Hacker News Reader

Comment by tnmrnis | Hacker News Reader

All they do is virtue signalling.

And my guess is that this won't last very long. Politics are volatile and companies don't advertise to have a positive impact but to sell stuff. Besides that, there is also a big chance of actually swaying people away from buying the advertized product after it became politized.

Ben and Jerry's is a prime example of this. They support Black Lives Matter in the US and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in Germany. About the first I don't care that much but the latter makes me really angry. The Amadeu Antonio Foundation has a clear political agenda, is lead by a former StaSi-Member and was chosen to create the anti-hatespeech guidelines for Facebook in Germany (done by a member of the party Die Linke, the "feminist-socialist" party).

As long as they support such organizations I will not buy any B&J Icecream.

View on HN

Please don't use "virtue-signaling" to mean "I don't agree with it." Virtue-signaling (as far as I can tell) refers to being all talk and no action, while public support in the form of advertisements and donations to non-profits is definitely a form of action.

Whether or not that action is good or not (I think it is, under the same qualifications that make philanthropy good) can be subject to rigorous debate, but slapping the "virtue-signaling" label on it without acknowledging the state of affairs is a form of virtue-signaling with respect to others who share your political proclivities.

Edit: I don't know anything about the Amadeu Antonio Foundation or a whole lot about German politics as a whole. I could be wrong here but I'd imagine that there are a lot of former StaSi in German politics, in the same way that there were a lot of ex-Nazi-party members in power in Western Germany. That's not to minimize either, but to observe a general flaw in Democratic transitions - you can only sample your leaders from a qualified subset of the population, and that subset was just as qualified under autocracy as it is under democracy.

I would define virtue-signalling rather by the intention of what they do. They don't support those organizations out of an intrinsic motivation but to sell stuff to their followers. The intention is not to do good but to appear as an organization that does good. While I don't have any proof for this being their motivation, choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support.

I respond to this partially in a reply to the commenter above.

> choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support

Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

It's important to question the motives of businesses (in fact, it's necessary), but it's also myopic to assume that financial gain is the only motive involved.

> Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

No, that's why I chose a different example.

Alright, let's take BLM then. There's no doubt in my mind that Ben & Jerry's factored visibility into their choice of organization - after all, visibility is the perpetuating force in activism.

The question is then whether that visibility was chosen over the organization's reputation for efficacy, which is very debatable. For example, BLM is in the forefront in the movement for law enforcement bodycams. It's once again up for debate whether that's a "good" thing, but it's undeniably a consequence of their activism.

This is more anecdotal, but I don't think about B&J's BLM support when I go to buy ice cream. I buy Cherry Garcia because I like Cherry Garcia, and knowing that some of my money goes to a cause that I like is just a cherry on the top. This, in my mind, is no substantially different from choosing McDonald's over Burger King* and subsequently recognizing that a small part of your purchase goes towards their children's charity.

* Sorry. I don't eat at either of these, but they came to mind as institutions that engage in (less partisan) activism on behalf of orphans and children.

Reading the definition on Wikipedia, "all talk and no action" isn't it. virtue-signaling means to platitudinous and superficial support a socially progressive view in order to enhance ones standing within that social group.

For example, a secret lobbyist could be doing virtue-signaling by advertisements and donations. Its common understanding that a lobbyist can and will change their views instantly when its profitable, and thus their actions aren't in honest support of the cause for which they are at some point supporting.

Which begs the question: What's so superficial about giving $1 million to the ACLU?

Lyft et al. have complex motives including financial gain, but that doesn't seem to detract from the fundamental good of their action. That's why I qualified it like philanthropy - we can immediately observe other motives for action (tax breaks, good standing among your wealthy peers), but these other motives don't negate any good done. The ACLU doesn't put their donations into red and green bank accounts based on who gives it.

> virtue signalling

It's a funny phrase this. Is any public statement about morality "virtue signalling"? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_.... - is the condemnation of same-sex marriage by a restaurant chain "virtue signalling", or something else? "Bigotry signalling"?

> Amadeu Antonio Foundation

"The Amadeu Antonio Stiftung is one of Germany's foremost, independent non-governmental organizations working to strengthen democratic civic society and eliminate neo-Nazism, right-wing extremism, and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and hate in Germany."

Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?

(Ben & Jerry's has always had a hippie-leftie flavour to its marketing, it's an inextricable part of the brand identity)

> Is any public statement about morality "virtue signalling"? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_.... - is the condemnation of same-sex marriage by a restaurant chain "virtue signalling", or something else?

The Chick Fil A thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...) was the COO making comments and the charity making some donations. It wasn't part of a marketing campaign like the other examples in the Guardian article, but if it was - "Chick Fil A supports family values! Buy our stuff!" - then yes it would be virtue signalling.

> Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?

The parent has mentioned the you now have an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific. Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.

> The parent has mentioned the you now have an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific. Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.

I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but "ex-Stasi" and "East Germany" are inextricable. Governments aren't dispose-alls, and people working under governments do not always align politically with them. We should be eager to fault Nazi Germany for its crimes, but not so eager to fault every single citizen who became a member of the Nazi Party during its rule.

> an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific.

But what's the actual content of the rules?

> Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.

I'm guessing you mean "hate speech law", because hate speech certainly turns up when defending religious homophobia, for example? But do you have an example of legitimate criticism of religion being shut down by hate speech law?

The German position on this is rather different to the American; Germany is used to bans on Swastikas and other symbols of the far-right, simply because they're not legitimate competitors in the marketplace of ideas but the kind of viral hatred that can lead to genocide.

> But do you have an example of legitimate criticism of religion being shut down by hate speech law?

Here's the UK Home Secretary suggesting tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas, being investigated by police as matter of hatred of immigrants. The complainant in this case is Joshua Silver, a well known troll, however police are obliged to act:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38597714

So the Home Secretary recieved no repercussions and the incident was no-crimed by the police, who then took no action? Not exactly the boot of the Stasi, is it?

(Also, that doesn't seem to be a "criticism of religion" either?)

It was a massive waste of police resources. And not every misuse of hate crime laws is based on religion, this was just the most recent one.

I couldn't agree more.

The article seems to imply that only those opposed to Trump/Brexit/etc. are worth marketing to, and those in support are inconsequential. That's nonsense. By basing marketing efforts on political stances they are creating as many detractors as fans.

Most people who view this negatively aren't going to tell them about it. To this day, I don't shop at Target, Starbucks, or Whole Foods because of their political stances on certain issues that are important to me. Uber and Lyft have now joined that list. I don't care to convince others to do the same, but I can't in good conscience support an organization that actively works against my interests.

My family once spent an average of $600 / month at Target. In 2014, they issued a statement [1], saying in part: "starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target." I respect their property rights so I now take my pistol with me to Kroger, along with my wallet.

[1]: https://corporate.target.com/article/2014/07/target-addresse...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com