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

591–600 of 841 posts

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

#591

Post by afiori »

abtinf wrote: post #190
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your choice of language by saying "concentration camps" is unproductively hyperbolic and reminiscent of Nazis killing Jews in WW2. People found to have been here illegally are being kept in detention centers until deportation or trial. Nobody is getting gassed or burned in ovens.

Merriam-Webster definition of concentration camp: “a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners” Japanese internment camps from WW2 easi…

But they are not supposed to _stay_ there; ICE job in this case is to either avoid them ending up there or letting them out.

The _concentration_ part is missing. Without condoning anything of whatever wrongdoing ICE is doing all the people detained decided personally to embark in a trip that involved that risk.

Concentration camps need to have a concept of raking up a chunk of the population and removing them from society, as in concentrating a part of the population. Prisons are more of a concentration camp than ICE detention centers.

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

#592

Post by kuzimoto »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #538
kuzimoto wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone can still get groceries without physically going into the store, is it still discrimination?

Honestly, if you can't see a hundred reasons why that isn't a fair way of treating people then their is no point in me trying to convince you.

I don't think it's fair. But I also believe that people should run their businesses how they see fit, and that freedom of association is a human right.

I bet most businesses would make their stores accessible (within reason) since you need room in isles for carts, etc.

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

#593

Post by craftyguy »

rattray wrote: post #513
takeda wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm happy that people are allowed to protest, but I don't think they should protest for causes that I don't agree with" "I think ICE needs reforms, but I don't believe a pressure should be put on them to impose changes" Makes me wonder if you truly support people protesting or even agree that ICE is doing anything wrong.

This just seems like a weird, ineffective way to put pressure on ICE to stop detaining people excessively, inhumanely, or lethally. Anger and outrage are valuable, and it's important that we channel them in the right directions.

> Anger and outrage are valuable, and it's important that we channel them in the right directions.

It's important to channel them in all directions that could have impact. You never know for sure which 'direction' matters to the group you are trying to impart change on.

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

#594

Post by Dirlewanger »

mtgp1000 wrote: post #82
mchanson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are going through a very strange and extreme period in US History. Corporations are a huge part of the political landscape. Of course workers who are powerful will demand things of their workplaces. All corporations are political. By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political. Now by reversing they would be changing sides. They were already in the political fray.

>All corporations are political This is a meaningless statement that people use to justify railroading their personal politics into everything. By making my services available to everyone equally I am emphatically not making a political statement. This same sentiment is effectively turning an increasing proportion of consumers away from entertainment media.

GitHub has banned repos that they don't like (not even talking about breaking ToS). It's not the same as refusing a paying customer, but it's close enough. They've already chosen to be political.

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

#595

Post by filleduchaos »

toasterlovin wrote: post #568
jakelazaroff wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that there is a distinction — albeit a blurry one — between concentration camps [0] and extermination camps [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp

In the U.S. context, concentration camp is used almost exclusively to refer to the extermination camps run by Nazis in World War II. I know not everyone on here is American, but that bit of information is useful for understanding why so many people make the association between concentration camps and the extermination of Jews in WWII. And it also explains why it is disingenuous of Americans to state that the US gover…

That's a very roundabout way to say "Americans have a comfortably whitewashed, frankly ignorant version of reality and everybody else should walk on eggshells to help them maintain it".

Concentration camps were not solely the purview of the Nazis, and already had quite the history before they even came on the scene. In fact, while we're on the topic of World War II, the US government held people of Japanese decent in concentration camps during that war - which perhaps partly explains there's such an aggressive effort to make those camps a "Nazi thing".

The rest of the world doesn't have any obligation to help you hide from facing and interrogating your own history.

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

#596

Post by kelnos »

diegoperini wrote: post #534
takeda wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO what actually needs to be done is tax on automation that would directly fund universal income. That would actually help humanity.

That kills the whole purpose of automation. Automation is preferable because it is supposed to be cheaper while providing equal benefits as traditional production of goods and services. My personal choice here would be a tax for practices that are provably automatable but not yet automated. The result is the same, we are funding a UBI but now businesses are also incentivized for innovation to escape from the tax. I'm…

> That kills the whole purpose of automation. Automation is preferable because it is supposed to be cheaper while providing equal benefits as traditional production of goods and services.

That's the capitalist enrich-the-owners purpose. In my mind, the real purpose of automation is to relieve humans the need to do work so they can live lives of leisure and personal enrichment. Unfortunately, I don't expect us to get there within my lifetime, if ever at all.

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

#597

Post by _-david-_ »

monocasa wrote: post #490
dnautics wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My claim is it didn't. You don't think black people were discriminated against in private locations well past the 1960s? What absolutely worked in the 1960s, was the banning of government REQUIRING segregation in private entities by law (which by the way, many companies absolutely chafed at, because quite frankly segregating your business is a cost-sinking pain in the ass to arrange and enforce). Nobody is disputing…

If that were the case, then de facto segregation wouldn't be increasing even to this day. Without the government enforcing segregation, people started separating themselves physically. Schools for instance are more segregated than they were in 1975. Segregation wasn't a case of the government pushing these ideas on to unwilling populace.

This could actually be because of forced busing of whites to black schools. Many parents want to send their kid to the best school and were willing to move to avoid their kids going to worse schools.

White parents were more likely to be able to afford to move which resulted in them leaving. Minorities tended to be poorer and could not leave and stayed in the areas with the worse schools. Kids who go to worse schools are less likely to get out of poverty so they stayed in the same poor areas and had kids in the same area repeating the cycle.

Since schools are typically given money based on property tax it meant that the schools in poor areas tended to receive less funding. There are also issues with teachers getting lower pay if they were in a poorer school. I think these issues are fixed in some states but there are still issues related to this in various states.

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

#598

Post by chipotle_coyote »

code_sloth wrote: post #408
jobeirne wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope - in free societies you should be able to refuse service on any grounds, including those things. Otherwise you're permitting the government to forcibly compel you to allocate your time and resources to ends they define. In free societies, governments should only be able to forcibly compel people not to do things (murder, threaten, steal, etc.) - see the concept of "negative rights."

In a your version of a free society, what happens when everyone refuses you EVERY single service because random-reason ? They sure as heck aren't murdering, stealing, nor threatening you. They're just refusing to sell you anything because of random-reason , forever. Those services include sales of any food, water, shelter. Taking it further, what if a majority of businesses gradually decide to be racist and refuse al…

I would actually suspect that in this kind of society -- the state isn't there to enforce discrimination, but it's also not there to redress it -- there would still be civil rights movements, and protests would probably be pretty vigorous. Businesses that discriminate would find themselves, their customers, and their suppliers put under a great deal of pressure. Sit-ins. Blockades. Rallies painting them, specifically, as villains.

As an aside, the relative absence of that kind of movement in libertarian thought experiments has always bemused me; I think there's a somewhat utopian "everything gets better when you take the state out of the equation" notion at play. Everything doesn't automatically get worse, but it doesn't automatically get better, either. If the society still has discrimination, prejudice, and unequal justice, it's still going to face pressures to reform; most of us would rather see where we live be made "better" in our understanding of the term than be forced to move somewhere else to find that "better," even assuming we have the resources to make such a move.

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

#599

Post by tharne »

perfmode wrote: post #537
tharne wrote: post #533

If you take a paycheck from someone, you're implicitly agreeing to carry out their instructions and their vision for their business. If, over time, you have a moral issue with that vision, the best thing for you and that company is to find work elsewhere that is a better fit for your values. It's unreasonable to agree to work for someone and then proceed to undermine their business because it doesn't align with your…

> If you take a paycheck from someone, you're implicitly agreeing to carry out their instructions and their vision for their business what makes you so sure?

That's what employment is. Someone has a bunch of stuff they want done, and someone else agrees to do it in exchange for money.

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

#600

Post by jacksnipe »

dnissley wrote: post #518
o10449366 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Really all you need to do is google "twitter mob". The most common cases involve people who did something bad, but where the punishment meted out was totally disproportional to the crime itself. Justine Sacco is the classic case, who made a bad joke and had her life turned upside down. Then you have the cases where people are so full of emotion that they get basic facts wrong. James Damore is a good example of this,…

Uh, I read the James Damore memo, and that's what I got out of it. It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism.
Post reply on HN