this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
1816 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
60140 readers
2744 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a non-nuanced take. A- properly wielded shame isn't targeted at corporations usually, it's targeted at the individual members responsible for corporations. B- corporate culture and "decorum" culture have made shame almost exclusively the domain of religion. Whatever example you're thinking of as corporate shaming, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the lost art of shame.
Rarely do decision makers have the latitude to make sweeping changes to corporate structure and direction based on their personal feelings. A board of directors would remove such leadership.
Give me an example of what you're talking about then, if I'm off piste.
Got no examples for you. Doesn't seem enough to justify not trying to me. I'm not of the bend over and take it mentality, I'm of the do anything we can do mentality.
So, to clarify, my take around the realities of what effectively motivates corporate entities and their controlling directors was non-nuanced. Whereas your "be the change you want to see in the world" take, that you cannot support, is what you would consider nuanced?