1mo ago

Exclusive: Ben & Jerry's says parent Unilever silenced it over Gaza stance

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.

World News @beehaw.org

Ben & Jerry's says parent Unilever silenced it over Gaza stance

www.reuters.com /business/retail-consumer/ben-jerrys-says-parent-unilever-silenced-it-over-gaza-stance-2024-11-14/

87 5

You're viewing a single thread.

58 comments

things just got exponentially worse for everyone on the planet who isn't a billionaire, but anyway let's talk about ice cream company's problems
- Reducto ad absurdum
  
  This is no time for casting spells.
  
  Reducto ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy if that's what you're getting at. It's a very important logical tool that happens to be a Latin phrase with a similar cadence to Latin names of logical fallacies. People on the Internet mess this up all the time, and it's become a pet peeve of mine.
  I don't think OP is right--there's lots of different layers to issues like this that can be explored--but not because of that.
  
  Reducto ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy
  Not inherently, no, but it is when used fallaciously. Like in this case.
  Just like deliberate hyperbole is not a fallacy when used skillfully and transparently to underscore a point, it's the context and the delivery that decides whether something is a valid reducto ad absurdum argument or a reducto ad absurdum fallacy.
  In case you forgot while I was elaborating: this is a case of the latter.
  People on the Internet mess this up all the time
  Yeah, you're doing it right now.
  I don't think OP is right--there's lots of different layers to issues like this that can be explored--but not because of that
  You're sorta right about that: the way they expressed their wrongheaded opinion isn't the cause of them being wrong, merely a symptom.
  
  Not inherently, no, but it is when used fallaciously. Like in this case.
  It never is. There might be some other logical fallacy at play. Slippery slope is a common one in cases where people cite reducto ad absurdum. But why not cite the actual fallacy rather than the one that isn't a fallacy at all?
  Or maybe don't. Generally, logical fallacies are better used to pick apart your own arguments rather than tossing them in other people's faces.
  Just like deliberate hyperbole is not a fallacy when used skillfully and transparently to underscore a point, it’s the context and the delivery that decides whether something is a valid reducto ad absurdum argument or a reducto ad absurdum fallacy.
  Nope. There is no such thing as reducto ad absurdum fallacy. I challenge you to find a citation otherwise, because I can cite a lot of stuff that talks about its use as a tool of logic and does not mention fallacies what so ever, or does so only as part of connected information.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum - "In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction". The word "fallacy" does not even appear on the page except as a link to "See Also - Argument from fallacy".
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum - "reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), in logic, a form of refutation showing contradictory or absurd consequences following upon premises as a matter of logical necessity." Fallacies are only mentioned further down the page as connected information.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum - "1) disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion 2) the carrying of something to an absurd extreme" Again, no mention of fallacy. It's a tool to disprove something.
  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Reductio-ad-Absurdum - "A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy." Note that last sentence. Reducto ad absurdum is about exposing the fallacy, not creating one. This on a web site that's all about logical fallacies, and they ain't saying it's a fallacy.
  https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dnp/frege/reductio-ad-absurdum.html - "The Proof by Contradiction technique that we just described is a special case of a more general reasoning strategy called reductio ad absurdum. (Translate this literally as, “reduce to absurdity”.) We can use this more general strategy in everyday rhetoric as well as in mathematics". Again, no mention of fallacy.
  https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/69916/is-reductio-ad-absurdum-a-fallacy - Top level response explicitly says it's not a fallacy.
  Edit: a few more to pile on.
  https://www.quora.com/Which-type-of-fallacy-is-reductio-ad-absurdum-Whats-its-definition-example-how-it-works-in-real-life-situations - Top level response explicitly says it's not a fallacy.
  https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903 - "Like any argumentative strategy, reductio ad absurdum can be misused and abused, but in itself it is not a form of fallacious reasoning. A related form of argument, the slippery slope argument, takes reductio ad absurdum to an extreme and is often (but not always) fallacious. " Here again, the argument might be making a fallacy, but reducto ad absurdum is not it.
  
  You're fundamentally ignoring or misunderstanding what a fallacy is. Here's the dictionary definition:
  
  Note that, by any of those 3 definitions, the argument that it's absurd to take Ben & Jerry's freedom of speech seriously because Trump is a fallacy.
  Just likely a slippery slope argument is valid when a certain course of action legitimately leads to increasingly negative outcomes (such as for example treating Trump as a serious candidate in the first place in 2015), a usually valid argument technique is fallacious when used fallaciously.
  And in case you still believe that nothing can be a fallacy without having the word "fallacy" in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia, I invite you to look up "hyperbole" and "slippery slope" there.
  
  If they're guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that. Lumping in reducto ad absurdum takes away from a very powerful and useful tool of formal logic. Overloading the term makes understanding more fuzzy, not more clarifying.
  
  If they're guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that
  I JUST told you about how hyperbole and slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. Just like reducto ad absurdum arguments, they're fallacies when used fallaciously and otherwise NOT fallacies.
  Is that clear enough, or do you want me to Ask Figaro?
  
  Let's go back a few steps in the thread. The response was simply "Reducto ad absurdum" as if that explained it right there. Except, that's not itself a fallacy. It might be used in a fallacious way, but simply stating "Reducto ad absurdum" does not point out any fallacy what so ever.
  And that's my whole point. People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.
  
  So that's where you want the goal posts now?
  I specifically agreed that reducto ad absurdum isn't inherently a fallacy in the first sentence of my first reply to you.
  And that's my whole point
  It is now that your original point that "there's no such thing as a reducto ad absurdum fallacy" has been shot to pieces 🙄
  People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.
  That's the case with almost every tool of every kind that people have access to.
  Especially in the case of language, people are constantly using it wrong, and while I genuinely applaud your intention of projecting a useful tool from being dulled by misuse, the battle is an uphill one to begin with.
  Don't make it even worse by misstating your position and then defending that mistake like it's the Korean border.
  
  I said early on:
  There might be some other logical fallacy at play. Slippery slope is a common one in cases where people cite reducto ad absurdum. But why not cite the actual fallacy rather than the one that isn’t a fallacy at all?
  Yes, you can use reducto ad absurdum arguments in a fallacious way. That's true of literally any kind of argument, so it's pointless to say that. Point out the actual fallacy or don't.
- After reading this comment and the article, I feel there is actually some perspective hidden here that may need addressing.
  While a million dollars to most of us seems unobtainable, a billion dollars is still unobtainable to most millionaires. It's 1000x or 3 factors of 10 or however you wish to look at it. Huge difference. Nobody if offered either a million or a billion dollars would say there's no substantial difference.
  Google tells me Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are worth about $150 million each. That's a hell of a lot of money to be sure.
  Current market cap on Unilever is around $144 billion. One thousand times more than either Ben or Jerry.
  When we're in a time where some are starting to say even a million dollars is no longer a guaranteed good retirement savings, and when people with 150x that much are being silenced, maybe we also need to update our thoughts on the ongoing class warfare around the world.
  While most of us here have different realities than Ben and Jerry, their lives are drifting closer to ours than they are for the billionaire class. To me, that is a bit scary to think of. That's concentration of power to a much smaller group. About 1.1% of the world population, 59.4 million people, are millionaires, there are less than 3000 billionaires.
  When division is what is keeping us fighting each other instead of focusing on who is really calling the shots, I feel this is an important distinction to consider. Maybe getting pissed at millionaires has now become futile. The upside is it is easier to focus on 3000 people than 60 million. That isnt to say millionaires are also an issue, but it may no longer be the most pressing one.
  Open to your thoughts, I just think these numbers are pretty staggering.
- Oh really, how? I certainly haven't heard almost nothing but that news for the past few months. Oh shit it's only been a few days, it's going to be a long fucking four years isn't it.
  Anyway my point is it's ok to have a little other news, you know, as a treat. Kind of like how you should be having ice cream.
  
  Also, no one person should get to dictate what news is relevant.
  Someone who actually works for Unilever or is a Unilever supplier might not know about this and find it very relevant.
  
  It's news to me and I'm also upset now that Ben& Jerry's traditionally a fantastically protest full brand is being stopped in this one way. And also I didn't know that they were the Unilever brand, so that's new to me
  
  Exactly. I think it’s silly to assume people understand something just because you think everyone knows or it’s obvious.
  Not everyone knows and it’s not always obvious.
  
  it's ok to have a little other news, you know, as a treat. Kind of like how you should be having ice cream.
  How very 2024 that even these little other ice cream news are indirectly about the genocide in Gaza.
- For the US, definitely... But the rest of the world doesn't just stop happening because Donald Trump got elected.
  
  What do you mean rest of the world? There is only one that matters. bald eagle sounds assault rifles firing incoherent chanting in background
  
  Palestine, Ukraine, and Taiwan might stop happening.
  
  Yes. And this story is indirectly related to one of those.
  Trump's 2nd Term will definitely have knock-on effects to the rest of the world, but it isn't like the rest of the world stops.
  It's like back in the Covid Lockdowns - every other disease didn't just decide to take time off because of Covid being in the zeitgeist.

58 comments