Salesforce.com tells its customers to stop selling assault-style rifles
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
The reality is that retailers that sell guns will continue to sell guns, and salesforce will lose customers as a self-inflicted wound.
The argument "if you don't do it, someone else will" isn't valid here, because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
If Facebook and others can kick white supremacists off their platforms, why can't Salesforce kick gun sellers off of theirs?
> because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
So what's the problem if Salesforce isn't necessary to sell this class of firearm?
I think their CRM software (and other software) is about as integral to the sale of a gun as the Doritos for sale in the gun retailer's company canteen. If Frito-Lay came out and said "we will no longer sell snack products to gun retailers" would you applaud them?
[0]https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/j...
For any retailer, losing your eCommerce platform would be a pretty big bummer.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/fortune-500-most-charitable-co... (The 20 Most Generous Companies of the Fortune 500)
> In total, the 20 most generous companies donated $3.5 billion in cash in 2015.
Simply because you're public doesn't mean every dollar is being sent to either shareholders or directly reinvested into the business. Nor does it mean you are legally required to take actions to maximize shareholder value.
Most bafflingly, people who use the phrase seem oblivious to the fact that its mere application is in and of itself an example of the phrase.
People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" in almost every context should be treated with the same deference and respect that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" is due when discussing vaccines.
Your statements contradict themselves. Describe your position more accurately, please.
I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions.
People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves.
It is not a thing.
Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case.
Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes.
If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system.
Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action.
This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are.
>People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves.
It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is.
Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap.
Imagine these three scenarios:
1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing)
2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?)
3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)
It's neither. There are a number of unsavory industries that people choose not participate in. The fact that apple doesn't allow porn in the app store doesn't mean they think they're going to stop porn, nor is it virtue signaling. They just don't want to be a part of it.
Well, even if it is, Salesforce isn't the only game in town. In fact, CRM isn't all that damned complicated - there are a lot of people who would be chomping at the bit to compete with Salesforce but don't because their incumbent status is too great. If Salesforce throws away customers, though, that gives somebody else a chance to get their foot in the door.
What name would you recommend instead?
If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?
We used to have a large front garden and a tiny back garden so as kids we would play in the front garden and obv play with the dog. I remember atleast 4 times the authorities of one form or another were sent out to pay us a visit simply because we were playing with such a vicious animal.
As kids we were more of a threat to that dog than it was to us as we sit on the dogs back and get rides up and down the garden.
He was an awesome dog :-)
But in the UK we do have a few banned dog breeds - https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs - but personally I believe it’s down to the treatment of the animal from a puppy that matters, a well cared for and socialised pit bull terriers can be a loving family dog. Though I can not say I’ve had any interaction with any of the other dogs on the banned breed list.
Though that is just one story from one person on-line. Take it as you will. Esp compared to the horror stories you see in the news. I just personally believe that Rottweilers got a bad rap because a few people abused them because they were big dogs.
EDIT: What I mean is as a kid I just treated him as my dog, just like anyone would treat their Labrador or Golders retriever. I didn’t think I needed to worry about warning friends or anything when they came over unexpected. So we never worried about the “aunt from out of state with her 3 year old pulling the tail” as kids as unknown kids would be over all the time anyway.
Tacti-cool
>It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics
No, not really. A lot of arguments against gun rights uses phrasing like “assault” or “assault style” to imply the difference between the scary gun they want to ban and a hunters gun are much bigger than cosmetics.
I worked there briefly but have since moved on.
The arrogance of these companies to impart what Americans can and cannot do is stunning.