Grey Havens

[Zues126]

Hey Juju, yeah, it's cool that we've known each other for four years now!

Interesting questions. I really don't know where I stand. I can see some pros and cons of social boycotts.

On the pro side, social pressure can force a layer of humanity onto corporations which can be by nature sociopathic and profit driven. We can make it financially beneficial for them to behave more civilized. I suppose you could say its a social regulatory system. Having working in large corporations for 20 years now I am a big believer that some degree of regulation is a good thing. Social regulation is quite appealing in some ways compared to government regulation.

Social regulation is quicker. It is the direct will of the people. There is no gridlock. There are no lobbyists. We see something horrible and we can make a direct immediate impact. And the threat of that forces companies to behave in ways that can bear our scrutiny and the consequences that could follow.

One example of this is Glassdoor, a website that allows employees to review employers on how it is to work for a company. This feedback impacts the company's reputation and the ease with which they can hire in the future. It creates a social incentive for them to want to develop a good rating. Customer reviews of services are another great example.

On the other hand, social regulation lacks the checks and balances that we count on to protect our freedoms. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that can easily be lost in a lynching of social outrage. I've seen many examples of individuals who's careers were shattered and who's reputations were ruined due to allegations that were never substantiated to any extent that would satisfy a legal system's demands. This is quite scary to me. In addition, it seems that the most extreme and vocal people start to dictate the terms of our society. Outrage culture can censor free speech as people with opinions that vary from the mainstream can be persecuted at the drop of the hat.

One example pf these things is the backlash against Matt Damon for his comments on the "Me Too" movement. He said that while any form of sexual misconduct is inappropriate and should be addressed, there was a spectrum as to the seriousness of the transgressions, and that while they should all be confronted, they shouldn't be treated as the same. In other words, if someone made a lewd inappropriate comment that shouldn't necessarily result in the same lynching as someone that abused a position of power to pressure numerous vulnerable women into unwanted sexual acts. This seems a reasonable and important point he made, yet the reaction he received was frightening. He was called "Systematically part of the problem" and received tons of scathing comments in the news stories that followed. One person used the word "Orwellian" when to me it seems that term would be better applied to a society in which we are afraid of the extremists with their social media followers and journalists looking for stories and scandals.

To me the question becomes who is going to regulate the regulators? The same benefits of social regulation, swift and impactful judgment and consequences, become horrifying when the protections of due process and free speech are removed.

In the end this is the a change in our culture that isn't going away. I just hope there are good answers to this last question that help preserve the liberties we've come to depend on. Just like corporations are a net positive as long as they are regulated to some extent, I think social regulation will be mostly positive if we can keep it in check to some extent.

I'm still torn as to how much I'll participate because I'm not clear on the consequences. But I don't feel the same degree of responsibility as I do when I have someone in my personal sphere doing something detestable as I don't have the same degree of influence.

As for politicians, I am mostly voting on people I believe will do the best job of making our world a better place to live. I vote knowing they are all flawed humans in an imperfect system. That goes without saying. I suppose I'd exclude a candidate that was convicted of pedophilia, but unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago wouldn't be a deciding factor. I guess that's me voting for due process as well.

I'm certainly open on this subject and I'm sure my views will evolve with time and new information. Interesting times we live in to be sure!