I love that image of bethesda's twitter accounts' profile pictures being changed to a gay flag for most of them but then having their account in the Middle East & Russia still be their usual logo. Really tells you all you need to know.
It's a literal crime to display the pride flag in these countries, they can't just ignore laws unless they're ready to have their local management imprisoned
At least in Russia, the law there bans the "demonstration of LGBT behavior" to children and the promulgation of "LGBT propaganda", which would include the use of a pride flag on a public forum accessible to youths.
In that sense, I at least understand the decision of the company to not engage in illegal actions that might lead to criminal charges against their employees in that country.
While this is certainly true, isn't the entire point of displaying the pride flag during Pride Month to display fervent opposition to the oppression of the state which denies its people the right to express who they truly are and to love one another unconditionally? Not displaying the flag in fear of the repercussions brought on by the state while you do display it in "legal" countries seems like a huge slap in the face to the Pride movement as a whole, at best, in my opinion as someone viewing the movement from the outside.
Not displaying the flag in fear of the repercussions brought on by the state while you do display it in "legal" countries seems like a huge slap in the face to the Pride movement as a whole, at best, in my opinion as someone viewing the movement from the outside.
OK, I bet the local management is glad that it is that it's serious companies they're working for and not someone willing to let them go to potentially go to prison or maybe even get executed in some of the countries to make a PR move
Yeah no shit; again that's not really what I'm arguing against here. I'm arguing against companies continuing to display the flag in "safe" countries as doing so runs counter to what the flag represents, and thus is just a big PR move and not a legitimate show of support to the LGBT community.
Why does it go counter to what the flag represents to only show it in countries where it's legal? Is your point that for any of the support for the LGBT community that they've shown to be legitimate, they also have to show the same support in Saudi Arabia even if potentially will lead to the execution of the regional director of company x there?
If the whole point of flying the flag is to oppose the oppression of the state, then displaying the flag exclusively in countries where that oppression is weakest and avoiding doing so where that oppression is strongest runs counter to the beliefs of the movement as a whole. I don't know if I can get any more specific than that.
I'm not saying they should display the flag in countries where they risk their employees' execution for doing so; I'm saying they should pull the flags in all other countries as it is very clearly being flown as a PR stunt and nothing more.
But the whole point of flying the flag is not to oppose oppression by the state alone, but also to oppose cultural and other societal opposition and to celebrate the identity.
Really feels like everyone reading my post missed my entire point.
If they're going to choose not to use the flag to oppose the oppression of LGBT communities in countries where they continue to see oppression like imprisonment or worse, choosing to continue using the flag counter to its intended purpose in "safe" countries is incredibly disrespectful to what the flag represents and just a shitty, greedy PR stunt.
It definitely isn't illegal. Twitter is not owned by these countries it is just an account that caters to that specific audience. The only reason they don't change the logo then is because it would cut the profits/investments
It definitely isn't illegal. Twitter is not owned by these countries it is just an account that caters to that specific audience. The only reason they don't change the logo then is because it would cut the profits/investments
Why do you think the laws only apply to the companies doing advertising if Twitter is owned by these countries? (one of which, probably the worst of which as well is the 2nd largest shareholder in Twitter by the way)
I can think of plenty of different laws that I could break in Norway, but not the US and that would get any large company up to billions in penalties from the Norwegian government and court orders that the companies would follow if they posted certain stuff focused on Norwegians.
It just seems that you have zero understanding of how the world works both outside the US and inside the US. There are also very likely things a French company could be publicizing on a platform hosted in France that would be completely legal in France while illegal in the US which would get them penalized in American courts if they tried to target the material on Americans.
Where am I ignoring the context though? Guy is saying ~"they won't change it because of money", while I'm saying: ~"No, they won't change it because it's a crime to do so in those countries".
Original comment is in reference to Twitter so whatever you're saying just doesn't apply at all given that the countries laws can't stop the company from doing whatever they want on twitter given they are not based in said country
They would be seeking to punish the companies posting, not Twitter. The company posting on their international account, but not the Russia/ME account was Bethesda, but the same is done by very many companies and if those companies have local management in these countries they are at risk of punishment if a company owned twitter account were posting political content with LGBT support on those countries' Twitter accounts.
Now with regards to US companies getting punished in foreign countries for breaking foreign laws that are not crimes in the US, that happens and that's why you see those cookie notifications when you visit most websites, those that are not showing them are probably either blocking EU users, doing something to obscure who operates them or just so small that they don't give a shit.
Except they do lose money and do it anyway. But I would much rather a company pretend to show support instead of the lunacy of those that have decided they want to go to war against it.
But just because you virtue signal doesn't mean others are always doing that.
No, no, it could be stopped under many reasonably attainable circumstances. Unfortunately though, all of those cause the orphan crushing machine’s creator to lose money so CRUSH ON!
Ah yes, the default response. It's always "but companies exist to make money" spiel, as if companies don't have Mission, Vision, Values statements when founding the company
But it’s literally true? Why would you expect them to do something counterproductive to their entire reason for existing? It would of course be nice if they would stand up for human rights in a meaningful way but they’re not going to so long as it doesn’t make them money.
No, that should not be accepted as the only reason for a company to exist. It quickly opens up the excuse for all kinds of evil acts to be done solely because "Oh well, it makes money so clearly it's what it should do!"
My entire point is that what they should do is not necessarily what they’re going to do. Tons of companies use what is pretty much slave labor because it’s legal in other countries. That is unquestionably a bad thing, yet it saves them money so of course that’s what they’re gonna do, because a company literally only exists to make money.
That's not the only reason a company exists though, if it's not an evil company, and if it's an evil company then it should not exist.
Giving them the out of "that's what companies are for" when they should be for producing products and services but not at the cost of significant human suffering, instead of just "infinite money no matter what suffering it creates" and shrugging like that's the sole reason for any company to do anything is just unnecessarily giving them excuses to be evil.
Not all companies are purely evil, though most of the non-evil ones aren't megacorporations, and even then there's various degrees of evil as well. Simplifying things to the degree you're doing is both dangerous and inaccurate.
The companies, specially global ones, will be fine, but the marketing team and local employees of said company won't be as fine if there's a government or public backlash to a pride oriented campaign! Most of these companies have offices Worldwide and don't function as a single cell organism, a marketing campaign like this in certain countries could land some people in jail
Real talk if they actually supported the LGBTQ then they should just pull everything they have out of the Middle East, Russia, and anywhere it’s illegal to support them. The ol’ saying ‘vote with your wallet’ goes for corporations too. But the money is more important to them, so this is what you get.
“Hundreds or thousands of local Arabs/Russians deserve to just lose their careers and livelihood because of their authoritarian government. We should also make it a lot harder for potentially millions of Arabs/Russians to enjoy gaming.”
What a great idea. 🙄
The government isn’t losing when a gaming company no longer participates in their country. The citizens will.
Yep let’s just hope for an attempted civil uprising that’ll inevitably turn into so much needless suffering and loss because “video game company won’t show pride flag in the bad government’s country”
519
u/Noslamah Jun 01 '23 edited Jun 01 '23
I love that image of bethesda's twitter accounts' profile pictures being changed to a gay flag for most of them but then having their account in the Middle East & Russia still be their usual logo. Really tells you all you need to know.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/bethesda-pride-month-logos