Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 841 posts

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#521

Post by throw_m239339 »

karpierz wrote: post #17
johncena33 wrote: post #2

I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics. Because once you set a precedence then people will use that as to push their own political agendas. I personally don't like the slippery slope argument since it's very lazy and justifies inaction in many cases. But at the same time when I see news like this, I just wonder how long it will take two different subgroups trying push their own confl…

This isn't people pushing their own political agenda; this is a consequence of the political stance they took. When a company takes a political stance, they should be held accountable for it.

And that's exactly why most business don't(use not to) take public activist stances at first place, rightfully so.

Although right now since everybody is afraid to get cancelled on a whim, corporations are opening themselves to, and you are right in your logic, criticism for their lack of political activism.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#522

Post by [deleted] »

nordsieck wrote: post #42
Kinrany wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slopes are not always a fallacy, roughly the same way appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-...

> appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Sure it is. The point of the fallacy is that an argument should stand on its own merit, and has nothing to do with the person making it. Guess what - experts can be wrong too (e.g. hand washing).

[deleted]

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#523

Post by sequoia »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #385
sequoia wrote: post #271

My question is not so much about ICE, who I personally feel would be reasonable to refuse to do business with in the current circumstance (caveat: I'm not an expert here and could be wrong). My question is about next "unethical" organization that GitHub has a contract with, and the next and the next after that. Do employees have veto power on revenue-generating contracts, generally? Or is ICE an exceptional case? Sho…

Slippery slope is a logical “fallacy”, just like ad hominems or mistaking correlation with causation, to name two examples that, for reasons escaping me, are pointed out incessantly on HN while the former rarely is.

I'm not clear where slippery slope ends and generalizing a question such as "how does GH/MSFT determine who to do business with?" or putting a decision into context begins. I don't see this as being at "the top of a slope" as much as already being on the slope. This was not an isolated request, from TFA: "At Microsoft-owned GitHub, the parent company’s concession only served to reinvigorate internal opposition to a controversial contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement." So this is not a one-off question, the question of ICE is already part of a sequence of demands/concessions.

To use a metaphor, Alice: give me a dollar; Bob: OK here's a dollar; Alice: Thanks but now I need five dollars; Bob: are you just going to ask me for $10 next? Where does this end? Alice: Aha! That's a slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope says “if you do A then it will lead to B and eventually Z.” At the moment, we’re not at “A” we’re already at “B,” so I think asking about the rest of the sequence is reasonable.

If management is making concessions to satisfy the workforce's sense of ethics, I think it's reasonable for management to say "OK, after this concession will your sense of ethics be satisfied for the time being? Or is this part of a larger package of demands, and if so what are they?"

To ask a party making concessions to not consider the context at all, the lead up or the implied consequences ("if you did X you'd be a hypocrite to not also do Y") is unreasonable.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#524

Post by exolymph »

o10449366 wrote: post #456
dnissley wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have a problem with their employer, and are being heard in the court of public opinion. Why is that "a bummer"? The court of public opinion doesn't have a good track record, for one. It's decisions are often based on fashion more than any kind of ethical principles. A classic exploration of this phenomenon is contained in the novel The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe.

I haven't read that book. Can you provide some examples supporting the claim that the "court of public opinion" doesn't have a good track record?

Lynchings.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#526

Post by syshum »

tsimionescu wrote: post #263
syshum wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I can't see how this helps improve immigration, In many ways it does the opposite, for reforms to work you need to build coalitions from all political segments of society, vilifying political opponents (the ones that believe in some kind of immigration control and do not support fully open borders) does not build that coalition that is need to fight the unethical and illegal acts. Instead it puts people on the def…

If you are in favor (or in the process) of putting large groups of people who have not directly harmed anyone in concentration camps, separating them from their families, keeping children in cages etc, THEN you are considered a racist authoritarian almost akin to mid 1940's Germany.

My position on immigration has been the same for decades.

1. All persons that are not a danger to others and can prove financial viability (i.e they have a job sponsorship, or other means of self support with out needing social welfare) should be allowed to immigrate on a temporary basis

2. The Immigration process should be limited to only establishment of ID to clear a person from known dangers (i.e medical, criminal or other things that pose a danger to the US population) and financial viability

3. Social Welfare programs should be limited to Citizens Only. Persons can apply for Citizenship after they have lived here for 3 yrs under the temporary immigration program.

As far as Separating a person from their family. We do that to citizens every day. If you break the law you will be separated from your family. That argument does not hold any weight with me, nor does it make a person a racist.

Do you believe people with children should be immune from criminal prosecution?

As to "keeping children in cages" I have been opposed to those programs for as long as they have existed, which is going on at least 3 different presidents now. Where were you when Obama as doing this? Or are you going to pretend that these ICE conditions just magically appeared under Trump like most democrats try to?

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#527

Post by moolcool »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #502
moolcool wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's obviously grey area, but a lot of comments in this thread come really close to the definition of complacency

I think many of the commenters would openly embrace the label of complacency. That's part of living in a country with a diversity of views; sometimes, when you see people doing something terrible, you have to accept that they don't see it that way rather than going on a warpath to exclude them from polite society.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#528

Post by eropple »

kuzimoto wrote: post #466
code_sloth wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The great thing about this, is that someone else will realize there is now an under-served market, and create a business to fulfill that need. Except that every other business can now refuse to serve that business services, because that business serves people nobody else likes. Given even time and systematic discrimination, that business owner and everyone they serve will be driven to destitution and cease to be a…

If this type of situation happens, I think these would be symptoms of a much larger issue. I think there will always be places that exist that help everyone. First in mind are churches, who often will help people even if the people they help have differing views.

Unless, say, they're trans, in which case plenty of those will turn them away.

At some point you will run down all these dead-end alleyways and you will realize that the perfect spheroid does not exist. For your moral sake I'd hope it's sooner than later.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#529

Post by jlokier »

oh_sigh wrote: post #279
Drakim wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal immigrants in the US are most certainly a minority group. It's not hyperbolic and unproductive, it's the plain truth, just like the Japanese concentration camps during WW2.

Criminals are also a minority group that are concentrated into prisons. Is that wrong too?

Prisons are similar to concentration camps, with a few differences. Usually you're in prison for a fixed term, with some rules around that, which is distinct from concentration camps. But rampant abuse, so much rape we joke about prison rape, unpaid labour, etc., it certainly looks a lot like a concentration camp.

Yes, it would be wrong if there was not a justified basis for it.

Whether there's a justified basis for interning all people formally labelled as criminals in the USA I'll leave as an exercise, because it's obviously complicated there. So many people are imprisoned in the USA compared with other countries that it seems reasonable to doubt whether it is all justified, or even smart for those who remain outside.

When it comes to interning people who have few choices in life and are doing nothing of significant harm except being somewhere, and in a significant fraction of cases they have been there since birth or near birth, I see no justice-based justification for that.

Immigration detention centres have many of the awful qualities of prison, but the inmates there have not been subject to due process, and do not have a fixed term to serve out. These are qualities that make them more like a concentration camp.

At best, you could say the detention is politically-based to a much greater degree than criminal justice. This is obvious because detention is based on bureaucracy, what mood an official is in when they make a decision, and a person's background which they cannot do anything about, rather than the higher standard of criminal due process based on personal behaviour and trained, scrutinised judges; and because changes of political direction and secondary legislation (i.e. regulations made by beaurocrats, rather than laws) significantly change who is rounded up and released.

So if it's not justified as a prison, and does not have the qualities we associate with justice, and is selecting people based on their background they can do nothing about.... yes, that makes it meet the definition of a concentration camp IMHO.

But we don't call them concentration camps because that's not a good look, due to association with gas chambers and death trains, which to be fair ICE is not known for. We call them detention centres and avoid thinking about what that really means for the people and their families. Which if you think about it, sounds familiar from history...

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#530

Post by VBprogrammer »

toby wrote: post #483
roenxi wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no way a retail business would be established to service the needs of 2% of the population Slow down there, you're going to need more evidence than that to claim that an underserved segment of the population isn't an attractive commercial target. I agree that wheelchair users might be comparatively expensive customers, but if that 2% stat is correct they would be profitable to someone. A business with 2% o…

Your argument from first-principles makes sense, but I just don't think a lot of us are comfortable living in a world where disabled people have to pay twice as much (or whatever the additional cost would be) for groceries. The fact that there's no movement to repeal the ADA would suggest most people feel that way.

Honestly, the alternative is just absurd. In this version of reality do employment protections still exist for disabled people or do they all magically earn there living in multilevel marketing from the comfort of their living rooms in their bespoke built homes (because most homes aren't build with accessibility in mind because the free market will fix that...).
Post reply on HN