I don't get anything it should be an interesting meeting because I intend to ask them a question(worded in a very PC way) about how they decide what values they want to see in a company they invest in.

Post: #59

(04-10-2016 01:34 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  Exactly. I was just hoping that people would look up a few of those companies and realize it themselves rather than having one of us spoonfeed that conclusion.

Also funny you should mention those names. I've got an interview coming up with one of those firms you mentioned....Even if I don't get anything it should be an interesting meeting because I intend to ask them a question(worded in a very PC way) about how they decide what values they want to see in a company they invest in.

Would be curious to hear the answer. I can't imagine they'd give a straight one though.

Post: #60

Quote:Every single corporation in USA has the same major shareholders: Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, FMR, as well as a mix of other big banks/funds (most commonly JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America).

It seems to me you are giving the investment management community a bit much credit here. That industry is hyper-competitive and, as you mentioned, their position tend to be hidden in the shadows anyway.

It can be fun to think that most of the elite are evil geniuses who know what they are doing (and I would wager a very small number of them do) instead of considering them hypnotized, incompetent idiots. From a game theory perspective, is it more efficient to have all of your allies as self-aware and with a strong sense of their own self-interest, or to hypnotize/indoctrinate and manipulate them?

We already got an example from our side in this very thread. Cognitive dissonance occurs when new information challenging deeply held beliefs is reinterpreted so that the old belief can be maintained.

A: They are doing it because of xyz.
B: Did you miss that these companies aren't involved in xyz?
A: It wouldn't matter if all of them weren't involved in xyz, they are still doing it because of xyz.

Do you all remember what Agent Smith told Neo about the first Matrix the machines built for the humans?

Do you all remember what Zion actually was (the giant orgy scene)?

Post: #61

Corporations are not leftist. They are scared to death.

Social reengineering of society TODAY is a state project. Yes it was Marxist idea by its birth, but state quickly figured out that destruction of all traditional elements it is destruction of all alternative authorities. And it is good for central political authority. And don't tell me that Wall Street buys Washington. Wall Street pays protection racket to be left along. That's it.

If you look back in time at history of Western Civilization you will see how state fought against Church, against free cities, against baron clans, against capitalistic cells against local authorities, free market, etc.

Then state moves dipper into destruction of family as social institution. Just look at all these Child Labor Laws, mandatory education, etc... Power effectively was taken from families on how to bring up a child.

It created laws that children can bring parents to court, divorce parents, etc... Recently a whole definition of family was turned upside down with gay marriage thing. Then sex regulation and new definition of “gender”.

If state wishes to do something directly then it writes a law and sends armed enforcers to your house.

If not - state create NGO financed via proxy NGO like National Endowment for Democracy for example or Freedom House and that NGO will pay another NGO to blackmail you with boycott of your business, then it will target your customers then if it doesn’t work it'll target your advertisers.

They can dox you. Do you ever ask yourself how these Anonymous know so much without access of state files? May be some of them do?

Eventually you will crumble under weight of legal expenses. So businesses will do anything to survive. Even hoist a rainbow flag.

Have you ever heard of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) before?

It is Non-GOVERNMENTAL Organization 100% budgeted by GOVERNMENT. It is official on their website.

It in turns finances hundreds and hundreds of other permanent and ad-hoc NGOs created for a certain purpose.

So when you hear from Twitter SJWs something like "Fuck your First Amendment, it is for government, we can do whatever we please" they right, government cannot force political correctness on you directly, but they can outsource it.

Post: #62

Quote:Corporations are not leftist.

I am confident that this is false.

There is a major difference between stating that an SJW has no idea what the consequences/"utility for parasites" of their beliefs are vs. stating that an SJW isn't a leftist.

Post: #63

(04-12-2016 01:19 PM)FebGun Wrote:  Corporations are not leftist. They are scared to death.

Social reengineering of society TODAY is a state project. Yes it was Marxist idea by its birth, but state quickly figured out that destruction of all traditional elements it is destruction of all alternative authorities. And it is good for central political authority. And don't tell me that Wall Street buys Washington. Wall Street pays protection racket to be left along. That's it.

If you look back in time at history of Western Civilization you will see how state fought against Church, against free cities, against baron clans, against capitalistic cells against local authorities, free market, etc.

This!

Post: #64

Different T,

Look at Chicago School of Economics for example. It is not just school of monetarism, back in 50s they had also pretty wide social agenda. They were arguing for "negative income tax", "social safety net", ... if I remember correctly "abortions on demand" also not sure for the last one. Anyway. Back in 50-s they were considered as a radical left. There were not so many respected public figures who were willing to be associated with them. 40 years later both "negative income tax" and "social safety net" were part of Gingrich's Conservative Revolution. And Chicago boys didn't budge an inch from their positions.
It means that a whole spectrum of society shifted left!

Post: #65

(04-12-2016 08:24 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:Every single corporation in USA has the same major shareholders: Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, FMR, as well as a mix of other big banks/funds (most commonly JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America).

It seems to me you are giving the investment management community a bit much credit here. That industry is hyper-competitive and, as you mentioned, their position tend to be hidden in the shadows anyway.

It can be fun to think that most of the elite are evil geniuses who know what they are doing (and I would wager a very small number of them do) instead of considering them hypnotized, incompetent idiots. From a game theory perspective, is it more efficient to have all of your allies as self-aware and with a strong sense of their own self-interest, or to hypnotize/indoctrinate and manipulate them?

You don't need a formal conspiracy for that. On the investment community and Corporate America's side, the ownership structure has helped create a kind of insidious groupthink mentality. It's very much the case that supporting leftist policies is a "cost of admission" to that echelon of society. It's a marker of who is part of the club and who isn't

The "hypercompetitive" nature of finance is extremely correct, but that also facilitates this environment. What better way to oust a rival than by using any non-PC statement they've made against them?

Post: #66

Corporations are leftist because leftists believe in a) collectivism and b) totalitarianism, the centralization of power.

Post: #67

Quote:It means that a whole spectrum of society shifted left!

Understood. What does that have to with whether or not the major corporations of today are leftist? Your argument sounds like saying the US govt cannot be leftist because historically govts haven't been leftist.

Quote:The "hypercompetitive" nature of finance is extremely correct, but that also facilitates this environment. What better way to oust a rival than by using any non-PC statement they've made against them?

What are you basing this on? We are talking about managing money, not making a product with a fat margin. If an IM isn't performing, they lose assets. Is it still opened to being gamed (your "rival" scenario)? Dunno, but I've never heard of an empirical instance of your hypothetical.

Quote:It's very much the case that supporting leftist policies is a "cost of admission" to that echelon of society. It's a marker of who is part of the club and who isn't

Over the past few decades, Republicans have been the party of business (though some are getting rich enough to vote D). The trick isn't to get all businessmen to support overtly leftist policies, it's to frame leftist policies as "conservative."

And to ask again:

Do you all remember what Agent Smith told Neo about the first Matrix the machines built for the humans?

Do you all remember what Zion actually was (the giant orgy scene)?

Post: #68

(04-12-2016 08:34 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  You don't need a formal conspiracy for that. On the investment community and Corporate America's side, the ownership structure has helped create a kind of insidious groupthink mentality. It's very much the case that supporting leftist policies is a "cost of admission" to that echelon of society. It's a marker of who is part of the club and who isn't

I think your right. Fortunately for now it only applies to a few industries. I would say media and tech are the biggest left group-think industries so far. Anyone that says they are a Republican or conservative in these industries is shunned. There are a handful of exceptions but if you were a mover and a shaker in either of these industries and came out as Republican or conservative you would be blackballed and they would attempt to derail you.

Post: #69

I don't get it. Do you all try to appease each other so as to avoid confrontation or what? Easy_C clearly said he is talking about the "investment community" and "Corporate America" (which I interpret as the c-suite of big business in general). username then says he agrees with Easy_C, but clearly delineates the two industries where leftism is most overt.

This is all to say, by focusing on the instances where "the ownership structure has helped create a kind of insidious groupthink mentality," you completely overlook the larger source of leftist influence: framing leftist policies as "conservative" so agents who are hypnotized/indoctrinated can be manipulated.

Post: #70

Trust me it's both. I'm currently at a school that is a huge feeder school for executives and upper level managers at the consumer goods companies we're talking about here. While there's a decent spectrum of political views there's a hugely aggressive push for LGBT crap coming from the LGBT students.

Post: #71

Quote:Trust me it's both.

I do not. Now in this post, you say "we're talking about" consumer goods companies; when the post I responded to was about finance. Why would anyone trust a speaker who constantly reframes away from the statements they themselves made? And you just said you're still in college.

Quote:While there's a decent spectrum of political views there's a hugely aggressive push for LGBT crap coming from the LGBT students.

Politics is still, at bottom, those who think they are "good" trying to rule over others. LGBT issues have been framed as good vs. evil. The NFL threatened Georgia with pulling the Super Bowl over LGBT "discrimination." Do you think the execs of the NFL are SJWs or that they buy the Zuck's "don't be evil" frame and then listen to the loudest screams defining "evil"? The reality is that their perspective doesn't affect the consequence, they are still leftist.

Post: #72

(04-02-2016 11:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  One thing that stuck with me in an industry article about "fair trade" coffee I read once: the article concluded (in a somewhat surprised but cold tone) that consumers are willing pay a higher price to assuage their own conscience...

This is a great insight.

Corporations use a vast array of devices in order to manipulate our core subconscious desires for the benefit of their bottom line.

For instance, a furniture company names itself Freedom* and produces video advertisements that champions the individual expression of consumers through the arrangement of home wares. On the surface they are selling couches, beds and so on, which should appeal to those people looking to replace old items, move into a new house etc. However, under the surface, the viewer's non-conscious need for resource gathering, competition, autonomy and provider display are all engaged [cue pressure from the nagging wife on the husband to upgrade the sofa].

The topic of mass subconscious manipulation by governments and companies is of immense interest to me. The implications of this manipulation are so far-reaching they are often impossible for the average consumer to identify due to their complete embeddness within the culture. I suggest anyone sharing my curiosity to check out the documentary 'The Century of the Self' for a fascinating, educational and at times disturbing historical account on the topic:



Video Link:

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=8A824F...F73226C1D2

Intro:

Quote:"Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings profoundly. His influence on the 20th century is widely regarded as massive. The documentary describes the impact of Freud's theories on the perception of the human mind, and the ways public relations agencies and politicians have used this during the last 100 years for their "engineering of consent"...

Selected quote:

Quote: "Eddie Bernays saw a way to sell product was not to sell it to your intellect, that you ought to buy an automobile, but that you will feel better about it if you have this automobile. I think he originated that idea that they weren't just purchasing something that they were engaging themselves emotionally or personally in a product or service. It's not that you think you need a piece of clothing but that you will feel better if you have a piece of clothing. That was his contribution in a very real sense. We see it all over the place today but I think he originated the idea, the emotional connect to a product or service."

Reviews:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432232/

* Note: add .com and .au for verification of the real site

Post: #73

Quote:Corporations use a vast array of devices in order to manipulate our core subconscious desires for the benefit of their bottom line.

Just look at all the posts in this thread saying that companies "act" like leftists because of the profit motive. This simplifies to, "Place money (aka economic/materialistic control/power) as the core bond that binds human relations." How is that "acting" like a leftist, that is practically the definition of "leftist." You can read about Marx's philosophy in multiple places on the net. It's not an act.

De Jouvenel supposedly posited that Capitalists were our era's natural aristocrats, but they just hadn't accepted the responsibility of their role. I would be interested to know what he would think after the past century.

Ayn Rand (hint: that's not her real name) posited the same. But even she wasn't stupid enough to place money as the prime value her "heroes" would pursue. Would you be interested to know what Rand thought of as the primary expression of a man's valuation of himself?

Post: #74

In speaking of companies, porn site x-Hamster (I have no shame) tricked me into voting for LGBT in their "poll" their running on their site. I thought we would have the option of "Yes" or "No". I will never visit that site again.

Anywho, companies will be Leftist to appeal to their customer base. Also said companies will be extremely likely to legit be overrun with Liberals anyways. I'm so glad I don't work for the establishment. I think Liberalism might be a mental disorder at this point.

Post: #75

Government demands detail report on the status of your business if you apply for governmental contract. Besides financial status you have to detail company status on Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, diversity, all forms of ant-discrimination and many more. And if it turns out that with all equals your competitor provides for example medical benefits for domestic partners and you are not then he wins contract. And in the most severe cases it could spell death to your business.

And if you think: “Hell with that! I will stay on my moral principles!” then government can give a wink to one of its proxy-budgeted NGOs and they will bring a “hostile environment on working place” lawsuit against you and you will bend. And it doesn’t matter what is your last name. Zukerberger or Cho.