this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
115 points (100.0% liked)

LGBTQ+

6199 readers
1 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC


Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 42 points 7 months ago

Funny how they cry about surgeries that literally don't happen, but chopping the foreskin off is A-OK with them and they want those to keep happening. And breast implants, no problem with those either as long as it's a cis-woman.

Best Buy should have just issued a statement saying those organizations don't advocate surgeries on minors and threaten to sue them for defamation if they go public with it.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, I know one place where I will no longer shop.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Basically the only reason I ever shop Amazon is to avoid walking into a Best Buy.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

following pressure from a conservative think tank that holds shares in the company

Yeah, while I hate to say I rather support capitalism – living in a milder capitalism country in which the bigger problem is commercialism – I admit capitalism is broken fundamentally. Any bad actor can push their conspiracy just by putting money.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Capitalism is primarily defined by the need to push for constant growth. There's nothing wrong with buying and selling things, but making growth a matter of primacy automatically means the quality of the product and user experience isn't. Neither is the well-being and livelihood of the workers.

In a system where companies are incentivized to compete on that level, we can't have nice things. Not for long anyway.

It's definitely capitalism, rather than just commerce, that's the problem. It's a social cancer.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

Increasing wealth inequality is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Capitalism is primarily defined by the need for constant growth

That's an American definition, though. Oxford Languages says "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit" and that's how it's defined elsewhere, as far as I can tell.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's the dictionary definition and the "how it plays out in the real world" definition. It isn't defined as a system pushing for constant growth, but due to its competitive winner-take-all nature it becomes a matter of grow or die.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'd be happy if you can cite the source of your "how it plays out in the real world" definition, if you want to argue that it's a commonly agreed definition.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Source: *gestures broadly at everything*

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What other explanation would you have for the endless pursuit of growth if not capitalism? What other explanation would you have for larger companies pushing smaller ones out if not capitalism. I'm talking both the "why" but also the "how"? Consider the mechanisms of how a company such as Wal-mart can go into a small town and drive everyone else out of business. And then consider why they do it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Please check what a definition means.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You seem to think if it's not explicitly in a dictionary, then it doesn't define a word. That's not how the real world works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Yes, this is what I was trying to explain. It isn't printed right there in the dictionary because it isn't the formal definition. It's just how it ends up actually working.

There's countless other examples too, where the formal definition and what it means in the real world don't fully line up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Run your own business. It'll change your view. You seem to be narrowly talking about public companies in the stock market who have pressure to increase their stock price. That's not your local restaurant or auto repair shop.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I'm sure the people running businesses when Wal-mart came into their town and pushed them out have a better understanding than I do.

Those small local businesses may not be growth-driven, but they still have to compete against companies that are. And the odds are very often stacked against those small businesses, though some of them are able to successfully carve out a niche.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and take that a few steps further: does that need for profit ever end? Where does the idea of "constant growth" eventually inevitably lead?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You guys, please check what the word definition means. I'm absolutely not saying whatever that's against your ideas.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You seem confused as to what defines a term. The thing written in a dictionary comes from observing the real world. The real thing isn't constrained by some written words on a website, it's literally the other way around.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I know that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is akin to the classic argument that no one has gotten communism right, and in theory it's a good model. The reality is that humans are going to human, and some things do not work at scale because humans will inevitably do the human thing and some systems just aren't designed well for human behavior. The insistence that people just aren't following the definition that you've chosen disregards how words come to be - people create them to describe something new which was not previously defined, and they are generally created on the fly by people, not by people sitting down and writing out a specific definition before publishing and/or using it. Definitions also change, over time, to reflect how the words are being used or how the world itself has changed.

With all that being said, you did ask for sources on how capitalism plays out in the real world in response to people abundantly telling you that capitalism is harmful, so here's a few sources you might find interesting that approach the harms or outcomes of capitalism as it has played out in the world in various countries.

1. The Impact of Advanced Capitalism on Well-being: an Evidence-Informed Model
2. Capitalism, socialism, and the physical quality of life
3. Testing hypotheses about the harm that capitalism causes to the mind and brain: a theoretical framework for neuroscience research

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, I asked for the citation for the definition. This is why I'm spamming "please learn to read".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yes I understand, hence the preface about why caring about what definition one chooses for a word is a pointless argument. I guess I misunderstood what you were asking for with your comment about "how it plays out in the real world" and thought you were inviting the question about what damages a system ruled by money causes to the world, regardless of whether you call it capitalism or commercialism.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I rarely shop Best Buy as it is so it's not like avoiding them in the future is difficult for me, but I fear that a lot of big corps have something like this tucked away somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's sad to realize that this type of conservative think tanks are everywhere. They are also counterproductive, but I guess they're just there to grab money from idiotic conservative donors with the lowest IQ.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I'm glad to say my employer is not like this, they promote pride month and have banners on their website etc.

Unfortunately they don't do this in Hungary, Saudi Arabia etc. I wish they were a bit more pushy on those sides but profit first I guess.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I haven't purchased anything from a Best Buy in many years and don't intend to any time soon.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Gross. Wth Best Buy

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryBest Buy offered to screen donations from its employee resource groups going to LGBTQ causes following pressure from a conservative think tank that holds shares in the company, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing made public this week.

Why are Best Buy shareholders funding the proliferation of an ideology seeking to mutilate the reproductive organs of children before they finish puberty?” the proposal, signed by Ethan Peck, an associate at the NCPPR’s Free Enterprise Institute, states.

Later that day, Peck thanked Rizzo in an email “for looking into this” and added, “we’re definitely delighted to hear all that.” He then raised several follow-up questions, including why a page on the Best Buy website still indicates the company supports the Trevor Project and a book titled “Our Gay History in 50 States.”

In response to NBC News’ request for comment, Peck declined to share any specifics regarding his communication with Best Buy, stating, “We don’t discuss confidential discussions.” He did, however, confirm that his organization has sent similar proposals to other public companies, though he did not name them.

Major consumer brands, including Bud Light and Target, have faced heated criticism from conservative activists, prompting a rollback of LGBTQ-focused marketing campaigns and products as well as calls for boycotts.

In Bud Light’s case, sales declined and shares of its parent company, Anheuser-Busch Inbev, tumbled in the months following the beer brand’s partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney on April 1 of last year, though the stock has since rebounded.


Saved 82% of original text.