Tag: corpocracy

The cost of convergence

Target is learning that pursuing social justice objectives is not conducive to business:

Target’s corporate stock has plummeted significantly this week, after a petition to boycott the store crossed 1 million signatures.

The petition and subsequent boycotts are a result of Target’s corporate campaign to open up bathrooms and changing rooms in their stores based on internal gender identity rather than biological anatomy.  The new policy has sparked concern that predators will use the store’s policy to target others, specifically women, by claiming that they feel like a woman on the inside.

Just this week, a biological man was arrested after allegedly secretly filming a woman trying on bathing suits in a Target dressing room in Missouri.

Recent polls have shown that Americans’ feelings towards open-bathroom policies have hardened significantly in the month of April, with support for the open-bathrooms concept falling by more than 20 percentage points.

Amid the turmoil surrounding the new policy and the immediate abuse of it in Missouri, the company’s stock fell from $84.10 per share on April 19 to roughly $79.36 as of Friday morning. That loss of $4.74 per share, if constant, would represent a corporate loss of over $2.5 billion.

As a general rule, people support SJW nonsense in theory considerably more than in any form of practice that will actually affect their own lives. Once there is a cost to virtue-signaling, the average individual will back off. The SJW, on the other hand, will double-down, convinced that the sacrifice proves his superiority.

Convergence at ESPN

It’s no secret that ESPN is fully SJW-converged. But now they’re not even bothering to hide it:

ESPN has fired Curt Schilling over his recent anti-transgender comments on social media.

Schilling, a baseball analyst for ESPN and former Boston Red Sox pitcher, shared a Facebook post this week that lampooned critics of recent laws passed in North Carolina and other states restricting transgender men and women from using the public restrooms that correspond with their gender preferences. Schilling added his own comment to the post, criticizing transgender people.

“A man is a man no matter what they call themselves,” Schilling wrote. “I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

The original post featured a man in a wig with his breasts exposed, captioned, “LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving racist bigot who needs to die.”

After first announcing Wednesday that it would review Schilling’s comments, ESPN announced later in the day that it had fired him. “ESPN is an inclusive company,” the network said in a statement. “Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”

I quit reading ESPN years ago. But they are clearly an excellent demonstration of my Impossibility of SJW Convergence in action, which states: The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function. 

ESPN can’t even employ an intelligent Hall-of-Fame commentator to discuss baseball if he doesn’t publicly submit to the SJW Narrative. That is full convergence. Sports is no longer ESPN’s primary function.

Target goes full-tranny

If you’re opposed to the latest SJW Narrative, take Target off your list:

The Target department store chain has jumped into the transgender bathroom debate by declaring that men who claim to be women may use whatever bathroom or changing room they choose.

“Inclusivity is a core belief at Target,” a new company statement reads. “It’s something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day.”

The retailer added, “We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong,” the statement concluded. “You’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder added that the policy statement is a public confirmation of its longstanding policy. “It’s just us being very overt in stating it,” she said.

Customers and potential customers almost immediately spoke out against Target’s decision to ignore the biological difference between men and women.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with unisex bathrooms. In Japan, for example, many of the bathrooms are unisex because space is at a premium and there is only room for one bathroom in many establishments.

But we’re not seeing the elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms, we’re seeing the demonic “five lights” strategy, forcing people to submit to the Narrative and admit to something they know to be untrue.

Mississippi stands firm

The governor doesn’t hesitate to sign a religious liberty bill:

Mississippi’s governor signed a law on Tuesday that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples based on the employers’ religious beliefs.

Gov. Phil Bryant signed House Bill 1523, despite opposition from gay-rights groups and some businesses who say it enables discrimination. Some conservative and religious groups support the bill.

The measure’s stated intention is to protect those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only take place inside such marriages, and that male and female genders are unchangeable.

“This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the Republican governor wrote in a statement posted to his Twitter account.

The measure allows churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people whose lifestyles violate their religious beliefs. Individual government employees may also opt out, although the measure says governments must still provide services.

“This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizen of this state under federal or state laws,” Bryant said. “It does not attempt to challenge federal laws, even those which are in conflict with the Mississippi Constitution, as the Legislature recognizes the prominence of federal law in such limited circumstances.”

Other states have considered similar legislation. North Carolina enacted a law, while governors in Georgia and South Dakota vetoed proposals.

Meanwhile, Paypal decides it’s a good idea to play politics in North Carolina:

PayPal has canceled its plans to open a new global operations center in Charlotte, following passage of a North Carolina law that prevents cities from creating non-discrimination policies based on gender identity.

The measure also mandates that students in state schools use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender when they were born.

On March 23, North Carolina, in an emergency session, passed the controversial Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. 

It’s always educational to see how corporations are willing to virtue-signal on certain issues, while cheerfully doing business with some of the worst regimes on Earth at the same time.

And now various governors are getting into the act.

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed an executive order banning all non-essential state travel to Mississippi. The order requires all New York State agencies, departments, boards and commissions to immediately review all requests for state funded or state sponsored travel to the state of Mississippi, and bar any such publicly funded travel that is not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety.

Round Two is coming. I don’t know which issue will set it off yet, but it’s increasingly obvious that Round Two is on the horizon. There is no nation any longer, and the sooner the various nations inside the USA go their separate ways, preferably in peace.

The medical police state

There is no way that California can be permitted to proceed with its vaccine totalitarianism:

In a brazen act of medical tyranny, California recently became the first state in the U.S. where lawmakers removed religious exemptions to those opposing vaccines for their children. The bill now signed into law, SB277, faces legal hurdles in court next.

Now, legislators in California want to pass the “first US adult vaccine mandate with NO personal exemptions and CRIMINAL penalties for failure to comply.” SB 792, would eliminate an adult’s right to exempt themselves from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure.

There is a much better case to be made for the legal rape and forced impregnation of American women than there is for forcing vaccines on adults or children. This is a moral and constitutional abomination; every legislator who voted for this should be impeached.

Disney, Marvel, oppose religious liberty

Two prominent purveyors of cultural dysgenics join the NFL in threatening democracy in the State of Georgia:

The Walt Disney Co. and Marvel Studios indicated opposition to a Georgia religious liberty bill pending before Gov. Nathan Deal, saying that they will take their business elsewhere “should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law.”

With generous tax incentives, Georgia has become a production hub, with Marvel currently shooting “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” at Pinewood Studios outside Atlanta. “Captain America: Civil War” shot there last summer.

“Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law,” a Disney spokesman said on Wednesday.

It doesn’t speak well for Christians that they are so less willing to back up their beliefs with action than those whose objective is the dismantling and destruction of Christianity and Western civilization. I already refuse to use Disney products; it appears I will have to extend that policy to Marvel Studios as well. (I’m not going to bother changing the RP 2016 recommendations at this point, as Marvel’s actions thus far remain hypothetical.)

One hopes the governor does not give in to this corporate attempt to influence the political process. And if he does, I expect he will experience the consequences of putting corporate politics ahead of the clearly expressed will of the people.

Rubio and Fox News sold out America

It doesn’t get much more politically damning than this unexpected news of a media sellout. And it’s more than just the usual anti-Republican hit piece from the New York Times, because it leaves Rush Limbaugh, of all people, in a position to confirm it:

A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.

Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.

Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.

But the media executives, highly attuned to the intensifying anger in the Republican grass roots, warned that the senators also needed to make their case to Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, who held enormous sway with the party’s largely anti-immigrant base.

Looks like Donald Trump’s instincts served him well when he refused to genuflect before the cuckservatives at Fox. And Rush doesn’t appear to be inclined to give either Fox or Rubio any cover.

“Mr.
Limbaugh shed light on his interactions with the senators when he told a
caller frustrated with his criticism of Mr. Rubio that the immigration
position the senator had advocated “comes right out of the Gang of Eight
bill.” Mr. Limbaugh added, “I’ve had it explained to me by no less than Senator Schumer.”

I assumed Rubio was done after Trump beats him in his home state of Florida, but after this revelation, I think he’s done now. Even establishment Republicans will be appalled by his successful attempt to corrupt Fox News and turn it against conservatives, to say nothing of their joint attempt to turn Rush Limbaugh.

I like Fox and its pretty blondes better than the ABCNNBCBS cabal to which it is the alternative, but I’ve never trusted it and I haven’t watched it in over a decade. People at Fox helped kill my Media Whores book at Thomas Nelson because it criticized Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin, so I’m well aware that they’re on the Republican Left, but this anti-American, anti-conservative collusion with pro-immigration Republicans and Democrats is stunning.

Mailvox: Keeping out SJWs

An email from a member of the Ilk who not only grasps the key concepts, but is putting them into practice in her HR department:

We [are a sizable] company.  I consider myself part of the “Ilk” and have been following your discussion of SJW’s for several years, including reading SJW’s Always Lie. As a result, we have become more proactive during the interview process for new employees, trying to discover if they harbor or are amenable to SJW ideas.

I thought an example of a recent interview would be of value to others in business as a model for modifying their hiring process.

Like many applicants, today’s had recently left a job.  We have always asked, “Why did you leave your last job?”, listened to the various responses, like: “the company downsized”, “change in management”, etc.  However, other common responses now require further questioning.  Responses such as, “I didn’t get along with my boss”, “I had an issue with a company policy”, or other answers that indicate some level of dissatisfaction with the previous employer require more in depth questioning.

When asked why they left the last company, one applicant said, “I just didn’t like some parts of the environment and am looking for a better place to work.”  Years ago, that innocent-sounding response would not have drawn any attention.  Not any more.

The manager immediately picked up on the “problem with previous employer” tone underlying the answer.  So, further questioning was required.

Manager: “Really.  What was part of the environment you didn’t like?”

Applicant: “Some of the employee interaction just wasn’t for me.  It wasn’t professional enough.”

Manager: “That makes sense.  I wouldn’t like that either.  What was an example of unprofessional behavior?”

Applicant: “It was really just the way one of the manager’s treated some of the people.”

Manager: “Oh.  That can be frustrating.  What did the manager do?”

Applicant: “He treated some of the people in the call center unprofessionally.”

Manager: “Ok, but what do you mean by treating them unprofessionally?”

Applicant: “Well, he acted inappropriately around them.”

Manager: “When you say “inappropriately”, what do you mean?”

Applicant: “Well, we all thought it was harassment.”

Manager: “What kind of harassment, like yelling at people?”

Applicant: “No. Some of it was sexual harassment.”

Manager: “Oh no.  That’s not good at all.  So, you just left and didn’t do anything about that kind of harassment?”

Applicant: “No.  I spoke to lots of the other phone reps and we all agreed it was harassment.”

Manager: “So, after you spoke to the other reps, did you file a complaint?”

Applicant: “We tried.”

Manager: “So, when that didn’t work, did you file a lawsuit or do anything?”

Applicant: “That’s what we ended up having to do.  It was just that bad.”

Everything past this point was just the formalities of ending the interview without making the applicant feel like they were just arbitrarily eliminated from consideration.

The point I’m trying to share is the amount of effort, time and question asking skills it took to finally dig down to the real issue.  Most small and medium businesses are not used to “digging” during their interviews.  I know, having been guilty myself and many other business owners I know admit they do not “dig”.  If the person looks good, i.e. like they can do the job, they get hired.  That mindset used to work, but in today’s PC environment is too dangerous to the business’ survival, so it must be changed.

When a person finally admits to being the instigator of some type of action against the company and involving other employees in their “dissatisfaction”, then that seems to be a good example of an SJW.

I can hear the “moderates” saying something like, “But maybe they were sexually harassed.  It’s not fair to disqualify them when they were the victim of harassment.  They weren’t the problem.”  Conceptually, I agree.  However, the distinction seems to be the involvement of others or engaging in activities to “punish” the perceived offender; these are SJW characteristics.  A conservative person would simply have left the job if the environment was that uncomfortable.

So, hopefully this is of some value to others as they learn to keep SJW’s out, but I also hope you’ll comment on how you see the interview process being better utilized to screen SJW’s.  Also, how do you respond to the “moderate” mindset described above when it comes to hiring people?

I think questions such as “have you ever lodged a complaint against your superior” or “have you ever been party to a lawsuit against your employer” (prohibited by Federal law) should probably be added to the standard interview repertoire. A better approach would involve asking “have you ever been the victim of harassment”, as the average SJW is going to assume you are on her side and be eager to tell you all about how everyone from her kindergarten teacher to her previous boss treated her shabbily.

After which you smile, thank her for her time, and circular file the application. Unless, of course, you’re looking to be hit by complaints of one sort or another within weeks of her first day. SJWs Always Lie.

Learning to talk

As a general rule, it’s a terrible mistake to take your lead on communication from actresses:

“Woman in a Meeting” is a language of its own.

It should not be, but it is. You will think that you have stated the case simply and effectively, and everyone else will wonder why you were so Terrifyingly Angry. Instead, you have to translate. You start with your thought, then you figure out how to say it as though you were offering a groveling apology for an unspecified error. (In fact, as Sloane Crosley pointed out in an essay earlier this year, the time you are most likely to say “I’m sorry” is the time when you feel that you, personally, have just been grievously wronged. Not vice versa.)

To illustrate this difficulty, I have taken the liberty of translating some famous sentences into the phrases a woman would have to use to say them during a meeting not to be perceived as angry, threatening or (gasp!) bitchy.

“Give me liberty, or give me death.”
Woman in a Meeting: “Dave, if I could, I could just — I just really feel like if we had liberty it would be terrific, and the alternative would just be awful, you know? That’s just how it strikes me. I don’t know.”

“I have a dream today!”
Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, I just had this idea — it’s probably crazy, but — look, just as long as we’re throwing things out here — I had sort of an idea or vision about maybe the future?”

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, Mikhail, if I could? Didn’t mean to cut you off there. Can we agree that this wall maybe isn’t quite doing what it should be doing? Just looking at everything everyone’s been saying, it seems like we could consider removing it. Possibly. I don’t know, what does the room feel?”

As with most erroneous conclusions, the fault is in the assumptions. “You will think that you have stated the case simply and effectively” is where the problem is. Where the writer, and the actress before her, are wrong is in believing that their feelings about how they have stated the case are conclusive.

In all communication, the primary responsibility lies with the person talking, not the person being addressed. If people regularly misinterpret you, the fault is almost always your fault, not theirs. If women “speaking their opinion” are often perceived as angry, then, assuming they are not angry, it is obvious they are inadvertently or unconsciously sending out signals that are easily misinterpreted as anger.

The problem, I suspect, is that many women have zero self-confidence. That’s why about 50 percent of all individual female products are sold on the basis of claims that they will improve the buyer’s confidence. (The other half concern divulging the secret of an envied woman’s success in looking prettier than the buyer.) And what most people lacking in self-confidence do when they are trying to state their opinion or speak up for themselves is either a) apologize in advance in the manner demonstrated above or b) overcompensate and come off as angry.

It’s absurd to say that women are speaking in this way out of fear of being perceived as Terrifyingly Angry, they are doing so because they are Ridiculously Insecure.

The fact is that if you have to steel yourself and work yourself up to simply stating your opinion, or worse, do so just to cite a straightforward fact, you are almost always going to come off badly. Your behavior and expression will not be consistent with your message. Most of these women who think they are just stating the case simply and effectively would be shocked if they saw a video of themselves doing it and saw their furrowed brows, angry facial expressions, and heard how their voices were raised as if in anger.

Compounding the problem is that the natural solipsism of women combines with that lack of self-confidence so they make it all about themselves. Note how many “I” references there are in the three examples above: nearly four per example. Just to be clear, the normal male response to this rambling “I just feel that I think I should be able to express what I feel is the right thing to do” is “who the fuck cares?”

Women are also more inclined than men to see criticism of an idea they have expressed as personal criticism and react angrily to it. Does someone telling you “that’s a stupid idea” make you angry and feel personally attacked? Well, then you probably ARE angry and your speech and facial expressions accurately reflect that.

Now, I’ve been in more than a few business meetings with women, and certainly some have spoken in a way that I would describe as “Oh Sweet Darwin, get to the fucking point before we evolve into a new species and all of this becomes irrelevant”. But plenty of them speak normally, without either anger or apology, and I’ve noticed that those tend to be the more competent women. No drama, no theatrics, no uptalk, just normal, straightforward communication.

Just talk. It’s not that hard. Stop couching and overcompensating and trying to frame, and foreshadow, and pre-convince, and talk. If you think X, say “I think X.” That’s it. That’s all you have to do. You don’t have to apologize for it or get upset if someone comes back with “I think X is stupid, I think Y.” You think what you think. They think what they think. It’s not a sin or a crime to disagree.

Amazon goes after the fakes

I’ve been expecting them to take action to shut down fake reviewers for some time now, but apparently it took being embarrassed in public to make it actually happen. More than a few SJWs should be shaking in their shoes.

AMAZON, the world’s largest online marketplace, is suing more than 1,000 people suspected of selling fake reviews in one of the biggest legal actions to uncover hidden identities on the internet.

The web giant is mounting the unprecedented court action to strip 1,114 alleged fake reviewers of their anonymity and force them to pay damages for the “manipulation and deception” of Amazon customers, according to court documents filed in America on Friday.

It is the first time any company has taken action against its own reviewers on this scale, according to legal experts, and could have far-reaching implications for privacy and the way consumer websites are policed.

The clampdown comes after an undercover Sunday Times investigation, in which a ghostwritten ebook was published on Amazon and fake reviewers were paid to push it to the top of one of the online retailer’s bestseller charts.

I’ve spoken to two Amazon executives about the problem, and they both agreed that fake reviews are a real problem that strikes at the legitimacy of their entire review system, and therefore, their business. They didn’t necessarily agree that anyone who leaves a fake review should have their ability to review permanently removed and have their account suspended for 90 days, but they agreed that some form of negative incentive would be in order.

Amazon is full of SJWs, but they are mostly at the lower levels. The mid-level and higher executives aren’t much interested in politics, they are interested in selling. Anything that gets in the way of that is likely to get steamrolled.