why would he say the quiet part out loud? how would this not make him seem like a piece of shit?
i tried to read in the article where he might say something about why but it really is just ‘profits at all costs’… wants to avoid the use of words like ‘ethical’… gotcha. i understand what kind of person you are now.
I think this is misrepresenting what he said. His stance is basically that he felt like they were punishing honest workers and business partners, people who never lied or cheated or hurt anyone, for something that they had no part in due to public pressure. He’s not wrong either unless people have some kind of explanation for how a cosmetics manufacturer is supposed to stop Putin from murdering innocent Ukrainians fighting against his pointless war and innocent Russians who don’t want to fight for him.
So, considering it hasn’t made a difference and Russia is still attacking Ukraine and Putin is still in power, how do you reconcile what you just said with the reality of the situation?
The only thing that’s changed is that Lush’s partner in Russia and all their employees have no income now.
Lush did this in March of last year. I’m just asking what you’re expecting from this considering that they did do what you suggested. When is the effect you’re saying is supposed to happen going to happen?
You don’t have to be an asshole. It’s a legitimate question based on your assertion that all that needs to happen is pressure needs to be put on people.
Just because things don’t turn out how you hoped doesn’t mean you didn’t make the right decision at the time with the information that was available.
Too often we judge past actions only through the lens of hindsight. It’s useful for learning what went wrong but it’s not useful for judging if something was the right decision or not.
I agree but that’s what I’m failing to understand. How does hurting the working class a tiny bit and making their lives harder do anything to stop Putin? Clearly the founder of Lush doesn’t and didn’t feel like it was the right decision at the time. It also not having the intended effect seems like a confirmation that it wasn’t the right decision rather than an indictment.
Bowing to public pressure doesn’t make the public right. If anything, it’s virtue signaling to keep your customer base instead of it being the right thing to do.
It was all part of an effort to economically hurt Russia in response to the war.
Best case scenario was Russia deciding the hit to their economy was not worth the war and back pedaling. No one realistically thought this was going to happen though.
The next best case scenario was for the changes in quality of life for the average Russian would create enough internal pressure that the war would be called off.
This hasn’t happened yet but internal support for the war has been dropping over the last year and some of that is attributed to the dismal state of the Russian economy, which is a direct result of things like Lush pulling out.
And even if neither of these come up fruition, the more Russias economy is damaged the harder it is to fund their war effort. This gives Ukraine a bit more breathing room in their war effort.
While the effect of a single company like Lush is unnoticed, it’s the collective effect of everything from these pullouts, to trade sanctions and other soft power diplomatic plays which total up to a noticable effect.
Sanctions are typically the acts of a government state not the actions of a business. Businesses have to comply with them but only if they’re bound by them. That wasn’t the case here. Lush did this based on public outcry, not sanctions.
And at the end of the day if that interpretation is true, your essentially saying ‘bad fucking luck’ to all the Russians who lost their jobs while living in a country perpetrating a war that if they speak out against, they’ll be jailed at best.
You’re right, there’s no convenient sanctions but if that’s really what old mate Lush is saying, he’s got a point.
i mean, this is one way to win a war. the other is with bombs and death. Russia chose to enter this war, it shouldn’t be surprised when it affects its citizens.
no one should get to keep their war over seas and out of their own borders.
imagine a future where we could stop wars by just taking people’s jobs…
Judging by your name, you’re an Aussie and I’ve got to say, disappointed in your complete writing off of the entire Russian population. How the fuck is some young girl working at Lush supporting Putin or deserving of suffering if they don’t revolt?
Her taxes directly support the war. It’s not as easy as people are good and bad. Good people can be in bad situations. Sanctions are supposed to hurt all people. That’s how they work. It’s seen as a lesser evil, rather than a good. They are damaging for both sides.
If stopping Putin from being in government is the only fix, the only possible action anyone could take would be ending Putin. Anything else would be useless.
It isn’t though, non-offensive actions have effects too.
I think the article paints a pretty good portrait of a complicated but socially responsible business owner, even though I do think pulling out of Russia was the right thing to do even if it wasn’t what he would’ve chosen.
why would he say the quiet part out loud? how would this not make him seem like a piece of shit?
i tried to read in the article where he might say something about why but it really is just ‘profits at all costs’… wants to avoid the use of words like ‘ethical’… gotcha. i understand what kind of person you are now.
I think this is misrepresenting what he said. His stance is basically that he felt like they were punishing honest workers and business partners, people who never lied or cheated or hurt anyone, for something that they had no part in due to public pressure. He’s not wrong either unless people have some kind of explanation for how a cosmetics manufacturer is supposed to stop Putin from murdering innocent Ukrainians fighting against his pointless war and innocent Russians who don’t want to fight for him.
Because it might apply pressure to those rich enough to influence Putin. Because it slows their economy. Because it sends a message.
It’s one raindrop in the flood. But without raindrops, there is no flood.
So, considering it hasn’t made a difference and Russia is still attacking Ukraine and Putin is still in power, how do you reconcile what you just said with the reality of the situation?
The only thing that’s changed is that Lush’s partner in Russia and all their employees have no income now.
So because it didnt immediately and totally fix the problem theres no point to it? Is that the “argument” you’re making?
Lush did this in March of last year. I’m just asking what you’re expecting from this considering that they did do what you suggested. When is the effect you’re saying is supposed to happen going to happen?
You don’t have to be an asshole. It’s a legitimate question based on your assertion that all that needs to happen is pressure needs to be put on people.
I think you’re the one being an asshole here.
How am I being an asshole? By pointing out that what you claim should happen hasn’t happened in the slightest?
You made a claim. I’m just asking you to justify it.
And all im doing is asking if you think that because it’s not fixed the problem straight away it’s not worth doing?
Plenty of people have already explained how targeting Russias economy puts pressure on Putin.
Just because things don’t turn out how you hoped doesn’t mean you didn’t make the right decision at the time with the information that was available.
Too often we judge past actions only through the lens of hindsight. It’s useful for learning what went wrong but it’s not useful for judging if something was the right decision or not.
I agree but that’s what I’m failing to understand. How does hurting the working class a tiny bit and making their lives harder do anything to stop Putin? Clearly the founder of Lush doesn’t and didn’t feel like it was the right decision at the time. It also not having the intended effect seems like a confirmation that it wasn’t the right decision rather than an indictment.
Bowing to public pressure doesn’t make the public right. If anything, it’s virtue signaling to keep your customer base instead of it being the right thing to do.
It was all part of an effort to economically hurt Russia in response to the war.
Best case scenario was Russia deciding the hit to their economy was not worth the war and back pedaling. No one realistically thought this was going to happen though.
The next best case scenario was for the changes in quality of life for the average Russian would create enough internal pressure that the war would be called off.
This hasn’t happened yet but internal support for the war has been dropping over the last year and some of that is attributed to the dismal state of the Russian economy, which is a direct result of things like Lush pulling out.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/02/russians-support-of-ukraine-war-collapses-finds-poll
And even if neither of these come up fruition, the more Russias economy is damaged the harder it is to fund their war effort. This gives Ukraine a bit more breathing room in their war effort.
While the effect of a single company like Lush is unnoticed, it’s the collective effect of everything from these pullouts, to trade sanctions and other soft power diplomatic plays which total up to a noticable effect.
With respect, do you really trust poll numbers in a country where speaking out against the war will get you jailed or killed?
If anything, that supports the idea that the poll numbers should be even harder against the war than they are reported.
That makes the drop in people saying they’re pro-war more significant, not less.
Yeah but that’s what sanctions are. It’s not really possible to have convenient sanctions. How would that work.
Sanctions are typically the acts of a government state not the actions of a business. Businesses have to comply with them but only if they’re bound by them. That wasn’t the case here. Lush did this based on public outcry, not sanctions.
And at the end of the day if that interpretation is true, your essentially saying ‘bad fucking luck’ to all the Russians who lost their jobs while living in a country perpetrating a war that if they speak out against, they’ll be jailed at best.
You’re right, there’s no convenient sanctions but if that’s really what old mate Lush is saying, he’s got a point.
i mean, this is one way to win a war. the other is with bombs and death. Russia chose to enter this war, it shouldn’t be surprised when it affects its citizens.
no one should get to keep their war over seas and out of their own borders.
imagine a future where we could stop wars by just taking people’s jobs…
Well, killing people using economy seems more humane than killing people using bombs, so I have to agree
Yes… I think that’s exactly what he’s saying.
Uhhuh and I was showing my dislike of that. It’s good you can follow the conversation.
Wow. You’re fun.
A cosmetics manufacturer alone? No.
All western companies leaving however can make an economic hit that will benefit Ukraine.
As for the Russians? They can revolt or do something, otherwise they suffer. Who cares about them.
They suffer if they revolt too.
Judging by your name, you’re an Aussie and I’ve got to say, disappointed in your complete writing off of the entire Russian population. How the fuck is some young girl working at Lush supporting Putin or deserving of suffering if they don’t revolt?
Her taxes directly support the war. It’s not as easy as people are good and bad. Good people can be in bad situations. Sanctions are supposed to hurt all people. That’s how they work. It’s seen as a lesser evil, rather than a good. They are damaging for both sides.
deleted by creator
Why are you commenting this to me? I’m the one that pointed out that the parent’s interpretation of the story was wrong in the first place.
If stopping Putin from being in government is the only fix, the only possible action anyone could take would be ending Putin. Anything else would be useless.
It isn’t though, non-offensive actions have effects too.
That assumes that Russia has fair elections where voting would make a difference…
What non-offensive action could Lush’s production partner take that would make any difference?
They could just pff putin, no one would be offended.
That would have both a more immediate and impactful effect than…checks notes… stopping luxury soap production…
good points, thank you.
I’ll take an honest cunt over a deceitful cunt any day of the week.
I think the article paints a pretty good portrait of a complicated but socially responsible business owner, even though I do think pulling out of Russia was the right thing to do even if it wasn’t what he would’ve chosen.
That’s the name of the game with carotidien. Profits at all costs.
And some people still say that the customers are helpless and calling for boycott doesn’t work…
If people would demand other industries to be more in line with their moral values (like about climate change) that could also change a lot