Redemption

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bump to link related thread: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34732.msg1266566.html#msg1266566

[Salty]

I'm all about changing my mind.

This one is tough for me. I made the mistake of thinking about it solely from an individual level.

However, I honestly have a hard time doing otherwise. Generally intend to view the world from this tiny, single perspective.

But take those Exodus dicks. That's a subject that's too close for me. I'm not saying I'd set that asshole on fire, but to paraphrase what a wise man once said:
I would not piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.

Those people destroy the minds and brains of children.

How in the fuck do I hold anything but malice in my heart for such a human? Because they're more likely to quit if I don't? Eh...that's not enough for me. They don't need to stop because I don't like it. They need to stop because it is wrong. After they stop they cam write a book about their own struggle and get on Oprah and cry.

And those kids that wanted God's love so bad, but were told they could not have it for their sins...

It's just too close to me for anything but rage.

How do I get past that?

[Doktor Howl]

I'm all about changing my mind.

This one is tough for me. I made the mistake of thinking about it solely from an individual level.

However, I honestly have a hard time doing otherwise. Generally intend to view the world from this tiny, single perspective.

But take those Exodus dicks. That's a subject that's too close for me. I'm not saying I'd set that asshole on fire, but to paraphrase what a wise man once said:
I would not piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.

Those people destroy the minds and brains of children.

How in the fuck do I hold anything but malice in my heart for such a human? Because they're more likely to quit if I don't? Eh...that's not enough for me. They don't need to stop because I don't like it. They need to stop because it is wrong. After they stop they cam write a book about their own struggle and get on Oprah and cry.

And those kids that wanted God's love so bad, but were told they could not have it for their sins...

It's just too close to me for anything but rage.

How do I get past that?

In this case, Chambers has repudiated the practice, discrediting it in the eyes of many, which means that not only will HE stop, but that others will, too.

He is in a very rare position; he can't undo what he's done, but he CAN make it much harder for other people to do the same bad acts he committed.

Is anyone asking you to LIKE the guy?  No.  But if it comes down to winning with some stains on your shirt or losing with a halo, I'm all for winning.  And if that means accepting the defeat of my enemies, particularly if they're willing to attack the causes they used to espouse, then so be it.

[Salty]

OK. I will think in that.

This is a big thing with me and people I think. I might just learn something today.

[Junkenstein]

I've been thinking a little about this, and I'm curious as to feelings about Corporate/Organisation redemption.(Various thoughts, sorry if unrelated/de-railing) It's easy to name a dozen global companies that are complicit in horrific activities for profit. Coca-Cola would be an easy target, bottling plants worldwide fuck with water supplies and their attitude to unions is somewhat draconian to say the least.

The societal action of condemnation and calls for boycotts have some impact, but the machinery is large enough to effectively silence dissent against the company. This seems to explain the huge value attached to a brand. It's not the name, it's a indication of ability to ignore criticism. In this way it could be seen as an extension of political power.


Another aspect of redemption, is the transgressor must be actively seeking it. Here you get massive outrage due to cognitive dissonance. Think BP. "I'm sorry. Supposed to be on holiday you know" It's insincere, and very insulting.


It is a struggle to name any large company that isn't shitty somewhere in world. Some of the crimes (and many do commit blatant crime) are sure to be seen by those they impact as unforgivable. Bhopal, say? With the corporate structure, you are able to dilute your perceived responsibility in these acts. "Only following orders". In this regard until there are severe financial punishments that are actually enforced across borders, corporations are effectively allowed to choose their own legal restraints.

One reason frequently offered for corporate behaviour is that they are legally obligated to make a profit for shareholders, it would seem that one way to limit risky or negative behaviours would be to play with this somewhat. Limiting the amount of profit a person can make is unlikely to fly with capitalist culture however. Perhaps seriously legal liability for any crime with damage over the value of X and an instant go-to-jail. Make elite positions have elite consequences. There might be fewer accidents and less public ill will if whenever you heard about a disaster, you knew that the board were going to jail. I'm sure after their time is served they'll be treated just as equitably as any other ex-convict with powerful and influential friends. At least there will be a bit of stigma.

Somewhat rambling, just trying to figure out differences if any between individual and group redemption I guess.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't, at the moment, believe in corporate redemption, because at the end of the day all corporations have profit as their prime directive. There are no "good" corporations, only "less evil" corporations. They are not capable of DESIRING redemption, only in desiring the APPEARANCE of redemption, and since profit is still their prime directive, it is unlikely that they will do real good; rather, they will do the amount of good that is necessary to promote the appearance of doing good to their customers, in order to convince them to continue to buy their products.

Now, that can effect positive change; for example, McDonald's has absolutely gutted some of Monsanto's GMO products by refusing to buy them. Without McDonald's, the product never even made it to the market. But is that redemption? Not really. It's just a calculated, highly visible reduction in evil. McDonald's concluded that their customers would object to GMO french fries and that there would be protests and that it would cost them market share. That's all. So ultimately, it isn't McDonald's setting the course for corporate change, it's the McDonalds customer base.

[Junkenstein]

I'd fully accept the idea of corporate redemption being impossible, or a least little more than a façade for extra profit. Taking the Mcdonalds example, it seems that direct consumer perceptions or outrage (Microsoft's new Console kinda relates here) can occasionally create a favourable change. I would guess the concern is greater for things you interact with more frequently, which explains why EA/Mcdonalds/Nike and the like get such shit. If you're seeing/using it daily, minor annoyances build up faster. 

I think there's a conversation for how to realistically make corporations act in "less evil" ways, but that's probably best for a different thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, that would be a great topic!

I think that the redemption we see when public opinion changes the way corporations do business belongs to the public, rather than to the corporations.

[Left]

I approve of the corporate death penalty...but that doesn't properly punish the executives, does it?

You steal $1000 in a robbery you go to jail.
You steal 100 million from the country, you aren't even investigated.
...Hey...can we charge the bankers with treason against the United States?
That would be swell.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I approve of the corporate death penalty...but that doesn't properly punish the executives, does it?

You steal $1000 in a robbery you go to jail.
You steal 100 million from the country, you aren't even investigated.
...Hey...can we charge the bankers with treason against the United States?
That would be swell.

If only corporate money didn't have such a stranglehold on the US government, we might be able to do something. We really need campaign finding reform and laws that restrict other contributions so that corporations can't simply buy the government they want.

Funny, our founding fathers knew we needed a separation of church and state, but it didn't occur to them that we also needed a separation of commerce and state.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Yeah, that would be a great topic!

I think that the redemption we see when public opinion changes the way corporations do business belongs to the public, rather than to the corporations.

Like Facebook backing down on the allowing of misogynistic content after Women's Action Media put pressure on their advertisers?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, that would be a great topic!

I think that the redemption we see when public opinion changes the way corporations do business belongs to the public, rather than to the corporations.

Like Facebook backing down on the allowing of misogynistic content after Women's Action Media put pressure on their advertisers?

Yep!

[Doktor Howl]

I don't, at the moment, believe in corporate redemption, because at the end of the day all corporations have profit as their prime directive. There are no "good" corporations, only "less evil" corporations. They are not capable of DESIRING redemption, only in desiring the APPEARANCE of redemption, and since profit is still their prime directive, it is unlikely that they will do real good; rather, they will do the amount of good that is necessary to promote the appearance of doing good to their customers, in order to convince them to continue to buy their products.

I think another way to say this is that corporations are by definition amoral, rather than immoral...Which, of course, is WORSE.  They're not bad because they made bad choices, they're bad at a fundamental, unchangeable level.  The most that can be done is to force them to behave via regulation.

[Doktor Howl]

Funny, our founding fathers knew we needed a separation of church and state, but it didn't occur to them that we also needed a separation of commerce and state.

The deregulation assholes would have a field day with that.

[Junkenstein]

I'm going to write an opener for this in a while, more here than I considered.