The Annals of Corporate Cringe and Woke Marketing

[Abhishekm]

From what Mattel said, the one with the Skateboard was supposed to be Asian but that doesn't pass the sniff test to me. She has the palest skin of all of them rather than mid-tone skin, auburn hair isn't typically associated with Asians, nor am I aware of skateboards having any Asian associations (Though I could be wrong there). I thought she was supposed to be Irish at first glance due to the very pale skin and reddish hair.

Have they seen what asian supermodels look like? They used the porcelain like skin thing for waaay more than just bad kung fu novel descriptions.

Brown hairs not THAT impossible among the Japanese and even north Indians (who can also be pretty white because you know Aryan).

And the upper left blond soo has a fake tan and a bleach job....I should stop watching teen comedies. Korean dramas have made me weird.

 

[LordsFire]

From what Mattel said, the one with the Skateboard was supposed to be Asian but that doesn't pass the sniff test to me. She has the palest skin of all of them rather than mid-tone skin, auburn hair isn't typically associated with Asians, nor am I aware of skateboards having any Asian associations (Though I could be wrong there). I thought she was supposed to be Irish at first glance due to the very pale skin and reddish hair.

Pale skin is actually considered the height of beauty in some east Asian cultures, so pale skin actually fits fairly well.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Pale skin is actually considered the height of beauty in some east Asian cultures, so pale skin actually fits fairly well.

Well I see the point there, though apparently the woke crowd didn't somehow.

 

[LordsFire]

Well I see the point there, though apparently the woke crowd didn't somehow.

Of course they don't. And if they'd actually gone to the exaggerated length probably needed to make something as small as the eyes on a doll look 'asian,' they probably would have caught flak for caricaturing.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Not actually sure if this is legit or not, haven't bothered looking into it, but breakfast cereals are about as mainstream as one can get.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Intel has apologized to China for complying with US laws regarding slave labor used to make electronics, and for asking for their suppliers to avoid goods manufactured in Xianjang via forced labor of Uyghers. They've reassured China it is not Intel's stance, but rather just them being forced to do so by the US.

Intel is latest US company to apologize to China while pushing social justice at home

Intel has apologized for discouraging suppliers from doing business with China's Xinjiang region, after a letter published on its website sparked backlash from a Chinese state-run publication and social media users.

www.foxbusiness.com

Breakingviews - Intel’s apology underlines China dilemma

U.S. chipmaker Intel is the latest multinational company to struggle with the geopolitics of doing business in China. The $207 billion technology group had to say sorry to defuse a social media backlash in the People’s Republic after telling suppliers they could not use products or labor from...

www.reuters.com

However this shouldn't be taken as a sign they aren't still big on social justice, it's just that taking a stance against slavery isn't part of that platform. But they're still anti-racist so don't worry about that part.

Newsroom Home

Intel Newsroom home page

newsroom.intel.com

 

[King Arts]

Intel has apologized to China for complying with US laws regarding slave labor used to make electronics, and for asking for their suppliers to avoid goods manufactured in Xianjang via forced labor of Uyghers. They've reassured China it is not Intel's stance, but rather just them being forced to do so by the US.

Intel is latest US company to apologize to China while pushing social justice at home

Intel has apologized for discouraging suppliers from doing business with China's Xinjiang region, after a letter published on its website sparked backlash from a Chinese state-run publication and social media users.

www.foxbusiness.com

Breakingviews - Intel’s apology underlines China dilemma

U.S. chipmaker Intel is the latest multinational company to struggle with the geopolitics of doing business in China. The $207 billion technology group had to say sorry to defuse a social media backlash in the People’s Republic after telling suppliers they could not use products or labor from...

www.reuters.com

However this shouldn't be taken as a sign they aren't still big on social justice, it's just that taking a stance against slavery isn't part of that platform. But they're still anti-racist so don't worry about that part.

Newsroom Home

Intel Newsroom home page

newsroom.intel.com

The lib was never against slavery when they profit off of it. Also while I don’t like Islam I’d prefer Islamists over atheists commie bastards. Not a low bar to clear hell pagans are better, only people worse are actual satanists.

 

[Bacle]

 

[Husky_Khan]

In an interview with the New York Times, XBox Boss Phil Spencer stated:

“Something I would love us to be able to do–this is a hard one as an industry–is when somebody gets banned in one of our networks, is there a way for us to ban them across other networks? I’d love to be able to bring them to other networks where I play. So this is the group of people that I choose not to play with. “Because I don’t want to have to recreate that in every platform that I play video games on.”

Just imagine a magical world where "bullying" someone on XBox means the liquidation of your thousands of dollars worth of games in the Steam Library.

Xbox Boss Wants Cross-Platform Bans for “Destructive” Conversations

A report reveals Xbox boss Phil Spencer wants cross-platform bans to be standard, in the hopes of shutting down “destructive” conversations.

nichegamer.com

 

[King Arts]

In an interview with the New York Times, XBox Boss Phil Spencer stated:

“Something I would love us to be able to do–this is a hard one as an industry–is when somebody gets banned in one of our networks, is there a way for us to ban them across other networks? I’d love to be able to bring them to other networks where I play. So this is the group of people that I choose not to play with. “Because I don’t want to have to recreate that in every platform that I play video games on.”

Just imagine a magical world where "bullying" someone on XBox means the liquidation of your thousands of dollars worth of games in the Steam Library.

Xbox Boss Wants Cross-Platform Bans for “Destructive” Conversations

A report reveals Xbox boss Phil Spencer wants cross-platform bans to be standard, in the hopes of shutting down “destructive” conversations.

nichegamer.com

If companies keep this up, I'd support nationalization of bussiness. Go full comunism to make them obey the constitution. Also while I might be ok with banning access to multiplayer features or access to forums. Steam games, or other digitiall library releases that have already purchased should not be able to be blocked since those are your property.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

So this is the group of people that I choose not to play with. “Because I don’t want to have to recreate that in every platform that I play video games on.”

This sounds more like he's talking about a shared blacklist than bans actually.

 

[Zachowon]

This sounds more like he's talking about a shared blacklist than bans actually.

Definitely shared blacklist

 

[Marduk]

The online platform (aka store) owners have a huge perverse incentive for having as triggerhappy and extensive ban policies as possible. Money, obviously. Those who care about playing the games will buy them again, on separate account - PROFIT!
Those who don't, at least they will stop burdening the platform owner with their traffic - also PROFIT!
They are kinda playing with fire here, as in some legal system it may turn out that they need to start paying back for the value of game(s) lost.

This sounds more like he's talking about a shared blacklist than bans actually.

In case of multiplayer focused games, there is effectively no distinction.

So this is the group of people that I choose not to play with. “Because I don’t want to have to recreate that in every platform that I play video games on.”

And that's a hint at what the proper solution to the problem should be. Parallel communities. Sure, it would take a bit extra server management, costs, and wouldn't provide a good virtue signalling opportunity, but still. Depending on the game in question, sometimes even type of players (MMOs with separate RP servers for example) and country in question, people may want to have different expectations regarding the behavior of other players.
If you have such a big problem with "destructive conversations", fine, go play with people like you. But we all know that a lot of the people behind this push very clearly don't want there to be a second server, with proverbial hookers and blow, full of those who do like to have "destructive conversations" all day long.

 

[LordsFire]

Go full comunism to make them obey the constitution.

I don't know if I've ever seen so much double-think concentrated in a single sentence.

How on earth do you think that works?

 

[King Arts]

I don't know if I've ever seen so much double-think concentrated in a single sentence.

How on earth do you think that works?

Well communism, like fascism has been used on everything so it's almost meaningless. Actual original communism is evil trash no doubt. But government control of the economy is not necessarily bad, or against the constitution. What do you think when I am referring to communism?

 

[LordsFire]

Well communism, like fascism has been used on everything so it's almost meaningless. Actual original communism is evil trash no doubt. But government control of the economy is not necessarily bad, or against the constitution. What do you think when I am referring to communism?

Yes, government control of the economy is bad, and is against the constitution. Because it abolishes private property.

And when you refer to communism, I tend to think 'the abolishment of private property and the inevitable totalitarian dystopias that follow.'

 

[King Arts]

Yes, government control of the economy is bad, and is against the constitution. Because it abolishes private property.

No it's not. Also it does not abolish private property you can still own things. For example, let's say the government wanted to be in charge of the auto industry it could try to nationalize it and then there would be a legal fight and it may or may not be constitutional. But if the government instead used it's resources to build factories to make cars, and gave every citizen a free or very cheap car made from there, it would severely undercut the car companies, and would put them out of business eventually since most people will go for the free or very cheap government option instead of more expensive ones built by private companies. I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it would forbid the government from doing this, you may think it's a bad idea, but others may think it's a good idea, and it is completely constitutional it may not be explicit communism because it's not forced but it de facto is communism since eventually only government run car companies would exist.

And when you refer to communism, I tend to think 'the abolishment of private property and the inevitable totalitarian dystopias that follow.

Yes that stuff is bad. And I am against abolishing private property, but I am not against nationalizing private business when they are being harmful towards society. But here is a counter argument. If the government I don't know nationalized Twitter then Twitter would be forced to follow the constitution and it could no longer ban people from voicing conservative opinions since private companies don't have to respect the 1st amendment but the government must.

 

[LordsFire]

No it's not. Also it does not abolish private property you can still own things. For example, let's say the government wanted to be in charge of the auto industry it could try to nationalize it and then there would be a legal fight and it may or may not be constitutional. But if the government instead used it's resources to build factories to make cars, and gave every citizen a free or very cheap car made from there, it would severely undercut the car companies, and would put them out of business eventually since most people will go for the free or very cheap government option instead of more expensive ones built by private companies. I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it would forbid the government from doing this, you may think it's a bad idea, but others may think it's a good idea, and it is completely constitutional it may not be explicit communism because it's not forced but it de facto is communism since eventually only government run car companies would exist.

It seems like authoritarians such as yourself never read the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As has been relentlessly and repeatedly demonstrated, government-owned and run businesses suffer heavily from ineffeciency and corruption, and when they become government-owned monopolies, you get things like the 'auto industry' of the Soviet Union. IIRC @Marduk could tell you a thing or two about the kind of product(s) you get out of that.

Yes that stuff is bad. And I am against abolishing private property, but I am not against nationalizing private business when they are being harmful towards society. But here is a counter argument. If the government I don't know nationalized Twitter then Twitter would be forced to follow the constitution and it could no longer ban people from voicing conservative opinions since private companies don't have to respect the 1st amendment but the government must.

Private Businesses are private property. And the problem that we have right now is largely a failure on the part of the government to enforce the laws already on the books on companies like Twitter. What on earth makes you think that nationalizing them would suddenly make them start enforcing the platform/publisher divide properly, especially when the Federal bureaucracies are notoriously compromised and heavily staffed by leftists?

 

[King Arts]

It seems like authoritarians such as yourself never read the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As has been relentlessly and repeatedly demonstrated, government-owned and run businesses suffer heavily from ineffeciency and corruption, and when they become government-owned monopolies, you get things like the 'auto industry' of the Soviet Union. IIRC @Marduk could tell you a thing or two about the kind of product(s) you get out of that.

Yeah, well your interpretation is meaningless, because that's not what your all powerful courts have said. Look at OSHA, FBI, EPA, other federal agencies enforcing standards. So no the 10th amendment is not as clear as you think it is, also the government building and running a factory is not exactly a power that it enforces on citizens, the government is allowed to own property, it has national parks there is nothing in the constitution that says it can own parks but it does.

As for your second argument, maybe the products they make will be substandard. That does not matter the quality of goods are not a constitutional issue. You are free to buy better quality products from private companies, the free market will ensure that those companies will stay afloat if the products the government makes are completely useless.

Private Businesses are private property. And the problem that we have right now is largely a failure on the part of the government to enforce the laws already on the books on companies like Twitter. What on earth makes you think that nationalizing them would suddenly make them start enforcing the platform/publisher divide properly, especially when the Federal bureaucracies are notoriously compromised and heavily staffed by leftists?

Because then people can sue the government directly it is much easier to hold the government to task. Because right now you can't sue a company or the government to enforce the platform/publisher rule because you don't have standing. But if the government bans you for your politics you would most definitely have standing.

And the reason the right has no power in federal bureaucracies is because your foolish ideology where we see it as invalid and that made us just concede that territory to the left and now they own it. Belief in a small government that is weak is what is making the right into losers.

 

[Marduk]

No it's not. Also it does not abolish private property you can still own things. For example, let's say the government wanted to be in charge of the auto industry it could try to nationalize it and then there would be a legal fight and it may or may not be constitutional. But if the government instead used it's resources to build factories to make cars, and gave every citizen a free or very cheap car made from there, it would severely undercut the car companies, and would put them out of business eventually since most people will go for the free or very cheap government option instead of more expensive ones built by private companies. I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it would forbid the government from doing this, you may think it's a bad idea, but others may think it's a good idea, and it is completely constitutional it may not be explicit communism because it's not forced but it de facto is communism since eventually only government run car companies would exist.

The same thing that stops the government from just buying cars on the free market and giving them away. Or just giving people money to buy cars. It would be just a fucking expensive exercise in taxpayer's money giveaway, except with extra steps that more likely than not would be fucked up and result in a crappy car on top of the aforementioned issue.
Many governments in the world did, or still do similar things, the problem is that the price and quality of resulting products is usually not so good.
As @LordsFire said, after the fall of Iron Curtain its not the westerners who were trying to replace their cars with imports from state owned car manufacturers in the east, but very much the other way around.
Point in case:

State-owned enterprises of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How many of these are famous for their incredibly effective management and cheap yet high quality products that all the private competitors are jealous of?

and gave every citizen a free or very cheap car made from there, it would severely undercut the car companies, and would put them out of business eventually since most people will go for the free or very cheap government option instead of more expensive ones built by private companies.

Also that's called dumping, and its kinda illegal, definitely not within the bounds of what is considered fair competition.

Product Dumping and the Dangers It Poses to Foreign Markets

Product dumping is the informal economic name given to the practice of selling a product in a foreign market for less than domestic production prices.

www.thoughtco.com