• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          So because it didnt immediately and totally fix the problem theres no point to it? Is that the “argument” you’re making?

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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.

                • gmtom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    11
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yes, but no one has explained how the economy is harmed by harming individual Russians. If it’s not making a difference so far, how long do Russians who have nothing to do with the war suffer before we decide it’s a failed strategy? How long do Ukrainians suffer while we keep doing things that are not having an effect?

        • Kepabar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Kepabar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                With respect, do you really trust poll numbers in a country where speaking out against the war will get you jailed or killed?

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah but that’s what sanctions are. It’s not really possible to have convenient sanctions. How would that work.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • Woht24@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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…

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, killing people using economy seems more humane than killing people using bombs, so I have to agree

    • Quokka@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Woht24@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?

        • hitmyspot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            That would have both a more immediate and impactful effect than…checks notes… stopping luxury soap production…