Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody? - Part 2 -

[sr36]

Black Star Pastry sells Pride Month cupcakes.

They seem fine with controversial displays of support.

Companies get to choose which controversial displays of support they give. Employees don't choose it on behalf of the company - which they effectively are in this case as public representatives of that company.

 

[Chief]

Companies get to choose which controversial displays of support they give. Employees don't choose it on behalf of the company - which they effectively are in this case as public representatives of that company.

Arguable.

But when reminded of this, the employees complied immediately.

The real rubbish is in the sacking with the hysterical, hyperbolic reasoning.

As if selling Pride Month cupcakes doesn't turn off weirdo conservatives and religious types and... damage their business!

Maybe they have weighed it up and decided the extra cupcake income outweighs the losses.

 

[faible]

Arguable.

But when reminded of this, the employees complied immediately.

The real rubbish is in the sacking with the hysterical, hyperbolic reasoning.

As if selling Pride Month cupcakes doesn't turn off weirdo conservatives and religious types and... damage their business!

Maybe they have weighed it up and decided the extra cupcake income outweighs the losses.

Firing them after they immediately complied seems like a real dick move, and probably against a number of workplace laws I'd have thought. Plus the boatload of shit publicity.

 

[Chief]

they're the ones taking the risk of any blowback.

Given they sacked workers over scarves, the business owners don't seem to be the ones copping the loss of income.

Hopefully people now give them a wide berth, though, with their fake support for minority groups.

 

[sr36]

Arguable.

But when reminded of this, the employees complied immediately.

The real rubbish is in the sacking with the hysterical, hyperbolic reasoning.

As if selling Pride Month cupcakes doesn't turn off weirdo conservatives and religious types and... damage their business!

Maybe they have weighed it up and decided the extra cupcake income outweighs the losses.

Agree. The sacking appears ridiculous - assuming there's no other context regarding previous instruction and warnings.

 

[Gethelred]

That's one way to view the issue, though I'd argue it's also about basic respect for your colleagues and even the viability of the business.

Your employer is owed your service when you are at work. You are also - ostensibly - an adult; you need to be able to conduct yourself as an adult.

While this means that you owe your superiors and the company you work for a reasonable amount of give - while the system lived within is capitalist in nature, it is next to unavoidable not to - you do not owe your boss or the owner your enthusiasm or anything more than a professional attitude and your labour.

Your boss when making decisions about you is not going to be your friend.

Showing support for either side of a controversial issue like Israel/Palestine, organised religion/antitheism, abortion, or the like can cause disharmony in the workplace and affect the bottom line of the company who is employing you.

Sure, because those who own capital are extremely thin skinned.

I'd also like to remind you that there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism; some people of a left wing persuasion make their deal with the devil every single day, because if they don't there's not really all that many options save violence to change the status quo.

Is the profitability of your employer and workplace unity more important than your right to political expression at work? I say yes.

You're therefore a capitalist.

Which is a valid position to take, but one that is inherently exploitative. You're either happy to belong to the owner class, or you're aspiring to become one; there's an inbuilt acceptance of exploitative hierarchy that comes with it.

I think to how that could impact my industry for example - imagine the conflicting messages a Pfizer or Moderna anti-vaxx employee could give (I know people in the industry who lost their jobs for refusing to take a COVID jab).

Why are you hiring an antivaxer to work for Pfizer or Moderna?

Last I checked - depending on your role within what could be a pharmaceutical business - there was extensive screening and recruitment processes in place, including verification of study and whatnot, during recruiting. Do you think it's a credible thing for that screening to have not picked up on antivax tendencies?

Is it also not enough to have your business state: "This person's views are not the views of our business, and are potentially dangerous to the health of our consumers"?

As stated earlier, I think society is let down by the class of libertarians we have. They're only defenders of freedom of speech, privacy or the various government and corporate overreaches within a modern context when that specific breach is happening to them; if it happens to someone they disagree with, it's a shrug. There's not a single one of them prepared to take a stand on principle alone.

Some things need to be kept in check at workplaces including expression of religious and political views; especially so if those are controversial in nature.

Why?

Can people not be trusted to be adult?

It's a question of basic etiquette even moreso than rights afaic. I certainly don't feel that my rights are being violated because I can't openly express my disgust for religion at work.

... I do have another question, although it'll take some time to get there.

Manners and ettiquette are outgrowths of medieval and feudal times, in which manners and courtly process and highly structured rules governing interactions between people of noble and common ranks were the difference between getting a knife between your ribs or a noose round your kneck. They were built to preserve and enshrine hierarchies of power within those societies, and continue to do that self-same job right now.

The idea that people cannot be trusted to solve their own problems or to sift through employee opinion to find the opinion of the owner - why does a business even need to possess an opinion on social, political or religious issues, anyway? - is taken more or less precisely from the notion of a divine rule of kings.

So, my question is this: knowing that these rules were built by kings and their obsequents to maintain their position within society - knowing that it was always and continues to be propaganda - do you still feel those rules are necessary to the functioning of a workplace?

The thickest skin in the world isn't going to keep your business going if the actions of your staff have alienated whole groups of customers.

The problem is that the worldview of those within a capitalist system see the way the owners of capital operate and behave as the ideal, something to aspire towards. A boycott is nothing more than a group seeking to do the precise same behaviour as an owner would do; seeking to hurt another businesses bottom line by virtue of depriving them of sales.

Thinking that what's good for the goose is good for the gander is equivalent to two wrongs making a right.

Forcing people into compliance is hardly civilised, and yet we do it constantly within this framework. There's no knife to your throat at a Maccas checkout, but 'Do you want fries with that?' is asked regardless.

 

[the_interloper]

Companies get to choose which controversial displays of support they give. Employees don't choose it on behalf of the company - which they effectively are in this case as public representatives of that company.

I don't think they do, often their hand gets forced by what their market demands or what their competitors do.

To be brutally frank I don't care about my personal beliefs when toeing the corporate line, I do what is in the best interests of the company. Having my mortgage paid is more important to me than voicing my personal opinion.

 

[sr36]

I don't think they do, often their hand gets forced by what their market demands or what their competitors do.

To be brutally frank I don't care about my personal beliefs when toeing the corporate line, I do what is in the best interests of the company. Having my mortgage paid is more important to me than voicing my personal opinion.

Regardless of what market forces may suggest is beneficial - it still remains the companies choice.

 

[the_interloper]

Regardless of what market forces may suggest is beneficial - it still remains the companies choice.

I suppose, but when that choice is what is most fiscally advantageous and what isn’t there’s only one real option

 

[sr36]

I suppose, but when that choice is what is most fiscally advantageous and what isn’t there’s only one real option

It's rarely clear cut, eg. Afl clubs and pokies.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Your employer is owed your service when you are at work. You are also - ostensibly - an adult; you need to be able to conduct yourself as an adult.

While this means that you owe your superiors and the company you work for a reasonable amount of give - while the system lived within is capitalist in nature, it is next to unavoidable not to - you do not owe your boss or the owner your enthusiasm or anything more than a professional attitude and your labour.

Your boss when making decisions about you is not going to be your friend.

Sure, because those who own capital are extremely thin skinned.

I'd also like to remind you that there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism; some people of a left wing persuasion make their deal with the devil every single day, because if they don't there's not really all that many options save violence to change the status quo.

You're therefore a capitalist.

Which is a valid position to take, but one that is inherently exploitative. You're either happy to belong to the owner class, or you're aspiring to become one; there's an inbuilt acceptance of exploitative hierarchy that comes with it.

Why are you hiring an antivaxer to work for Pfizer or Moderna?

Last I checked - depending on your role within what could be a pharmaceutical business - there was extensive screening and recruitment processes in place, including verification of study and whatnot, during recruiting. Do you think it's a credible thing for that screening to have not picked up on antivax tendencies?

Is it also not enough to have your business state: "This person's views are not the views of our business, and are potentially dangerous to the health of our consumers"?

As stated earlier, I think society is let down by the class of libertarians we have. They're only defenders of freedom of speech, privacy or the various government and corporate overreaches within a modern context when that specific breach is happening to them; if it happens to someone they disagree with, it's a shrug. There's not a single one of them prepared to take a stand on principle alone.

Why?

Can people not be trusted to be adult?

... I do have another question, although it'll take some time to get there.

Manners and ettiquette are outgrowths of medieval and feudal times, in which manners and courtly process and highly structured rules governing interactions between people of noble and common ranks were the difference between getting a knife between your ribs or a noose round your kneck. They were built to preserve and enshrine hierarchies of power within those societies, and continue to do that self-same job right now.

The idea that people cannot be trusted to solve their own problems or to sift through employee opinion to find the opinion of the owner - why does a business even need to possess an opinion on social, political or religious issues, anyway? - is taken more or less precisely from the notion of a divine rule of kings.

So, my question is this: knowing that these rules were built by kings and their obsequents to maintain their position within society - knowing that it was always and continues to be propaganda - do you still feel those rules are necessary to the functioning of a workplace?

The problem is that the worldview of those within a capitalist system see the way the owners of capital operate and behave as the ideal, something to aspire towards. A boycott is nothing more than a group seeking to do the precise same behaviour as an owner would do; seeking to hurt another businesses bottom line by virtue of depriving them of sales.

Thinking that what's good for the goose is good for the gander is equivalent to two wrongs making a right.

Forcing people into compliance is hardly civilised, and yet we do it constantly within this framework. There's no knife to your throat at a Maccas checkout, but 'Do you want fries with that?' is asked regardless.

Id call this unhinged but that would imply a hinge existed to begin with

I need to have a nap after this

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Nah, it's an interesting post that you may not understand.

Assuming you read it.

I think you have missed the point perhaps ?

 

[CM86]

I think you have missed the point perhaps ?

Yeah I get that a lot.

Must be something wrong with me.

Anyway, you were talking about hinges. I'll let you get back to it.

 

[sr36]

Your employer is owed your service when you are at work. You are also - ostensibly - an adult; you need to be able to conduct yourself as an adult.

While this means that you owe your superiors and the company you work for a reasonable amount of give - while the system lived within is capitalist in nature, it is next to unavoidable not to - you do not owe your boss or the owner your enthusiasm or anything more than a professional attitude and your labour.

Your boss when making decisions about you is not going to be your friend.

Sure, because those who own capital are extremely thin skinned.

I'd also like to remind you that there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism; some people of a left wing persuasion make their deal with the devil every single day, because if they don't there's not really all that many options save violence to change the status quo.

You're therefore a capitalist.

Which is a valid position to take, but one that is inherently exploitative. You're either happy to belong to the owner class, or you're aspiring to become one; there's an inbuilt acceptance of exploitative hierarchy that comes with it.

Why are you hiring an antivaxer to work for Pfizer or Moderna?

Last I checked - depending on your role within what could be a pharmaceutical business - there was extensive screening and recruitment processes in place, including verification of study and whatnot, during recruiting. Do you think it's a credible thing for that screening to have not picked up on antivax tendencies?

Is it also not enough to have your business state: "This person's views are not the views of our business, and are potentially dangerous to the health of our consumers"?

As stated earlier, I think society is let down by the class of libertarians we have. They're only defenders of freedom of speech, privacy or the various government and corporate overreaches within a modern context when that specific breach is happening to them; if it happens to someone they disagree with, it's a shrug. There's not a single one of them prepared to take a stand on principle alone.

Why?

Can people not be trusted to be adult?

... I do have another question, although it'll take some time to get there.

Manners and ettiquette are outgrowths of medieval and feudal times, in which manners and courtly process and highly structured rules governing interactions between people of noble and common ranks were the difference between getting a knife between your ribs or a noose round your kneck. They were built to preserve and enshrine hierarchies of power within those societies, and continue to do that self-same job right now.

The idea that people cannot be trusted to solve their own problems or to sift through employee opinion to find the opinion of the owner - why does a business even need to possess an opinion on social, political or religious issues, anyway? - is taken more or less precisely from the notion of a divine rule of kings.

So, my question is this: knowing that these rules were built by kings and their obsequents to maintain their position within society - knowing that it was always and continues to be propaganda - do you still feel those rules are necessary to the functioning of a workplace?

The problem is that the worldview of those within a capitalist system see the way the owners of capital operate and behave as the ideal, something to aspire towards. A boycott is nothing more than a group seeking to do the precise same behaviour as an owner would do; seeking to hurt another businesses bottom line by virtue of depriving them of sales.

Thinking that what's good for the goose is good for the gander is equivalent to two wrongs making a right.

Forcing people into compliance is hardly civilised, and yet we do it constantly within this framework. There's no knife to your throat at a Maccas checkout, but 'Do you want fries with that?' is asked regardless.

Some pretty big reaches stated as facts. THe manners paragraph bares no relationship to the context that etiquette was used and frnakly manners and etiquette are deeper than the codified rules of the feudal court and most of those customs or their origins date back way further and can be directly related to health hygiene and security.

 

[the_interloper]

It's rarely clear cut, eg. Afl clubs and pokies.

The St Kilda footy club has pokies attached to RSEA park, I reckon that’s shithouse so yeah, fair point

 

[Gethelred]

Id call this unhinged but that would imply a hinge existed to begin with

I need to have a nap after this

 

[Gethelred]

Some pretty big reaches stated as facts. THe manners paragraph bares no relationship to the context that etiquette was used and frnakly manners and etiquette are deeper than the codified rules of the feudal court and most of those customs or their origins date back way further and can be directly related to health hygiene and security.

... a reading of history is always nothing more than the spin you put on it. No single text, opinion or treatise has every purported to be a complete and completely truthful account of history. What you have there is a marxist reading of the rules of etiquette. If you wanted me to do a more complex version - with citations - I probably could, but it'd take more time than I'd be willing to apportion to an argument on footy forum; you'd still likely disagree with it, but them's the breaks.

History is built around the interpretation of the objective; while certain things existed or happened, our interpretation of them can differ extremely along subjective lines.

It's also worth noting that this is an opinion forum. I was asked my opinion and provided it.

 

[campbell]

Public servant suspended on full pay after making a vile slur

Bryce Waite, 61, was stood down as a compliance officer for the Queensland government over comments he made during a work dinner at the Oxford Hotel in Rockhampton.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is not woke, this is a racist bigot, weakly using his daughter as an excuse.

Ex cop I see.

 

[sr36]

... a reading of history is always nothing more than the spin you put on it. No single text, opinion or treatise has every purported to be a complete and completely truthful account of history. What you have there is a marxist reading of the rules of etiquette. If you wanted me to do a more complex version - with citations - I probably could, but it'd take more time than I'd be willing to apportion to an argument on footy forum; you'd still likely disagree with it, but them's the breaks.

History is built around the interpretation of the objective; while certain things existed or happened, our interpretation of them can differ extremely along subjective lines.

It's also worth noting that this is an opinion forum. I was asked my opinion and provided it.

Except the context that the poster you were responding to used the term etiquette had nothing to do with the codified behaviour of feudal courts, so your version of history was completely irrelevant. You just took a very narrow meaning of the word which wasn't how it was used and ran with some irrelevant Marxism.

 

[Gethelred]

Except the context that the poster you were responding to used the term etiquette had nothing to do with the codified behaviour of feudal courts, so your version of history was completely irrelevant. You just took a very narrow meaning of the word which wasn't how it was used and ran with some irrelevant Marxism.

It's actually a bit of a pisser that you're accusing me of irrelevance here, while making two off topic nitpicks that don't really have anything to do with the discussion that was being had or the argument made overall.

 

[sr36]

It's actually a bit of a pisser that you're accusing me of irrelevance here, while making two off topic nitpicks that don't really have anything to do with the discussion that was being had or the argument made overall.

So you're just going to support your arguments with rubbish and then claim it's a nitpick when your rubbish is disputed?

The whole post was a series of ridiculous claims treated as fact. I just pointed out one of them.

 

[Gethelred]

So you're just going to support your arguments with rubbish and then claim it's a nitpick when your rubbish is disputed?

The whole post was a series of ridiculous claims treated as fact.

No, I'm going to have a bit of a laugh at the notion that I'm the one who's off topic while leaving things precisely as they are.

 

[sr36]

No, I'm going to have a bit of a laugh at the notion that I'm the one who's off topic while leaving things precisely as they are.

Actually, you being challenged about a claim of truth, and then responding with: it's my version of history and then taking a superior I'm laughing at you attitude is very much on topic. I'm hoping it's a poor parody.

 

[Chief]

Actually, you being challenged about a claim of truth, and then responding with: it's my version of history and then taking a superior I'm laughing at you attitude is very much on topic. I'm hoping it's a poor parody.

Why not give us some more information about your view of this point. I'm actually interested in the two views of etiquette. (if that's still the subject of this tangent. It's early and I've only just had my cornflakes.)

 

[sr36]

Why not give us some more information about your view of this point. I'm actually interested in the two views of etiquette. (if that's still the subject of this tangent. It's early and I've only just had my cornflakes.)

Here's a standard definition of etiquette:

the customary code of polite behaviour in society or among members of a particular profession or group.

Clearly feudal courts didn't invent the existence of customary codes of polite behaviour. They exist(ed) in all cultures including those that predate feudalism by millenia.

When Marxists were talking about etiquette, they were talking distinctly about the etiquette of aristocracy at their time in their cultures, behaviours that had become synonymous markers of class and often involved explicit deference to the ruling class. Marxists with their war on manners weren't abolishing the more general concept of etiquette. They were creating new etiquette to replace the old. The most obvious one that everyone would know being the "comrade" greeting.

The original poster was using etiquette in a more general sense rather than the particular codes that Marxists were against. It just meant behaviour that won't piss people off and cause offense - without any connection to the codified expected behaviour within feudal courts that Marxists wanted to overthrow. In that context of a more general usage of the term etiquette, Marxist stuff about etiquette is miles off the mark.

In many ways the two posters had swapped their stereotyped sides in the standard woke vs anti-woke debates. One was advocating avoiding being offensive, using the term etiquette. The other ran with the term etiquette and effectively said that trying to avoid being offensive is elitism.