Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Mark all corporations off your list. Corporations don't care about the consumer. Only your money, which supports their shareholders.
I mean, the whole "no ethical consumption under capitalism" or "all corporate ethics are fake" type stuff has plenty of truth to it, but at the same time, one does have to get any good or service not made oneself from somewhere, and corporations are made up of people with different views about what they're personally willing to do, or how much they think taking unethical actions even is the profitable thing. So, there is still room for some businesses to be worse than others.
Ben & Jerry's was traditionally a "good" company for example, but what killed that was them getting bought out by an evil company, Unilever. This path is the path a lot of "good" companies take when they go bad.
We had to pressure them about occupied Palestine.
To be fair, Unilever has owned Ben & Jerry's since April 2000.
Unless you were pressuring them about that issue before April 2000, you were actually dealing with Unilever.
Which is literally my point.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ben-jerrys-palestine-decision-met-sarcasm-scorn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s#Unilever_era
You're missing the point here. It hasn't been in control of the original people who ran the company for a long, long time. It's literally been being run by Unilever executives.
The brand said it would end sales in the territories
spoiler-title
after yearsI think I see what you're saying but they still owned the company.
However,
So maybe that's the biggest issue.
Yeah going public is often the death knell of real progressive action from companies.
I think we are mostly on the same page. I would say "owning the company" isn't the same as "in control of how the company works" when you're owned by a giant parent company. They may still "own" it but they haven't effectively been in direct control of its current and future operations since 2000.
Yes, and they were in Palestine before then, and after the IPO.
That's a fair take, but if we're going back to the 80's and 90's, I personally am going to cut them some slack because it was a lot harder to really be up to date about issues like what was going on in Palestine back then. We had more independent media, sure, but it was far more difficult for the average American to get informed about those kind of issues without the modern internet.
The death of Rachel Corrie at the hands of Israelis stealing Palestinian land was in 2003 and hardly was a blip in American media. Just from my own memories from the time far fewer people were aware of it even being an issue. I remember being pissed but most people didn't know or didn't seem to care that they murdered a US citizen.
The modern pressure on Ben & Jerry's is because millions of people are aware of it now thanks to the modern internet and are getting involved in the pressure. Back then? I strongly suspect Ben & Jerry's probably got a handful of letters about it, and whether the owners actually ever saw such letters or read articles about what was going on in Palestine is up for debate. Not everyone can know anything, and there was truly a dearth of media about it in the US at the time. By the time it was well-known enough for large amounts of people to be actively pressuring them, they were owned by genuinely evil assholes, not just oblivious halfway decent people.
Also fair, but I'm a backwater hick 99.9% of my life and I knew about it. I really don't remember how, maybe it was brought to my attention *after Unilever.
Rachel Corrie was the first I was ever exposed to it personally, and that's because she was a local. I began doing my research on the subject after that, and I was in my mid-twenties.
Yes, I was upset before that, but I've got a few years on you. I'm thinking I may have heard of Ben and Jerry's being in occupied Palestine on the site that shall not be named.
Edit; maybe not, they came online in the early aughts, so maybe I'm misremembering. Could have been a BBS or IRC or maybe ICQ or even aol 😂