>>24722213
> Stalinist speech policing is bad whether it's wielded for or against my pov and just puts more power as social arbiter in the hands of corpos.
Corporations absolutely despise the cancel culture shit and work around it. The reason they have such bloated HR and legal departments is because they're always navigating in that uncertain terrain. They prefer consistency they can plan around. The woke era of the late 10s and early 20s was very expensive for them as the ground was always shifting.
Big business prefers stability and light authoritarianism. Singapore and Pinochet's Chile are what they like. They like consistent dictates from the government about where the line is, so they can go right up to that point. What big business has at the moment are vague civil rights guidelines that are interpreted vaguely by political judges, so they just load up on HR and legal staff and signal constantly that they're doing their best. It's a massive waste of resources.
If anything corpos are desperate to dump the they/them Emilys. These people are a horrendously bad brand risk for them because they have no consistent legal means from preventing a girl-boss from moving up the ranks to absolutely tank their brand. The Bud-Light and Cracker Barrel fiasco were caused precisely because the people responsible knew they could pivot right away to a government or NGO job for the rest of their career.
>corpos are better than making the problem 10x worse by letting a central government do that policing, but i still dont want to see corpos and stronger than they are in the realm of social policing.
Let's be real, the only reason corpos are involved in debanking, DEI and sabotaging the careers of rightoids is because leftists like the plausible deniability. Corpos really don't give a shit, they don't give a shit in Communist China where they have to have CCP fanatics working alongside HR in the SOEs.