Tesla removed from the S&P 500 ESG index

[Jhodgesatmb]

Same kind of con, different players; corporate or marxist, if they're trying for power and money at other's expense, they're dishonest, to put it mildly.

Marxist? The/any stock market? That is hilarious

Sponsored

 

[rlhamil]

Marxist? The/any stock market? That is hilarious

The SJWs are mostly marxist. Wall Street isn't, but the games played by either are frequently misleading and influenced by considerations other than what they acknowledge (at least what they say to the general public, not necessarily what they say to one another).

edit: the current Administration has a big hate for anything non-union; and a lot of corporate players have gone way over to the left - which doesn't make much sense, since if they lean obviously either way, they're offending about half their customers. So their real reasons may have little enough to do with what they say.

 

[Crissa]

This is more of a Wall Street thing.

Exxon Mobile is in the index. Lots of other companies associated with big oil.

Yep. The list isn't exactly made by 'SJWs' nor are the companies on it particularly liked by 'SJWs'.

So no, there isn't a prepaid list of demands. (What does that mean, even, @rlhamil ?)

ESG = wokeism score.

Uhh, no? I mean, that's how they're selling it, but that's why it's 'greenwashing'. Woke just means 'aware'. You know, of civil rights and stuff? It's not bad. The greenwashing is bad.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

The SJWs are mostly marxist. Wall Street isn't, but the games played by either are frequently misleading and influenced by considerations other than what they acknowledge (at least what they say to the general public, not necessarily what they say to one another).

edit: the current Administration has a big hate for anything non-union; and a lot of corporate players have gone way over to the left - which doesn't make much sense, since if they lean obviously either way, they're offending about half their customers. So their real reasons may have little enough to do with what they say.

The people asking you to be respectful of other people are mostly marxist? Do you know what marxist means?

This is going way way into a weird space.

The first Administration to accept Unions is 'a big hate'? So... There can only be Presidents who ignore unions or Presidents who attack the? If they support them they hate everyone else, but the President attacks Unions, that's just a different opinion?

Corporate players went way over to the left? How? By... being respectful of civil rights?

But that's bad because they have 'other' reasons? Do you always have 'other' reasons when you do things?

I'm really not following you at all.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

Marxism is turning into one of those words that gets tossed around as a general insult at this point with no reference to the actual meaning. Right there with Nazi and apparently bigot. Folks have lost perspective.

When in doubt people should just stick to words with well established definitions like: Douchebag or Fuckwad.

 

[rlhamil]

The people asking you to be respectful of other people are mostly marxist? Do you know what marxist means?

This is going way way into a weird space.

The first Administration to accept Unions is 'a big hate'? So... There can only be Presidents who ignore unions or Presidents who attack the? If they support them they hate everyone else, but the President attacks Unions, that's just a different opinion?

Corporate players went way over to the left? How? By... being respectful of civil rights?

But that's bad because they have 'other' reasons? Do you always have 'other' reasons when you do things?

I'm really not following you at all.

-Crissa

Respecting people is fine. Some of their conduct may not be so respectable. Some of their expectations may not be respectable; NOBODY is entitled to anything at another's expense, except to fulfill a contract. One can certainly respect a VERY diverse variety of people's right to live their lives as they do peacefully (but not at other's expense!) without needing the blessing of the left as someone that's sufficiently "woke". The whole concept of "woke" or "politically correct" is appalling, and people should be free to risk being offensive (if perhaps decently reluctant to be intentionally offensive) rather than to risk surrendering free speech.

Tesla is way out in front on electric cars, but this Administration has gone out of its way to ignore them, in favor of the regular players like GM, which couldn't get the job done with both hands and a road map.

Unions maybe were a good thing in the day of robber barons who paid in scrip, company stores, and people more in debt after working longer for them. But it's not like that now; unions are redundant to a mostly excessive level of regulation; one or the other should go. They have a number of other problems in my view (ideological bias in favor of IMO the objectionable side, corruption, foreign influence).

I expect that unless there's a compelling need to misdirect that can later be explained as such, what someone says their reasons are, are indeed their main reasons.

FWIW, I toned that down A LOT to be "respectful" of those with different views.

 

[Crissa]

The whole concept of "being aware of discrimination" or "respecting others" is appalling,

Sorry what did you just say?

And yeah, maybe you did tone it down. But that's literally the core of your argument.

No one said you can't be a little offensive. When someone takes offense, all you have to do is take note, apologize, and then not do it to them in the future. Sometimes their personal requests are esoteric or unworkable. Sometimes they're unreasonable. It happens. It's not the end of the world.

But in no way is it a loss of the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech never guaranteed an audience. Or a method of transmission. Or that others might not, you know, use their freedom of association to... Dis-associate from your speech.

-Crissa

 

[rlhamil]

Sorry what did you just say?

And yeah, maybe you did tone it down. But that's literally the core of your argument.

No one said you can't be a little offensive. When someone takes offense, all you have to do is take note, apologize, and then not do it to them in the future. Sometimes their personal requests are esoteric or unworkable. Sometimes they're unreasonable. It happens. It's not the end of the world.

But in no way is it a loss of the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech never guaranteed an audience. Or a method of transmission. Or that others might not, you know, use their freedom of association to... Dis-associate from your speech.

-Crissa

You're welcome to try, but you do not get to tell me what I am thinking.

I am quite aware of discrimination, it hurts people I care about.

That doesn't require wanting them to have everything they want their way, certainly not if I suspect that getting their wishes may harm them in the long run. Neither that, nor opposing most activism as all too often practiced (neither peaceful nor constructive, but at a minimum, destructive and divisive), is disrespectful of anyone.

I welcome freedom of disassociation (indeed, I'd say that it's often ignored in the pursuit of other goals that may be worthy if kept in balance), and I'm actually surprised when anyone listens. That's quite different from having assorted self-appointed censors and intermediaries applying their interpretation of what they think is appropriate - or advantageous to their ideology. ANYTHING that isn't a crime or doesn't conspire to commit one is appropriate speech, and if it doesn't offend anyone, it probably isn't challenging anyone's preconceptions either. Which is not to say offensive = constructive, but neither is inoffensive = constructive. Offensive has two parts, intent and perception. I have control of at most one of those.

No, I'm not always gentle, except with people I already know are fragile...even if EVERYONE is sometimes fragile, they've got to expect not to be coddled. Darwin will chew us all up and bury us, so best toughen up a bit.

But I think we'd probably both better agree to disagree, and stop now; no doubt the very existence of such a discussion is offending someone.

 

[Crissa]

I'm not telling you what you think.

I'm just telling you what the words you are using mean.

That's important.

You'd want me to be clear and forward and not pussyfoot around, right?

-Crissa

 

[charliemagpie]

Legacy corporations just put in heaps of money and created agencies they control.

It is a fraud run by left people with their pockets filled with right money.

 

[JBee]

The whole concept of "woke" or "politically correct" is appalling

The whole concept of "being aware of discrimination" or "respecting others" is appalling,

Sorry what did you just say?

And yeah, maybe you did tone it down. But that's literally the core of your argument.

No one said you can't be a little offensive. When someone takes offense, all you have to do is take note, apologize, and then not do it to them in the future. Sometimes their personal requests are esoteric or unworkable. Sometimes they're unreasonable. It happens. It's not the end of the world.

But in no way is it a loss of the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech never guaranteed an audience. Or a method of transmission. Or that others might not, you know, use their freedom of association to... Dis-associate from your speech.

-Crissa

Huh?? You changing the other persons quotes now Crissa to suit yourself and your political view??

Obviously, it's now a race to the bottom with you too. Boo!

rlhamil's post has not been edited so this is pretty poor form and forum etiquette. But maybe to be expected of you because you failed to find a appropriate "lefty" response on google, to rebuff a little bit of logic? I don't often get surprised on forums, but that's pretty low.

And with your track record I wouldn't be parading using words according to their definitions either. I've had to use the dictionary for you more than everyone else here combined.

 

[JBee]

That's quite different from having assorted self-appointed censors and intermediaries applying their interpretation of what they think is appropriate - or advantageous to their ideology.

This is apparently too true and literally the case as was perpetrated by Crissa above.

If you can't call something what it is, does it stop being that, or just stop being a useful definition that forces you to seek meaning in things that don't actually exist?

 

[JBee]

Ah no. Only in makeup land.

Rather:

"Political correctness"
(adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.

and:
woke

1. verb
   a simple past tense of wake1.
   adjective, Slang.(often used in the phrase stay woke)
   2. having or marked by an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those related to civil and human rights: In light of incidents of police brutality, it’s important to stay woke. He took one African American history class and now he thinks he’s woke. We're trying to make woke choices in life.
   3. aware of the facts, true situation, etc. (sometimes used facetiously):The moon landing was staged. Stay woke! A tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable. Stay woke.
   4. awake: I had to drink lots of coffee this morning to stay woke.
   

You also added "racial" which was not in Crissa's post.

Still absolutely no reason to change the original quote from someone else. If you want to make a point, then say it the way you want underneath without editing the original quote content.

"If" people understood the words they used, then there would be definition instead of gray meaningless mush.

Sponsored