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
I think many of the commenters would openly embrace the label of complacency. That's part of living in a country with a diversity of views; sometimes, when you see people doing something terrible, you have to accept that they don't see it that way rather than going on a warpath to exclude them from polite society.

>>SpicyL+C11
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

>>moolco+Q61
"You either with us or against us" is the hallmark call of extremists.

It was first used politically by Vladimir Lenin, then Benito Mussolini, and more recently by George W Bush after 9/11.

It's not surprising that modern liberals are so keen on its use.