Cards Against Humanity Drops Box Supplier Over Tea Party Affiliation

[Sarge034]

Cards Against Humanity self-describes as a game that is "as despicable and awkward as you and your friends."

Unless you are of an opposing political position. At which case, "Fuck you. You are far more despicable than us."

I wasn't aware that asking people to boycott a company based on the CEO's political beliefs constituted a threat from a protected class. If he wanted to stick it out he was welcome to. Clearly the board didn't like the attention his beliefs and actions garnered.

Technically, from a business law perspective, if the CEO was forced out over the outrage at his political beliefs he was in fact terminated on the bases of political affiliation. That is a huge "no no". That is the legal grey area, everything else is the moral grey area. Is it right to make an entire company suffer, one that employs many liberal and LGBT people I might add, just because you don't like the personal opinions of one man? I don't know, but I do know if the liberal agenda was being targeted in this manner there would be much more of an outcry. So armed with this knowledge I call most people involved with this hypocrites.

 

[josh4president]

So because this company is headed by a white, heterosexual male with different political beliefs than the white, heterosexual male who heads the other company, the second company will not be using the boxes provided by the first company?

His right, I suppose. Just don't see what the big deal is.

Hooray for Free Market economics?

 

[dyre]

I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

If you don't want to give money to people who will turn around and give money to fight for causes you don't believe in or find morally reprehensible, then it's not stupid at all. And don't even kid yourself into thinking that that isn't something that happens when you willingly do business with and give your money to people with beliefs you don't agree with.

Whenever possible, people should be voting with their wallets and letting people know why. Money is about the only thing corporate assholes understand.

When applying retributive justice, one must consider not merely proportionality, but also accuracy. If I punch you in the face, it is arguably appropriate for you to punch me in the face as a proportional response, right? However, if I punch you in the face, it is not appropriate for you to punch your cousin in the face. That may be proportional (one punch for one punch), but it is not an accurate response; it was not delivered to the offender.

When "punishing" an offender for promoting bigoted legislation, the same theory applies. Depriving the offender of money as a punishment for misusing money (for lobbying, etc) is proportional. Depriving a company (which represents the well being of thousands of blameless employees) of money to punish a single individual's offense is inaccurate and results in innocent parties being harmed.

Furthermore, it demands action from the company that is out of the scope of its ability and/or responsibility. Going back to the fistfight analogy, your cousin is not responsible for my actions, and thus it is not his responsibility to correct them. Punching him therefore morally misdirected.

 

[Kuredan]

Number of people referencing 1984 without understanding 1984: 141550678+1

Actually, I have read 1984 more than once, so no need to be glib. I also understand what thoughtcrimes and crimethink refer to in the book. You'll notice I didn't refer to an action from a government or to a suppression of thought by an authority, so why assert that this was my meaning? If you think the definition ends there, that's fine. I do not. I believe that any time a person is discriminated against based on their espoused beliefs and not their demonstrated actions, it is a crime against their thought or at the least, a thought-based discrimination. I hate the National Socialist party for all that they have done in history, I hate -isms in all their varied forms. But so long as they do not act on their espoused beliefs, they are allowed to have them. To boycott them based on their beliefs is fine as I have said, but to discount their abilities and call for their dismissal based on those beliefs I think is going too far; you would have to show that those beliefs impede their function at their job. It's an attempt to assert a measure of control over the world where by you don't have to be confronted with anyone who disagrees with you or indeed any intellectual undesirables. This view is mirror in the opposition, just for far more inane reasons. Both are example of snobbery and reflect a fear of the Other.

Also I wasn't affirming that people are literally stopping others from using a business. What I should have clarified or said instead is that people are using de facto boycotts, instigating others to do the same, and launching campaigns to stop what they perceive as wrong thought. It's their right to do so, but I disagree. Those who take up these causes are in some cases just as extreme as those they oppose. I have literally been told that I cannot be a supporter of Gay Rights because I like to eat the occasional Chik Fil A or because I like the book Ender's Game or for any number of boycotts I have not engaged in. I expected this sort of garbage from one side of the spectrum so it surprised me to find that I was experiencing it not for opposing their stance, but for not supporting it enough I still support gay rights in my politics and in my life, despite eating a hated chik'n nugget or two. The whole culture of us vs. them from any side is (obviously) divisive and not conducive to a truly civil society; we need to find commonalities and neutral ground, not retreat to our perspective towers and snipe at one another. That is why I balk when anyone, through their words or actions make it clear that if I am not with them, I am against them. I may be wrong, but this is what I believe leads to a more tolerant and accepting society, something for which people groups have striven for millennia.

You have every right to act in accordance with the law. Boycott everything if it makes you happy. But I have just as much right to criticize that decision. You may rebut it, you may refute it, I may recant it, but you cannot refuse it.

 

[Necrofudge]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

He wants to run his business in a way that lines up with his personal beliefs, and that's more important to him than just making money. What's stupid about that?

 

[Brockyman]

I wasn't sure how to feel about the whole Mozilla ordeal, but this is much more straightforward. It's the right of any individual to do business with whoever they please, or not, for whatever reason pleases them, so good for Mr. Temkin.

For my part, I agree with him. The tea party is up there with Libertarianism and Objectivism as a political movement whose appeal is completely lost on me.

I mostly agree with your first comment. People do have the right to do business with who they want, when they want (something libertarians, conservatives, and objectivists would agree with you over most liberals). But the way this was done seems a little more like "taking my ball and going home".

Here is some things to think about:

-A CEO doesn't OWN a company or set a companies social policies, they are basically a manager. How many people that may or may not share CAH's political beliefs maybe out of a job because one guy doesn't agree with the politics of another guy. If the company was privately owned and made direct contributions, I can see it, but this is irresponsible at best. Same thing with Mozilla. Would you avoid a resturant or grocery store b/c a member of management was a republican?

-Would he do business with Jesse Jackson Jr. or Jim Trafficant Anthony Weiner,or Leeland Yee who share his political beliefs but were disciplined for wire/mail fraud and campaign issues; financial corruption; being a lying piece of crap; and an arms trafficer respectfully.

(Side Note: I believe in gay marriage, but equating people that don't believe to the same level as a racist/Nazi/Klan member/child rapist/crminal.... They have a religious belief, taught for hundereds of years that isn't going to go away overnight. Most are conflicted... they want others to be happy but are afraid for those peoples souls and their own... many times, it's not done out of hate, but a misguided sense of morality. People on that side should be educated and treated like people instead of attacked like a Klan member or those politicians)

I really don't see how limited government and more social freedom don't "appeal" to you. Libertarianism is basically the best of both worlds in politics, economically conservative and socially liberal.

The basic premise is the FEDERAL government has as little control over the lives of individuals and groups as possible, basically just boiled down to national defense, diplomacy with other nations, interstate transportation, and intervening when states have disputes while local/county/state governments do more (kinda how the Federal government was set up in the first place). Some go further saying there should be no social safety net and almost no Executive Offices, but most believe these can exist, but reformed and more efficent. One way to look at them is the guys that want to get rid of the red tape.

As far as "liberal" social issues (gay marriage, abortion) these would be non legal issues in a government that wouldn't be in the business of marrying people or making medical policy. It would also protect the privacy, religious freedom and rights of people that own their own business.

They also won't make you buy products you don't want (for more expensive prices), evesdrop on your phone calls, allow you to own things to protect your family and property, won't give money to big oil, gas or waste millions on Solyndra

I'm not as familiar with Objectivism but the little I do know is based on individual rights, but I don't know enough to support or reject it.

 

[dyre]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

He wants to run his business in a way that lines up with his personal beliefs, and that's more important to him than just making money. What's stupid about that?

What's stupid about punishing a collective of thousands of people over the perceived sins of one person, which by the way is totally outside the control and responsibility of most of the people being punished? Surely you jest!

 

[Brockyman]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

He wants to run his business in a way that lines up with his personal beliefs, and that's more important to him than just making money. What's stupid about that?

Depends... if he is hurting his employees, not paying his creditors, or doing other self destructive activities b/c it "lines up with his personal beliefs", then I will disagree.

This really isn't one of those situations, and a few posts above, I go into more detail about why I think this incident is kinda childish. In fact, companies like Apple do a good job of making tons of cash and doing what they think is right. I don't agree with their political stances on many things, but I love their products and I'm not going to go by a Galaxy 5 because Tim Cook is a liberal blowhard.

You have to put your politics in perspective. I can fight with you all day about the issues, but I'll still buy your product and have a drink with you, as long as you're a good person (or you/your company isn't like Hyrda or anything).

It's call maturity Something that's taken me awhile to develop and people desperately need. Instead of fighting about a few political issues, or what gaming system is better, or how someone feels about micro transactions, just discuss and move on

 

[Brendan Davis]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

He wants to run his business in a way that lines up with his personal beliefs, and that's more important to him than just making money. What's stupid about that?

What's stupid about punishing a collective of thousands of people over the perceived sins of one person, which by the way is totally outside the control and responsibility of most of the people being punished? Surely you jest!

Then every business decision in the history of the planet is stupid by definition. Some people benefit and some people are not given the benefit of the deal. The simple truth is that the business owner is not withdrawing from the market, but putting his money where he believes it has greater value. People will be hired at the new firm, possibly the people who lose their jobs at the old firm because there is no training costs. The impact on the workforce is negligible, and it helps to reign in the power of those with money. I applaud the business owner for making a business decision based on information that he has obtained.

 

[Brockyman]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

He wants to run his business in a way that lines up with his personal beliefs, and that's more important to him than just making money. What's stupid about that?

What's stupid about punishing a collective of thousands of people over the perceived sins of one person, which by the way is totally outside the control and responsibility of most of the people being punished? Surely you jest!

Then every business decision in the history of the planet is stupid by definition. Some people benefit and some people are not given the benefit of the deal. The simple truth is that the business owner is not withdrawing from the market, but putting his money where he believes it has greater value. People will be hired at the new firm, possibly the people who lose their jobs at the old firm because there is no training costs. The impact on the workforce is negligible, and it helps to reign in the power of those with money. I applaud the business owner for making a business decision based on information that he has obtained.

I see where you're going with this, and while you thought parts of it out, there are many holes in your theory.

1. "history" No, the guy above you's comment doesn't make every business decision stupid. If CAH left for another firm for cost, quality, location, or business related issues, I agree with you. However, as I state in my response to "Balladbird" (please read b/c I don't want to retype all that), a CEO doesn't make policy nor does he own the company.

2. "workforce" You make a lot of assumptions here... like the firms are near each other, no training costs, ect. The firms could be thousands of miles away or use completely different machines and process that would require training.

3. "power of money" You kinda let your liberal flag fly there after a pretty shrewd business like analysis. The statement really doesn't make sense in the context. The firm didn't have the same stance (if any) as an employee of it.

4. "information" Please read my response to Nercofudge about maturity and working with people you may disagree with. This is the same kind of crap that makes people send death threats to the team and their families of Occulus Rift for making a lucrative sale to Facebook; or Call of Duty developers for nerfing a sniper rifle; or calling a girl horrible names for being a girl. It's all in the same vein. Learn to live and work with people that don't agree instead of taking your ball and going home

 

[Muchashca]

My only curiosity is why people prefer one flavor of discrimination to another. Had Tempkin dropped the business deal with Uline for having a black CEO, this forum would be up in arms. Aren't discrimination of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political orientation, sexual orientation, or religion all discrimination?

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

My only curiosity is why people prefer one flavor of discrimination to another. Had Tempkin dropped the business deal with Uline for having a black CEO, this forum would be up in arms. Aren't discrimination of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political orientation, sexual orientation, or religion all discrimination?

No. You're just being silly, because discrimination against you doesn't count if you happen to be male, straight, white, religious, or hold conservative views. Then you're automatically part of the "power structure" even if you're working your ass off sixty hours a week at a job you hate or run a small business that needs every client it can get. Or are trying to get into college with average or above average grades. That's the world we're living in, and that's just how things work. And if you bring it up, you'll get dogpiled for your trouble, as you and I probably will for our "controversial" posts.

 

[JimB]

Aren't discrimination of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political orientation, sexual orientation, or religion all discrimination?

Yes, but now we have to ask you to define "discrimination" such that it applies to one individual not wanting to give money to another individual who has repeatedly proven he will spend that money on political actions the first individual does not and cannot support.

 

[Brendan Davis]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the CEO of a large packing company isn't going to lose sleep about losing the business of some small start-up card game company.

It seems Temkin's company is probably a small business/partnership, which is to say he doesn't have investors to be responsible for, which is to say it's probably fine that he runs his business however he wants, even against his financial interests. I must say though, this whole "boycott your company due to your private beliefs" thing is pretty stupid.

He wants to run his business in a way that lines up with his personal beliefs, and that's more important to him than just making money. What's stupid about that?

What's stupid about punishing a collective of thousands of people over the perceived sins of one person, which by the way is totally outside the control and responsibility of most of the people being punished? Surely you jest!

Then every business decision in the history of the planet is stupid by definition. Some people benefit and some people are not given the benefit of the deal. The simple truth is that the business owner is not withdrawing from the market, but putting his money where he believes it has greater value. People will be hired at the new firm, possibly the people who lose their jobs at the old firm because there is no training costs. The impact on the workforce is negligible, and it helps to reign in the power of those with money. I applaud the business owner for making a business decision based on information that he has obtained.

I see where you're going with this, and while you thought parts of it out, there are many holes in your theory.

1. "history" No, the guy above you's comment doesn't make every business decision stupid. If CAH left for another firm for cost, quality, location, or business related issues, I agree with you. However, as I state in my response to "Balladbird" (please read b/c I don't want to retype all that), a CEO doesn't make policy nor does he own the company.

2. "workforce" You make a lot of assumptions here... like the firms are near each other, no training costs, ect. The firms could be thousands of miles away or use completely different machines and process that would require training.

3. "power of money" You kinda let your liberal flag fly there after a pretty shrewd business like analysis. The statement really doesn't make sense in the context. The firm didn't have the same stance (if any) as an employee of it.

4. "information" Please read my response to Nercofudge about maturity and working with people you may disagree with. This is the same kind of crap that makes people send death threats to the team and their families of Occulus Rift for making a lucrative sale to Facebook; or Call of Duty developers for nerfing a sniper rifle; or calling a girl horrible names for being a girl. It's all in the same vein. Learn to live and work with people that don't agree instead of taking your ball and going home

1. It was hyperbole, but I do appreciate the catch.

2. I admit I do not have perfect information and must make assumptions. The crux of my argument is that the marketplace is no better or worse off. (It could be argued either way, I elect to take a neutral stance.)

3. I don't know if trying to prevent an oligarchy from forming in the United States is liberal or not. I am not a political theorist.

4. I agree wholeheartedly we must be mature, I apologize if I strike you as being immature. Rest assured, no death threats will ever be made by me. I do believe that he is not taking his ball and going home, but making the business decision he would have made had he more information. Alas, perfect information is currently an impossibility and that is a terrible loss for the free market.

5. The numbering system and headings are brilliant, and I will take your idea and copy it in the future.

 

[dyre]

What's stupid about punishing a collective of thousands of people over the perceived sins of one person, which by the way is totally outside the control and responsibility of most of the people being punished? Surely you jest!

Then every business decision in the history of the planet is stupid by definition. Some people benefit and some people are not given the benefit of the deal. The simple truth is that the business owner is not withdrawing from the market, but putting his money where he believes it has greater value. People will be hired at the new firm, possibly the people who lose their jobs at the old firm because there is no training costs. The impact on the workforce is negligible, and it helps to reign in the power of those with money. I applaud the business owner for making a business decision based on information that he has obtained.

No offense, but that's a fairly weak series of points and it's literally your first post so I don't feel I have an obligation to duke it out with you over this argument which I was having with someone else. Also, I'm rather tired. Actually, that's pretty much the main reason I'm closing this argument (as well as a few others I've been having throughout today).

I guess I'll just say, if those are your beliefs, fine, more power to you.

 

[Karadalis]

So its okay for gamers to "vote with their wallets"

But not for someone who owns a company...

The double morale with some people here is mind baffling.

Look if you found out that the company you have been doing business with is supporting japanese whale hunters with money would you still do business with them?

Aparantly the tea party goes against the dudes political believes. Its his right to choose who he does business with for whatever reason.

There are contracts for a reason and if his contract allowed him to simply switch companies then thats a matter between the two of them and no one elses business.

However yeah.. this is pretty much a publicity stunt because i bet no one would have noticed a change in boxing the cards come in anyways.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Not a huge deal in the scheme of things. That said, things worked out for the guy and it doesn't affect buyers of CAH so all power to him for choosing to be with a supplier that he's comfortable working with.

For those crying "discrimination," I think you need to think about it from the guy's point of view. Say you do what he does, right? You send out a fun little card game out to people through a supplier. Easy. But if your supplier funds a political party you unequivocally do not support, you're well within well rights to do business with a different company. Again, it's about being comfortable with who you do business with. It's not like he's stopped working with them for having particular view; it's the funding part that he's clearly not comfortable with. And I mean it's not like he doesn't like the Tea Party for something trivial - it's almost certainly a conflict on multiple levels on various ideas and/or issues.

Also, the guy associated with the Tea Party does seem... well, I'll just say I can really understand why he doesn't want to be associated with him.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

My only curiosity is why people prefer one flavor of discrimination to another. Had Tempkin dropped the business deal with Uline for having a black CEO, this forum would be up in arms. Aren't discrimination of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political orientation, sexual orientation, or religion all discrimination?

There is a difference between refusing to do business with someone based on what they are (race/gender/sexual orientation/nationality, etc) and refusing to do business with someone based on what they do (supporting causes that you may find morally repugnant, etc).

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Well, that's cool I guess. Does anyone care who their box supplier is? I mean, were they gonna lose business because of their box supplier? I say that if it will, then by all means, change suppliers. But if you are choosing a company based solely on the owners want to donate their own private money to whichever organization they want, that seems stupid to me. But you have the right to do business with whoever you choose. No one can deny that.

This is where I have a problem with this whole thing. I agree, that you should have the right to do business with whomever you choose... however, if THIS is acceptable, then why is it NOT acceptable for a private business owner to choose not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if it goes against their religious beliefs? This is where you start to see hypocrits abound, and is one of the biggest problems with hard left liberals, who think that its ok, ONLY if it applies to their way. Either the road goes both ways, or it doesnt go at all.

 

[tangoprime]

It's a hell of a good bit of publicity for Cards of Humanity, though.

Just looks like a standard marketing tactic to me, and it makes perfect sense.

And right here, we've found the real point. Very possibly the point of the OKCupid thing too. Marketing.