this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
245 points (98.8% liked)

politics

30859 readers
2266 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

You can assume any slogan from conservative dumbasses is going to be incorrect.

Remember those signs that conservatives put up - "Had Enough? Vote Republican" (enough of fucking what? An economy that was the envy of the world? JFC, these people are all fucking morons. It's not like Biden did anything to harm any of them, but they acted like they were in agony over....something.)

Or...."Promises made, promises kept"?

How have those worked out?

[–] greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 minutes ago

I signed to for Costco BECAUSE they give more shits than anyone else.

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 5 points 2 hours ago

The basic truth conservatives can't concede is that we are all better off when we are all better off.

If looking down on someone makes you feel better about yourself, then you want to hold people down so you have someone to look down on.

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

This is about hiring, not marketing... and while I'll have to check because it was some years ago, when it came to marketing I found the opposite was true; but not for the reasons you would expect

That being said, it was still better to "go woke", than not

Basically it boils down to the fact that people typically will not purchase a product they do not want even if they support the company that makes the product

But people who do want the product will not buy from a company if they do not support that company

So as an example, if a jack hammer company "goes woke" and sells a gay pride Jack Hammer sales won't go up because very few people are going to go out and buy a Jack Hammer they don't want or need just because they support gay pride. However, those that do need a Jack Hammer will either continue to purchase the Jack Hammer (meaning the woke marketing had no effect because he was already going to buy the Jack Hammer) or they will buy a Jack Hammer from a different company because the "woke" marketing upset them

Companies that already had a strong liberal backing, like cards against humanity, could use "woke" marketing to increase sales, but only temporarily. For instance, if on average a Cards Against Humanity player buys one expansion pack a year, you might be able to get that person to buy two if you make a special time "Gay Pride" pack. Sales will increase for that quarter but then go back to the average after

But it can still be beneficial to "go woke" just to protect your companies image.

For example, "Gay Pride" night at sporting events are usually the worst selling nights. The reason is stated above. You're not going to go to a baseball game if you hate baseball and those that like baseball will choose to not go on Pride Night if they disagree with the cause. But, it's still better to have a Pride Night than not have one because being the only team that did not have a Pride Night is a bad look. You don't want to be known as the only bigoted baseball team in the league

This can be really bad if by some pure chance the wrong group of people support your lack of Gay Pride Night and adopt you as an unofficial spokesperson. The last thing you want is a bunch of MAGA hat wearing transphobic bigots wearing your teams Jersey as part of their unofficial uniform.

It's better to lose ticket sales on a game or two than wake up and find out that your companies hat is now the hat of choice for the proud boys.

So you go woke to let the world know you are not ok with bigotry

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 53 points 9 hours ago

Fucking duh. I've said it for years. The majority of conservative voices online are fucking bots. There are a handful of actual idiots that actually eat that shit up, but 90% of people don't fucking care about conservative ragebait.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 28 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Not a myth, but bullshit propaganda intentionally spewed by CEOs in further attempt to increase profits.

Fuck billionaires, no war but the class war.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn’t even help their profits.

[–] BonsaiBoo@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

It sure does, it keeps a third of the nation along with a few percentage points of independents voting against their own interests in the way of voting against wage increases, against workplace regulations, against unions, against oversight, against universal healthcare, all of which leaves plenty of desperate, impoverished, sick employees who won’t fight back and won’t demand for better pay, better benefits, won’t join unions to work for those things, which means they have increased profit margins by not having to pay for higher wages, safer workplaces, working air conditioning, water breaks, the rich won’t have to pitch in for healthcare because they can just reduce hours and lay off people in rounds to disqualify everyone and keep wages low.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They may think the increased suffering increases profits, but actually increased prosperity for everyone would result in even more money for them.

That list you wrote shows it’s about power—not money—for them.

[–] BonsaiBoo@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Power is what they get addicted to after they amass so much wealth that money nearly losses all meaning and becomes just a way to compete against the other richest people in their social circles. They most definitely do all this for money, because money is how you get to the point that you can then be a power broker and start hoarding and abusing power to amass more power. All money is power to a degree, but not all power is money. They hoard money as a foundation to build upon as they amass more and more diversified power outlets with which to play god and feed their narcissism.

[–] mcbang2000@piefed.social 4 points 6 hours ago

Lies That Rich People Tell Me, vol. 358

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I can't possibly imagine how including more people means more people want to use your brand. Incredible.

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

This article is about hiring, not marketing

It's been some years so I should see if this information is still valid but when I researched it years ago woke marketing basically boiled down to the fact that people are not going to buy a product they don't want or need just because they like the company that makes the product; but if you were going to buy the product but you don't like the company, you will purchase from a competitor

So there was some truth to "go woke, go broke", although I couldn't find any evidence of a successful company, "going woke" and ending up bankrupt. Usually these companies were already struggling and woke marketing was a last-ditch effort to bring in a new customer base

I like to use a Jack Hammer as an example because it paints a clear picture. If a company makes a Gay Pride Jack Hammer you're not going to rush out and buy a Jack Hammer you don't want or need just because you support the cause. But if you were going to buy a Jack Hammer you'll either still buy the Jack Hammer (meaning the marketing had no effect because you were going to buy it anyway) or you'll buy a Jack Hammer from another company because you dislike the message

So "woke" marketing had either no real effect or a negative effect.

Companies that already had a strong liberal supporting audience could increase sales temporarily. Like if the average Cards Against Humanity player buys one expansion pack a year the company might get that person to buy two expansion packs this year if one of those packs is a pro Gay Pride pack of some kind, especially if the back supports or charity or something. But that person is not going to continue to purchase two expansion packs a year so after the promotion is over, sales return to normal

However, "going woke" was good for the companies image. As an example, while sales for the Gay Pride baseball game night might be the lowest all season, every year, it's still better to do it and take the ticket sales lost than not because you don't want to be one of the only teams that didn't participate. Being the "transphobic" baseball team is not good. Overtime that can hurt sales, especially if the wrong group of people celebrate your stance against pride night

The last thing you want is a bunch of MAGA hat wearing racists to start rocking your teams jersey as their unofficial uniform. So companies should go woke just to let the world know they're not OK with bigotry.

[–] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 hours ago

From HR standpoint, companies that express values that people care about are more attractive to potential recruits. Plus, people's performance is generally improved when employees care about their work and employer's mission.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 hours ago

For one, it would help to stop saying that phrase.

Better to call the opposite:

  • Go trad, go sad
  • Go regressive, go recessive
  • Build the wall, take the fall
[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder, does the opposite hold true?