this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
567 points (99.0% liked)

News

23628 readers
2954 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that parent company Unilever has silenced its attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees, and threatened to dismantle its board and sue its members over the issue.

The lawsuit is the latest sign of the long-simmering tensions between Ben & Jerry’s and consumer products maker Unilever. A rift erupted between the two in 2021 after Ben & Jerry’s said it would stop selling its products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank because it was inconsistent with its values, a move that led some to divest Unilever shares.

The ice cream maker then sued Unilever for selling its business in Israel to its licensee there, which allowed marketing in the West Bank and Israel to continue. That lawsuit was settled in 2022.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 143 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If they didn't sell out to a corporation they wouldn't be getting orders from the corporation.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 56 points 1 month ago

I was thinking this was a bit leopards ate my face.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago

Yeah the fuckers sold out. B&J quality has been in the shitter ever since. Yeah they still sell pint sizes but I fully expect them to fuck with that too.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

It was a hostile takeover. One of the original founders tried to prevent it from happening.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 95 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unilever-never-left-russia Unilever? Unilever the piece of shit fascist toadies Unilver? That one?

Huh.

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 month ago

The same Unilever known for abusing caged dogs while testing products on them?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 64 points 1 month ago

Surprise! Corporate leftism is a lie!

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 51 points 1 month ago

If you want to keep a say over the political stances of your own company, the best way to do that is to [checks notes] sell it to Unilever

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Something tells me they'll go scorched earth.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ben and Jerry's shuts down: says america no longer deserves ice cream.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can’t wait for the independent-owned cohen and greenfields ice cream

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Jen and Berry's

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Boycott Unilever. Ironically that includes Ben & Jerry's until they manage to break free from Unilever.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

I have been for a while now because they're still operating in Russia. Fuck 'em.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know they make more than just cleaning products, but I always associate Unilever with soap, so whenever I see any food brand who has them as a parent I immediately thing their food tastes like soap.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Unilever is a conglomerate, much like Nestle, and has brands under many different types of products.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A better functioning government would break up these conglomerates as they operate like cartels, price fixing and gouging and colluding with each other, all at consumer expense, while simultaneously watering down product offerings to their worst versions.

This is NOT the free market.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What are you talking about, this is the natural conclusion of a free market.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sure, sans regulation. The point of govt regulations is to ensure that platforms that control two sided markets are not given complete largesse to fleece the participants. It's ultimately a defeating strategy with diminishing returns, as both producers and consumers lack the necessary surplus required to participate AND to invest/reinvest resources toward long term growth. Another reason that stock buy-backs used to be illegal.

And obviously you can probably guess I believe they should be illegal again.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I completely agree with you that the results (monopolies and oligopolies) are undesirable, and you're doing a great job of explaining why the results are undesirable. But you're not explaining why you think monopolies and oligopolies are not the natural outcome of a free market. The free market is not a good thing.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I agreed that they are the natural outcome, in the absence of effective regulation. Sans means without.

Capitalism inherently concentrates wealth, and as wealth concentrates, it builds upon itself while seeking out novel opportunities to deepen influence. We see this phenomenon in modern economic scenarios as individuals gain the ability to co-opt political forces, and create larger and larger wealth watersheds.

In other words, the existence of billionaires is a symptom of a broken system- one that has NOT effectively been regulated. They become monopolistic entities unto themselves. Billionaire brands then gain further leverage via network effects, creating a snowball that only government intervention can safely defuse. It doesn't matter if one billionaire is "good," nor one politician. As Edwards Deming famously said, "a bad system will beat a good person, every time."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You mean to say there's only a few mega corporations controlling all of capitalism? Who would have thunk!? /s

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

If only someone had warned us in 1867, 1885, and 1894!

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Yup, like I said I know they have more than cleaning products but i always associate them with soap.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Looks like I’ll never get to taste Chunky Gaza Green Tea Genocide…thanks a lot Unilever

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Such a shame! Dairy Free Darfur Durian was one of their best flavors!

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

B&G have a good chance of coming out of this stronger than ever and with bigger profits. If Gaza was so bad that people could not bring themselves to elect a VP (who has no say in anything in the administration does) to the presidency, hopefully those people are gonna go full blown diabetic eating all their fucking ice cream for the next 4+ years.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You think way way way too much of voters if you think Gaza lost her the election. Pardon me if I'm completely misconstruing your comment.

[–] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There were certainly votes lost in Michigan over Gaza, but even if every single Jill Stein vote was a protest vote (they weren't), it wouldn't have been enough for Harris to carry the state.

The tougher thing to parse is the reason why so many voters seemingly stayed home this cycle. I think there is a very reasonable argument that not enough people were excited about her message, even the base.

It's a lot easier for door knockers, phone bankers, and everyday democrats to talk proudly about their candidate if they can rattle off a list of great things their candidate will do. It's even easier if those great things hit people where they're hurting the hardest or is the moral thing to do (healthcare for the uninsured, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). It's a lot tougher to get low propensity voters to show up on the harm reduction argument alone, especially if you brush past where they're hurting or concede too much ground on your moral positions.

The biggest issue for most voters appears to have been inflation and the economy, and while democrats were technically correct to say the rate of inflation has come down and American economic indicators outperformed most other countries in this post-pandemic period, that's all pretty meaningless to someone whose real wage growth didn't keep up with inflation these past few years. The "opportunity economy" and targeted small business tax cuts is a much tougher sell to someone working two+ jobs to get by.

The other issue that dominated the media was immigration. Democrats forfeited their moral position when they offered the republican wishlist border bill earlier this year. The argument that republicans weren't serious on the border because they didn't support the bill fell flat, and instead democrats were (rightly) criticized for abandoning their framing of the issue as a choice between deportation and amnesty, and their previous claims the border wall was racist.

All of that to say, democrats failed to connect with their own base on the issues that make them the party's best messengers. Add Gaza to the list of issues where Harris could have pivoted away from Biden, instead of running into the arms of the Cheneys to chase the mythical moderate republican voter.

[–] SoJB@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It’s incredible how transparently you’re admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Although if liberals knew why they lost, they’d be too intelligent to be liberals.

p.s “B&G” is a different company, bud.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

Bem & Georrey

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Problem is that Ben &Jerry's is still owned by Unilever. Supporting them means profits for Unilever which supports Israel. It is extremely paradoxical.

load more comments
view more: next ›