Correct.

Ideally that corporation would go woke go broke

If not, its one thing to be influenced by Mao telling you to submit or die, its another to be influenced by some mandatory seminars and subliminal ads.

Gucci, for example, hasn't seen a major decline in profits, yet they recently launched an ad campaign whose central idea was "gender-fluidity".

If people gave it a second thought they wouldnt be influenced

Either that or they want to be influenced for another reason

The average person isn't culturally conservative, so it's not like they care if Google promotes globo-homo.

You cant outlegislate ignorance. If you can combat it at all, its through the community

The objective wouldn't be to out-legislate apathy. It would be to prevent companies from pushing destructive cultural changes.

Too idealistic for today's government, obviously, but a conservative culture is superior to a liberal one.

sperm banks are degenerate and need to be banned, change my mind

If the PEOPLE cant be trusted with preventing companies from destroying culture, what makes you think outsourcing that responsibility to the government is any safer? If people are apathetic the govt will use that power to corrupt culture as well

And how so?

By pushing open borders?

oh shit yall are actually having a intellectual debate nvm

Sperm Banks should be considered child abuse actually

Unless you are married

A company has economic reasons for pushing degenerate liberal things, because consumerism and open-borders generate huge profits.

Putting a kid in a scenario without a father is so beyond fucked

Imagine being that selfish

I do agree, to an extent, that a government could be culturally destructive, like in China.

A govt need only keep corporate interests domestic, not control the attitudes that make corporations capable of pursuing certain things

you know what caused companies to become so evil

at least partially

Making them legally have to maximize profits

if they aren't fully owned by one person

I'm not advocating for a general or vague cultural filter, I'm advocating for a specific ban on certain destructive things.

It's possible, like with smoking for example.

We stopped smoking ads, and it had an effect on # of smokers.

Hard disagree. Theyre not always maximizing profits anymore anyway, they pursue personal agendas. Soros is technically influencing them as a person, much like we have the power to do in the aggregate.

I mean, their personal agenda barely costs them a fraction of their total profits.

They have money to spare, especially to influence the nation.

Well ChrisTiam, i hope someday a govt doesnt decide conservatism or gun ownership are "destructive" habits that need to be banned.

Like I said, specific bans on the ability to PUSH habits, not the habits themselves.

Whats common sense for me is not common sense for another. Lets sort it out as a community, not enforced under punishment of law

Like it or not, half the nation would find you destructive. You dont want to give the govt the power to act on that sentiment right now

Heck, a solid quarter wouldnt mind to see you dead

"Its not illegal to own a gun, but advocating gun ownership is pushing a dangerous habit, ban it"

A generation later, guns are banned anyway

The government would be able to do that now if Democrats had complete control.

The reason why this hasn't been done is because of plurality.