Almost every proxy vote form I've filled out in the past month has had social just crap in it.
"report on our sexual harassment training results"
"spend oney doing a study to see if we're diverse enough"
blah blah blah

Anyone else seeing a lot of that crap in their investments?

You precious child.

You haven't heard of Larry Fink's ESG or DEI yet?

Comes from Black Rock and friends.

George Soros is a total distraction - a tiny spec of sand in a large beach - compared to BlackRock.

A few institutional investors are really pushing this. They have enough stock to push these issues onto the ballot.

The companies are walking a fine line. They don’t want it, but if they push back too hard, they will get blackballed from the ESG crowd. Having major hedge funds drop millions of $$& worth of stock is painful. Thankfully a lot of this has ended up in the annual stockholders meeting/voting and much of it hasn’t been successful.

gun control is up next. hogg and his band of traitors pushed this hard on blackrock and vanguard a few years ago.

Check out Amazons vote recommendations...its like they know the monster they gave birth to will destroy them in the end.

ESG isn't about what the companies are right now, it's about getting board members and exec management and shareholder initiatives in place to change the company.

Don't look at it as it is right now, look at who's in control and what their ideas are for what it will look like 10 years from now.

More social justice crap and more enviro nonsense, and less whitey.

Nope.

I would say vote against all of it, except I did find by carefully reading the proxy statements that there was a group putting up for vote a requirement to report on how D & I / ESG was affecting the bottom line. It was a bit of a subversive push back against "wokeism" that I would approve of.

It requires an investment of time but I try to read through those shareholder proposals to decide to vote for or against. Usually it winds up being crap that needs to be voted down but occasionally you find some that aren't quite what they seem, they are just worded poorly or the company is hoping you'll just see a few key words and vote "against" like the recommend.

I also try to read the bio's for the board candidates and vote against anyone that seems to be 'coasting' or an obvious 'meeting the numbers' type.

For the hell of it sometimes I just vote against everything.

good point
I don't remember seeing anything like that so far this year but I think in the past I've seen things that when reading the details are actually the opposite of what the title summary makes it look like