None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw
The word I was thinking about isn't 'nigger' but rather 'negro' (or, in French 'nègre'). They weren't originally pejoratives and indeed were routinely used by black people to refer to themselves in a neutral way. Still, complaining about contemporary uses of them (especially by white people) because of recently acquired connotations isn't a case of objectionable political correctness. — Pierre-Normand
Exactly. So S interpreting symbol x as representing y has to do with what their particular goal is. Kapernick's goal is to show that this is a racist country built upon racism. Nike's goal is to sell shoes, not to show that this is a racist country. By adopting Kapernick's interpretation, they are unwittingly adopting Kapernick's goals. Did Nike do a survey to find out if more people would buy their shoes than boycott their company? Or did they simply accept Kapernick's interpretation as the majority interpretation? Essentially, Nike let Kapernick speak for all Americans as if this country is still a racist country built on a history of racism.What makes x a symbol representing y is that S thinks about x as a symbol representing y.
Any S could think about any x as a symbol representing y for any imaginable reason. Of course, the reasons are usually not going to be very arbitrary, but they're also not usually going to be very elaborate or educated or obscure, either. And insofar as any S doesn't think about x as a symbol of y, x is not a symbol of y to that S. Meaning is always to some S.
So a way to determine how many S's are thinking x as a symbol of some particular y is to survey S's, preferably outside of some other S trying to presently persuade them to see x as a symbol of y (because then we might instead only be learning about the influence, or about how S wants to position themselves socially, re alignments and so on, rather than learning whether S was really thinking about x as a symbol of y). — Terrapin Station
Isn't that what I said?Nike are legally obliged to maximize their profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that ultimate goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable. — Baden
Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable. — Baden
Then Nike is marketing their products to a particular group with a particular political ideology. Doesnt sound very profitable to me. Some companies don't need to make a profit in the stores when their profit comes in handouts to limit their tax burden thanks to the politicians they lobby.And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden
I presume they ran it through some focus groups and decided they needed him and his fellow travelers more than the opposition. Hardly surprising a youth-oriented company would take the edgier route anyhow. The flag will continue to symbolise what people believe it symbolises, no more and no less. K's chances of winning the wider argument on it are roughly zero. And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden
And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden
Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. — Baden
5. Colin Kaepernick put 2+2 together and got 5. He identified the Betsy Ross flag as a symbol associated with slavery and racism. — Bitter Crank
Not true. It has been more than suggested by the big orange among others on several occasions. — Baden
And they only give a shit about what their target audience thinks so that they can manipulate them into buying their shoes. That was the whole purpose of putting this story out. What reason would Nike have to report the existence of a shoe that they planned to release but then won't thanks to the "wisdom" of Kapernick? Attention America: Nike's conceptual department is unwittingly racist so we have Kapernick to filter out any racist products that we might conceptualize before we put them on the market. :roll:None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw
Further shouldn't we patriots dislike someone putting the flag on a sneaker. It's not illegal, but it is parasitic. — Coben
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.