It’s frequently hard to determine if an organization has actually undergone remorse, or if they are simply spin doctoring. In this instance, my Magic 8-Ball says “Signs point to ‘no’”.
It’s a bank. If they don’t think it will make money they won’t do it.
This is a wonderful thing, right? Because we’re going to encourage banks to make amends, and not refuse to take their sponsorship, right?
They’re giving back to the community! Think of the fractional hit to dividends the investors are taking for this minor expense! Is nothing good enough for you people?
Isn’t even lip service better than nothing? I’m not saying we should congratulate them, but it feels weird when people target companies that are doing minimal good rather than companies not doing any good at all.
I mean, I’m not a minority. I’m essentially as majority as you get (upper-middle class white male) maybe this makes more sense to people actually affected by it, but this feels super…anti-effective?
Yeah, my first thought too. I would like to believe they are turning over a new leaf and trying to make amends, but then I would also like to believe in Santa Claus too.
(Post must be at least six characters.)
So you would prefer a company that did not benefit these groups at all or continued to cause issues for them compared to a company that may be doing it for personal gain?
That is the definition of lip service, no benefit, all talk. The choice between nothing and nothing isn’t a choice. It seems to me WF is getting the only benefit.
Here’s a clue: Remorse is an emotion. Corporations do not have emotions.
But it’s a good point. Are they trying to make amends, or just appear to make amends?
We are what we do. Or as Kurt Vonnegut wrote in Mother Night, we are what we pretend to be.
Yep. Like Deray McKesson pretending he’s an integral part of the Black Lives Matter movement (instead of self-serving corporate shill). But hey, he’s a black face in a trademark puffy vest, so most people will buy it.
I’m going to go with “Approximately as sincere as McDonald’s’ claim to be nourishing the black community like the baobob tree” on this one(yes, they actually did this; yes, it’s a wayback machine link because it didn’t go over so well.)
So the talk being sponsored isn’t a benefit? This talk is not beneficial if it wasn’t hosted by WF?
In the long term, no, that association will likely be a hindrance and not a benefit. It tends to go something like this:
- donate money
- get a voice in the ear of those in charge
- donate more money
- get more of a voice and start making suggestions
- give money when they need it, get them to start relying on your money - after all, look at how much more “good you can do if you take my money” (oh, and do this one not-so-bad thing for me while you’re at it - I mean, I’m not asking all that much and I’ve already given you so much…)
- a formerly well intentioned endeavor is now a mouth piece wholly owned by the man with the money.
edit: #'s got wonky - need to look at the formatting guide again cuz it didn’t do what I thought it would
Depends on which part of my nether regions is getting the lip service.
Well, I think that’s a fairly reasonable concern actually, and I think you did a decent job of portraying it. Consider me swayed.