democrats don't understand what fascism is

AssHatZombie said:
let's talk about abusing language.

what is a "stakeholder"?
Click to expand...

It's Leftist psychobabble for finding any flimsy excuse to claim you have a reason to get involved in something. Example: You are code monkey living in San Francsico, and have an interest in environmentalism. You therefore are a 'stakeholder' in some environmental issue in Alaska because you want to "Save the planet."
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's Leftist psychobabble for finding any flimsy excuse to claim you have a reason to get involved in something. Example: You are code monkey living in San Francsico, and have an interest in environmentalism. You therefore are a 'stakeholder' in some environmental issue in Alaska because you want to "Save the planet."
Click to expand...

yeah it's fucked up.

and most larger corporations seem to be on board with it.

this is fascism.

and it's mainstream.

Safe search: offAny time
What is stakeholder capitalism? - World Economic Forum
https://www.weforum.org › agenda › 2021 › 01 › klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance
Stakeholder capitalism: A form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation accounting for the needs of all stakeholders and society. The Davos Agenda 2021 What is stakeholder capitalism? Jan 22, 2021.
What Is Stakeholder Capitalism? - Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com › stakeholder-capitalism-4774323
Oct 3, 2022Stakeholder capitalism proposes that corporations should serve the interests of all their stakeholders, and not just shareholders. Stakeholders can include investors, owners, employees,...
The practical guide to stakeholder capitalism | McKinsey
https://www.mckinsey.com › capabilities › strategy-and-corporate-finance › our-insights › putting-stakeholder-capitalism-into-practice
Jan 7, 2022'Stakeholder capitalism' is the buzzword du jour for business practices that strive to achieve more than profits and a high stock price. But what does benefitting all stakeholders really entail? What trade-offs do companies have to make? And how do business leaders put the aspiration into practice?
Videos
1:02:20
Stakeholder Capitalism: Building the Future | DAVOS AGENDA 2021
50K views
YouTube2yr
46:00
Implementing Stakeholder Capitalism Part 1 | DAVOS AGENDA 2021
9.6K views
YouTube2yr
6:35
What is Stakeholder Capitalism? Here's a Definition, and 4 Ways to Make It a Reality
14K views
YouTube1yr
43:10
Implementing Stakeholder Capitalism Part 2 | DAVOS AGENDA 2021
11K views
YouTube2yr
44:55
Stakeholder Capitalism: What Is Required from Corporate Leadership? | DAVOS 2020
15K views
YouTube2yr
19:38
Stakeholder Capitalism | Ep 1 - Beyond GDP: Measuring What Matters | World Economic Forum
8.5K views
YouTube1yr
30:43
Stakeholder Capitalism - EP.5 | Stakeholder Capitalism at Work | World Economic Forum
5.2K views
YouTube1yr
29:30
Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics: Common Reporting & Disclosures | Sustainable Develo…
4.7K views
YouTube2yr
34:24
Stakeholder Capitalism | EP3 - Planet vs. Profit: Can Growth be Green?
3.2K views
YouTube1yr
24:47
Stakeholder Capitalism | EP4 - Tech for Good: Promise & Peril | World Economic Forum
5.6K views
YouTube1yr
More Videos
Are these links helpful?YesNo
Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism - World Economic Forum
https://www.weforum.org › stakeholdercapitalism
Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism This report identifies a set of Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics. Drawn from existing voluntary standards, the report offers comparable metrics and disclosures across four pillars considered the most critical for business, society and the planet.
Why Stakeholder Capitalism Will Fail - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › sites › stevedenning › 2020 › 01 › 05 › why-stakeholder-capitalism-will-fail
Jan 5, 2020The attraction of stakeholder capitalism as a public stance is that it doesn't commit big business to do anything in particular. Firms can go on privately shoveling money to their shareholders...
Making Stakeholder Capitalism a Reality - Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org › 2020 › 01 › making-stakeholder-capitalism-a-reality
Stakeholder capitalism, a popular management theory in the 1950s and '60s that focused on the needs of all constituents, not just shareholders, has been poised to make a comeback since weaponized...
Stakeholder Capitalism Gets a Report Card. It's Not Good.
https://www.nytimes.com › 2020 › 09 › 22 › business › business-roudtable-stakeholder-capitalism.html
Sep 22, 2020Stakeholder Capitalism Gets a Report Card. It's Not Good. The pandemic and the movement for racial justice have tested corporate pledges to elevate social concerns alongside shareholder...
To manage stakeholder interests, think like a designer | Fortune
https://fortune.com › 2023 › 02 › 02 › capitalism-stakeholder-interests-think-like-designer-decision-mindset-leadership
Feb 2, 2023Billed annually at $107.40. Cancel anytime. By contrast, stakeholder capitalism (creating value for customers, employees, investors, suppliers, communities, and others) appears to complicate ...
Stakeholder Capitalism in the Time of COVID
https://openyls.law.yale.edu › bitstream › handle › 20.500.13051 › 18235 › Lucian A. Bebchuck Kobi Kastiel Roberto Tallarita Stakeholder Capitalism in the Time of COVID 40 Yale J. on Regul. 60 (2023).pdf?sequence=1
stakeholder capitalism, and a Columbia Law School conference. The Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance and the John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business provided financial support. Although we provide substantial detail on our findings in the body of this Article, a large Appendix
ESG and Stakeholder Capitalism are Changing Corporate Boards
https://www.conference-board.org › press › The-Role-of-the-Board-press-release
TodayESG and stakeholder capitalism will have a meaningful and lasting impact on US corporate boards, according to a new study by The Conference Board. 68 percent of survey respondents believe that ESG will have a significant and durable impact on their boards, while 53 percent say the same about stakeholder capitalism.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's Leftist psychobabble for finding any flimsy excuse to claim you have a reason to get involved in something. Example: You are code monkey living in San Francsico, and have an interest in environmentalism. You therefore are a 'stakeholder' in some environmental issue in Alaska because you want to "Save the planet."
Click to expand...

I don't understand what your endgame is here? You don't want any environmental regulations because you want more of this:

Fo0tE8nWcAAx5Jy


You're not making any sense.
 
LV426 said:
I don't understand what your endgame is here? You don't want any environmental regulations because you want more of this:

Fo0tE8nWcAAx5Jy


You're not making any sense.
Click to expand...

I want sensible environmental regulations, not zero tolerance ones. The Leftist environmental front is all in on zero tolerance. For them, that means ANY pollution is too much pollution. They are insane and dangerous.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
For them, that means ANY pollution is too much pollution. They are insane and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Isn't pollution dangerous, though?

Isn't it insane to say that a little pollution is OK?

Would you say a little bit of arsenic is OK?

You're not making any sense.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Again, if you decide to be honest, I'll debate you.
Click to expand...

I have been totally honest the entire time...you're the one who said all the stupid things you've said.

I didn't say them, you did.

Maybe you should try being honest for once instead of playing the part of the cowardly little bitch.

Oh also...so you weren't trying to debate before when you posted that imaginary conversation? Cuz that seemed like something you were quite proud of before you ran away from it, crying "context" like the crybaby loser President we used to have.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
If you continue to lie - fuck off.
Click to expand...

Here's how it always goes with you people:

You: (Says something incredibly stupid or incorrect, or a lie about yourself to lend credibility where it doesn't otherwise exist)

Me: (quoting you in full) So what you said is stupid and incorrect, or a lie, and here's how.

You: cOnTExT! hoNeSTY!
 
LV426 said:
What does "sensible" mean?

And why wouldn't you want zero tolerance regulations when it comes to pollution and waste?
Click to expand...

Because they are completely unrealistic and for all intents, a fantasy. You cannot have any sort of technological society where resources are gathered and then modified into useful end products without producing some amount of pollution.
 
LV426 said:
But isn't that really the case?

Otherwise, you would be arguing a pro-pollution stance.

Are you arguing for pollution?
Click to expand...

Complex question fallacy. I'm arguing for optimal pollution. That is, a level that balances the economic, technical, etc., needs of society against the pollution that is produced as a result.

As an example of this:

Back late in the Clinton administration, the EPA changed allowable arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. The only reason this change could even be made is that expensive, new, more accurate testing equipment had become available. Arsenic is a naturally occurring mineral in groundwater. It can build up in a person's system over time. At levels roughly 1000 times the old allowable limit it can be quite dangerous over several decades of consumption, as it is in say, Bangladesh. There, arsenic is found at levels in the parts per million (ppm).

For much of the Western US, this change meant that water companies had to install tens of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of new testing and filtration equipment to meet the new standard, even as they more than met the old one. Here in the Phoenix area arsenic is found in groundwater at about 12 ppb. The town of Anthem (a suburb) had to install this equipment to bring their levels down by a minimum of 2 ppb as a result. People suddenly found their water bills triple or quadruple.

Worst part of this was / is There is no discernible or measurable increase in health benefits from this change. NONE. The EPA made the change because they could and because they asininely and insanely believe, as you apparently do, in zero tolerance on pollution, even when that supposed pollution is naturally occurring. It costs the US hundreds of millions of dollars to unnecessarily meet this standard. That's bad for society and the economy. They are idiots, you are an idiot. Reasonable standards based on good science should be the standard, not zero tolerance!
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
Because they are completely unrealistic and for all intents, a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Again, what does "sensible" regulations mean?

You put it out there and now you don't want to define it.

Why are people like you so fucking terrible at posting on the internet? It's a real problem. You people are just all over the goddamn place. No consistency...just grievance upon grievance.

No one ever knows what you're saying from post to post.


You cannot have any sort of technological society where resources are gathered and then modified into useful end products without producing some amount of pollution.
Click to expand...

You can't make statements like this because you don't know what you're talking about.

And what is bad about regulating pollution with zero tolerance?

I am so confused by your position...you think we should, what, designate zones in the country to allow pollution because...you really want it?

We can make technological advances without destroying the planet.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Complex question fallacy. I'm arguing for optimal pollution!
Click to expand...

A distinction without difference.


That is, a level that balances the economic, technical, etc., needs of society against the pollution that is produced as a result.
Click to expand...

OK, but the needs of society runs in direct conflict with the needs of "the pollution economy".

So really, you're veering into dissonance land again.

The dissonance in this case is you thinking that a little bit of pollution is a good thing for society because of "the economy", while society tells you that it isn't because it's destroying the planet.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Complex question fallacy. I'm arguing for optimal pollution. That is, a level that balances the economic, technical, etc., needs of society against the pollution that is produced as a result.

As an example of this:

Back late in the Clinton administration, the EPA changed allowable arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. The only reason this change could even be made is that expensive, new, more accurate testing equipment had become available. Arsenic is a naturally occurring mineral in groundwater. It can build up in a person's system over time. At levels roughly 1000 times the old allowable limit it can be quite dangerous over several decades of consumption, as it is in say, Bangladesh. There, arsenic is found at levels in the parts per million (ppm).

For much of the Western US, this change meant that water companies had to install tens of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of new testing and filtration equipment to meet the new standard, even as they more than met the old one. Here in the Phoenix area arsenic is found in groundwater at about 12 ppb. The town of Anthem (a suburb) had to install this equipment to bring their levels down by a minimum of 2 ppb as a result. People suddenly found their water bills triple or quadruple.

Worst part of this was / is There is no discernible or measurable increase in health benefits from this change. NONE. The EPA made the change because they could and because they asininely and insanely believe, as you apparently do, in zero tolerance on pollution, even when that supposed pollution is naturally occurring. It costs the US hundreds of millions of dollars to unnecessarily meet this standard. That's bad for society and the economy. They are idiots, you are an idiot. Reasonable standards based on good science should be the standard, not zero tolerance!
Click to expand...

You know what else happened during the Clinton Administration? They banned aerosol products that created a hole in the ozone layer.

After banning them, the hole closed up.

So an example of no-tolerance regulation YOU said is too burdensome, turned out not to be burdensome at all.
 
LV426 said:
You know what else happened during the Clinton Administration? They banned aerosol products that created a hole in the ozone layer.

After banning them, the hole closed up.

So an example of no-tolerance regulation YOU said is too burdensome, turned out not to be burdensome at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, the hole is still there,and the same size, not to mention they found a second bigger one now...

Whatever Happened to the Hole in the Ozone Layer?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/whatever-happened-to-the-hole-in-the-ozone-layer

2021 Antarctic Ozone Hole 13th-Largest, Will Persist into November
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...-hole-13th-largest-will-persist-into-november

Scientists found a massive new hole in the ozone layer that could affect 50% of the population
https://bgr.com/science/scientists-...layer-that-could-affect-50-of-the-population/

Scientists Find Ozone Hole in Tropics Much Bigger Than in Antarctica
https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-find-ozone-hole-tropics-much-bigger-antarctica-1721940

You need to keep up on the science of these things. Seems CFC's weren't the cause after all...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, the hole is still there,and the same size, not to mention they found a second bigger one now...

Whatever Happened to the Hole in the Ozone Layer?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/whatever-happened-to-the-hole-in-the-ozone-layer

2021 Antarctic Ozone Hole 13th-Largest, Will Persist into November
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...-hole-13th-largest-will-persist-into-november

Scientists found a massive new hole in the ozone layer that could affect 50% of the population
https://bgr.com/science/scientists-...layer-that-could-affect-50-of-the-population/

Scientists Find Ozone Hole in Tropics Much Bigger Than in Antarctica
https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-find-ozone-hole-tropics-much-bigger-antarctica-1721940

You need to keep up on the science of these things. Seems CFC's weren't the cause after all...
Click to expand...

OK, so according to your first link, it says CFC's were the cause:

Scientists pinpointed the emissions of certain gases containing ozone-depleting substances as the main source of the problem. CFCs, short for chlorofluorocarbons, are one of the most detrimental gases to the ozone layer. CFCs contain chlorine — a compound that’s great for killing bacteria in swimming pools, and in its gaseous form is harmful to the ozone layer.

CFCs were widely used in previous decades, peaking in the late 1980s. Many refrigerators, air conditioners and foam-blowing equipment used to emit dangerous levels of chlorine gas into the atmosphere. Once chlorine reaches the ozone layer, ultraviolet radiation from the sun converts it into a reactive substance, which then destroys ozone molecules. Other compounds, such as bromine, have also played a role in depleting the ozone layer.

Even though levels of these substances in the atmosphere reduced drastically over the years, the ozone hole will only fully recover in coming decades.
Click to expand...

I really, really fucking hate it when I have to do your homework for you, and I get nothing in return for doing so.

And the efforts of banning aerosols did work to close the hole over Antarctica, again, according to your first link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top