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

621–630 of 841 posts

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

#621

Post by jacksnipe »

dnissley wrote: post #619
jacksnipe wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. Since the memo is pretty short, could you go back over it and offer up a justification for that assertion? Is it possible that you rushed to judgement and heard what you wanted to hear?

As I said, "It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism". Yes, it's reading between the lines, but the implication is there and clearly intended to be there. Not only is he implying it, he is implying it using the exact same arguments that have been used in neuro circles for years. There is an explicitly sexist context for these arguments that is not present in the memo but which nobody making those arguments could have been completely unaware of.

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

#622

Post by rdgthree »

umvi wrote: post #188
PascLeRasc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is born an ICE employee.

Whether you are "born gay" is up for debate as well. There are many instances of people "changing their minds" on their sexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spacey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dodson

I think this comment is reasonable if they're simply saying that it's plausibly true that not everyone who is gay is born gay - some choose to live their life that way, others are born that way.

I think this is a fair read on sexuality especially given the "spectrum" understanding of sexual preferences. If you're born 50% interested in men and 50% interested in women, you can very well choose to live your life (and identify) as a straight person or a gay person (or a bisexual person!).

That doesn't mean that others aren't born with a 0/100 ratio (one way or the other), though.

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

#623

Post by lkrubner »

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

“an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.”

The employees of Github are not an “internet mob”. Your use of that phrase implies a lot about the way you are trying to frame this situation.

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

#624

Post by kelnos »

no-s wrote: post #548
jobeirne wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. Um, think you've got this backwards. Private entities shouldn't have to take on anyone they don't want as customers (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?), but publicly-funded institutions shouldn't be able to deny service o…

Well, I don't know. Freedom of speech is also a principle. Public accommodation and non-discrimination are also principled. We don't need laws to see these as a public good. We shouldn't parse these ideas into orthogonal pretzels just because wokeness.

> We don't need laws to see [freedom of speech] as a public good.

I think it's very easy to refute this statement by looking at any country where freedom of speech isn't guaranteed by law. The most populous country in the world is a glaring example.

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

#625

Post by sukilot »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #585
philwelch wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you think religious discrimination is acceptable?

Religion is a protected class, so the question is moot under US law. In any case, I confess I'm always a little suspicious of this method of argument. Bob says, "I will ban neo-Nazis from my forum," and people chime in with, "Well, what about banning Catholics? Vegetarians? People who admit to liking Nickelback?". Is the principle really that if we find one single case where Bob would admit "I don't think banning tha…

Not drawing a line is a simple solution to the problem of where to draw the line.

Catholicism is an organization that as one of its main tenets is homophobic. How is that better (or is it worse) than being an Confederate flag-waver or a neo-Nazi or a Black racial separatist or ? I'm sure the answer is obvious to you, but only because of your personal idiosyncratic preferences. Evil is not an objective spectrum. It's a subjective high dimensional manifold.

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

#626

Post by astrodust »

0-O-0 wrote: post #450
code_sloth wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> what happens when everyone refuses you EVERY single service If I'll ever find my self in a situation like this - I'll pack my things and run. I'm not going to be happy in a place like this even if government will force those people to tolerate me. > if a majority of businesses gradually decide to be racist and refuse all services just because they can That means anyone entrepreneurial enough will have access to an…

Pack your things and run to where, exactly?

What if the government, which issues identity documents that allow you to "run", decides they just don't like you and declines to produce them?

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

#627

Post by sukilot »

Miner49er wrote: post #303
brabel wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am strongly against a private business being able to refuse service to a person/organization on political grounds, even when the "victim" may seem to be performing evil actions, as long as it is not breaking any laws. One should not discriminate on the basis of race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion. Refusing service is clearly a form of discrimination. When you aim that towards your own Government…

This goes way too far in limiting freedom IMO. It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice. Just like I can decide not to let people not wearing shoes or shirts into my business, why shouldn't I be able to deny entry to a neo-Nazi? What if I'm losing black customers because I have racists regu…

You are missing an obvious dimension: discriminate within reason based on harmful behaviors, not characteristics nor beliefs.

Which is pretty much what US law says, because it's reasonable on avwrgt.

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

#628

Post by pmiller2 »

iguy wrote: post #343
alonmower wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it needs to even be as nefarious as that. If I’m in charge of deciding what technology to use for another, less controversial, arm of the government and I see that one of the companies I’m considering has decided to stop doing business with another I might feel less confident in deciding whether or not to use them. What if they decide they don’t want to do business with me at some point in the future? Th…

Or not even an arm of the government. The same reasoning would be applied by other companies buying services. Vendors with a reputation for stopping service to clients because of bad news coverage are a risker bet.

That doesn't seem to affect Google much, and we all know how big G loves killing off products.

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

#629

Post by afiori »

joshuamorton wrote: post #566
Fellshard wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me rephrase to see if it answers your question: Would the added features be useful in another context? Would they be useful regardless of the type of work being done? Are they merely enhancements of the platform, or are they specifically tailored to the client's domain?

FWIW, in my work I've seen both. But I'm sort of asking things at a higher level. If a client is asking you to prioritize a generic enhancement over others, they are presumably doing so because they believe that generic enhancement will have the greatest value to their work. So if ICE asks github to prioritize better native CI support for Windows, or something, they're doing it because it is of maximum benefit to ICE…

It is still debatable how much this has to do with the matter at hand. It is completely possible that github only utility is to process applications faster so that people will stay detained for shorter times. Or that it serves a completely unrelated purpose that has no influence on the issue.

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

#630

Post by sukilot »

mirko22 wrote: post #606
adwn wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice. Religion is a choice. Does that mean that you're fine with discrimination based on one's religion?

And why not? If you say you are very religious and pray to your god before you push your branches I would look at you very weird, I am sorry... Maybe I am a bad person but... And more over, everyone can register a religion these days, look at Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption... So if someone wakes up one morning and starts a religion out of a joke I should be forced not to discriminate against him? But replace John Ol…

Religion (beliefs) is protected. That doesn't mean that all behavior practices by all religions are protected.
Post reply on HN