zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics. Because once you set a precedence then people will use that as to push their own political agendas. I personally don't like the slippery slope argument since it's very lazy and justifies inaction in many cases. But at the same time when I see news like this, I just wonder how long it will take two different subgroups trying push their own conflicting agendas and how the company should react in such a case.

>>johnce+bg
> I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics

Literally everything a corporation does is politics. Every hiring decision, every office they open or close, every client they take on, every vendor they ditch, every ad they publish. It literally all has political implications and messaging. Why is there an expectation on companies to "not be political" whenever one of those inherently political decisions intersects with something that happens to be a hot-button issue? Like wtf does that even mean?

>>moolco+FS
So "You're either with us or against us"? Is that the message?

>>koheri+ST
There's obviously grey area, but a lot of comments in this thread come really close to the definition of complacency

>>moolco+UU
You should know that the most notable politicians to use that phrase were Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, and George W Bush.

It is the hallmark of extremism.