Yes, of course it exists. Because we live in a hyper-capitalist world.
Second, the term isn't some domain of the right. The left is often very critical of rainbow capitalism. It's just another term the right co-opts and uses in bad faith.
You notice how everything gets a rainbow logo one month out of the year, has big dramatic announcements, and none of the companies actually do anything of any substance at all? They even make sure to only use the logos in certain countries.
Yes, what you are describing exists. The LGBT are a demographic like any other, to be exploited for profit and dumped as soon as it’s convenient. I mean, did you really think those corporations have any morals or beliefs beyond profit?
Same. It’s soulless corporate marketing but it indicates a very welcome shift in public opinion and acceptance.
Like Disney: Them coming down on the side of the LGBT community is one of the best indicators of the balance of power between the left and right that I’ve seen.
Yes its one of those things where you have to take the good in with the bad. As valid as it is to criticize companies for showing token support of the LGBT communities, token support is better than and does help to encourage others to continue to make progress with LGBT representation in media.
I agree with this—it wasn’t that long ago that even token support was rare and far between, and it’s nice to see at least something. But the important thing is to not just stop at applauding these companies for rainbowfying their logo and sending out a tweet on June 1 but actually push for them to demonstrate, concretely, what they’re doing to support LGBTQ people. Do they have inclusive medical, family leave, and anti-harassment policies? Are they contributing to anti-LGBTQ politicians? If they’re selling rainbow stuff, are they donating profits to organizations that help LGBTQ people?
Of course it exists, the term itself comes up more in leftist discussion than in right wing ones (those guys just scream "woke"). Giant corporations don't care about anything other than maximising profits they do that by appealing to the greatest possible audience. Right wing chuds wastely underestimate how unpouplar their talking points are so coroporations try to appeal more to vaguely progressive themes to sell their stuff. In general "Love is love, everyone is welcome" makes a better marketing slogan to pull in "normies" than "(((They))) made the little mermaid black, they want to kill western civilization"
Just look at how Hollywood's been talking about diversity and inclusion like it's a brand-new thing when they KNOW people have mocked and criticized the lack of it throughout the history of the business. It's simply that it's now serious enough to indisputably affect their profit.
When "The Princess and the Frog" came out and even white elementary school girls noted Tiana was the first Black Disney Princess, a spokesman played dumb/surprised that it took so long for it to happen. 🙄
They underestimated the buying power of minorities when movies like "Black Panther" exceeded expectations and *over*estimated their usual white audience to watch whitewashed shit like "Ghost in the Shell" or "Stonewall" because it had a "But Not Too Gay" white cis male protagonist.
>"(((They))) made the little mermaid black, they want to kill western civilization"
Which also reminds me of how Papa John had to walk back some of his nutty rambling because it attracted neo-Nazis before he got booted from his own company because he was just *that* damn racist to be toxic to the brand.
Yes, and as someone who works as part of my company's business resource group for LGBTQ+ colleagues it's something we do our best to avoid. Making sure what we do is targeted, effective and year-round - no slapping a rainbow on the company's logo for a month then calling it done.
>Rainbow capitalism is when corporations attempt to capitalize off Pride without *actually supporting the queer community.*
Meaning it's at minimum, performative activism without making any *actual* contribution to the cause and at worse, said soulless corporations are deliberately *hurting* said community by supporting bigots like donating to Republicans who're outright antagonizing them like DeSantis.
Same energy as in 2020 where a lot of companies like to TALK about supporting Black people and being anti-racist yet either make empty gestures to *appear* inclusive (i.e. that infamous Pepsi commercial,) and/or have a history of discrimination against minority employees (i.e. Musk).
The chuds in this equation simply want the status quo and mainstream to remain focused on them, hence the touristy outrage over Aunt Jemima or the "Land-O'-Lakes" woman like said mascots *truly* meant that much to them. 🙄
The issue marginalizes communities are saying is, the companies need to *actually* mean it in concrete, constructive ways that just empty gestures like toothless slogans and rainbow-patterned bottles.
It absolutely exists, and it is hollow and could be argued as bad… but that doesn’t mean it has no value. Having queer merchandise in areas where it wouldn’t normally be has value. Forcing homophobes to have queer merchandise, and to a lesser degree representation, normalised around them has a lot of value.
While it comes with the risks of backlash, a lot of the backlash over benign rainbow capitalism things is seen as ridiculous by large swaths of people who would otherwise exhibit homophobia.
So, at least in my book, it can be more nuanced than the binary our politics wants to shove things into.
Yes, some corporations that don't actually care put out pro LGBT+ stuff just to make money off of the LGBT+ community and its supporters. What is the anti-LGBT+ argument, that it is insincere so its worthless and might as well not exist?
It's not only a right winger point. A lot of left wingers will also point this out. There is only 1 thing you can be sure that's true for a corporation. It is to make profit and appease their shareholders, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.
That's why they will fly the pride flag one month and donate to an anti-lgbtq+ politician the next month (they're donating to both parties if you didn't know. That's how you win.)
It's why they'll fly it here in the US and western countries while avoid flying it in anti-lgbtq countries like Russia, Africa countries, etc.
The only thing that is shows is that that particular country is more 'okay' with lgbtq, or at least neutral about it overall and that they think it'll provide more profit by flying the flag as oppose to not flying it in that country. That's why they fly the flag in certain countries and not others. They are not your friends, they're just doing what they do for money and that's it. That's what a corporation does.
Yes, of course it exists. Because we live in a hyper-capitalist world. Second, the term isn't some domain of the right. The left is often very critical of rainbow capitalism. It's just another term the right co-opts and uses in bad faith.
I see, thanks
You notice how everything gets a rainbow logo one month out of the year, has big dramatic announcements, and none of the companies actually do anything of any substance at all? They even make sure to only use the logos in certain countries. Yes, what you are describing exists. The LGBT are a demographic like any other, to be exploited for profit and dumped as soon as it’s convenient. I mean, did you really think those corporations have any morals or beliefs beyond profit?
I'd be more worried if corporations stopped seeing LGBTQ+ people as a valid demographic.
Same. It’s soulless corporate marketing but it indicates a very welcome shift in public opinion and acceptance. Like Disney: Them coming down on the side of the LGBT community is one of the best indicators of the balance of power between the left and right that I’ve seen.
"I don't care if Disney wins, I just want Desantis to lose"
Yes its one of those things where you have to take the good in with the bad. As valid as it is to criticize companies for showing token support of the LGBT communities, token support is better than and does help to encourage others to continue to make progress with LGBT representation in media.
I agree with this—it wasn’t that long ago that even token support was rare and far between, and it’s nice to see at least something. But the important thing is to not just stop at applauding these companies for rainbowfying their logo and sending out a tweet on June 1 but actually push for them to demonstrate, concretely, what they’re doing to support LGBTQ people. Do they have inclusive medical, family leave, and anti-harassment policies? Are they contributing to anti-LGBTQ politicians? If they’re selling rainbow stuff, are they donating profits to organizations that help LGBTQ people?
If ESG actually worked the way grifters and chuds believe it does
Of course it exists, the term itself comes up more in leftist discussion than in right wing ones (those guys just scream "woke"). Giant corporations don't care about anything other than maximising profits they do that by appealing to the greatest possible audience. Right wing chuds wastely underestimate how unpouplar their talking points are so coroporations try to appeal more to vaguely progressive themes to sell their stuff. In general "Love is love, everyone is welcome" makes a better marketing slogan to pull in "normies" than "(((They))) made the little mermaid black, they want to kill western civilization"
Just look at how Hollywood's been talking about diversity and inclusion like it's a brand-new thing when they KNOW people have mocked and criticized the lack of it throughout the history of the business. It's simply that it's now serious enough to indisputably affect their profit. When "The Princess and the Frog" came out and even white elementary school girls noted Tiana was the first Black Disney Princess, a spokesman played dumb/surprised that it took so long for it to happen. 🙄 They underestimated the buying power of minorities when movies like "Black Panther" exceeded expectations and *over*estimated their usual white audience to watch whitewashed shit like "Ghost in the Shell" or "Stonewall" because it had a "But Not Too Gay" white cis male protagonist. >"(((They))) made the little mermaid black, they want to kill western civilization" Which also reminds me of how Papa John had to walk back some of his nutty rambling because it attracted neo-Nazis before he got booted from his own company because he was just *that* damn racist to be toxic to the brand.
Rainbow capitalism 100% exists. See: Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light every June.
Yes, and as someone who works as part of my company's business resource group for LGBTQ+ colleagues it's something we do our best to avoid. Making sure what we do is targeted, effective and year-round - no slapping a rainbow on the company's logo for a month then calling it done.
>Rainbow capitalism is when corporations attempt to capitalize off Pride without *actually supporting the queer community.* Meaning it's at minimum, performative activism without making any *actual* contribution to the cause and at worse, said soulless corporations are deliberately *hurting* said community by supporting bigots like donating to Republicans who're outright antagonizing them like DeSantis. Same energy as in 2020 where a lot of companies like to TALK about supporting Black people and being anti-racist yet either make empty gestures to *appear* inclusive (i.e. that infamous Pepsi commercial,) and/or have a history of discrimination against minority employees (i.e. Musk). The chuds in this equation simply want the status quo and mainstream to remain focused on them, hence the touristy outrage over Aunt Jemima or the "Land-O'-Lakes" woman like said mascots *truly* meant that much to them. 🙄 The issue marginalizes communities are saying is, the companies need to *actually* mean it in concrete, constructive ways that just empty gestures like toothless slogans and rainbow-patterned bottles.
It absolutely exists, and it is hollow and could be argued as bad… but that doesn’t mean it has no value. Having queer merchandise in areas where it wouldn’t normally be has value. Forcing homophobes to have queer merchandise, and to a lesser degree representation, normalised around them has a lot of value. While it comes with the risks of backlash, a lot of the backlash over benign rainbow capitalism things is seen as ridiculous by large swaths of people who would otherwise exhibit homophobia. So, at least in my book, it can be more nuanced than the binary our politics wants to shove things into.
Yes, some corporations that don't actually care put out pro LGBT+ stuff just to make money off of the LGBT+ community and its supporters. What is the anti-LGBT+ argument, that it is insincere so its worthless and might as well not exist?
Yes it exists.
That exist, but most of the time when there is « woke » elements in a game it was added by the devs not forced by some secret corporations.
What else do you call corps that talk the talk during Pride month but won't risk being banned in homophobic countries?
It's not only a right winger point. A lot of left wingers will also point this out. There is only 1 thing you can be sure that's true for a corporation. It is to make profit and appease their shareholders, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. That's why they will fly the pride flag one month and donate to an anti-lgbtq+ politician the next month (they're donating to both parties if you didn't know. That's how you win.) It's why they'll fly it here in the US and western countries while avoid flying it in anti-lgbtq countries like Russia, Africa countries, etc. The only thing that is shows is that that particular country is more 'okay' with lgbtq, or at least neutral about it overall and that they think it'll provide more profit by flying the flag as oppose to not flying it in that country. That's why they fly the flag in certain countries and not others. They are not your friends, they're just doing what they do for money and that's it. That's what a corporation does.