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

671–680 of 841 posts

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

#671

Post by thisiszilff »

qchris wrote: post #229
Foxheart wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... and Black folk are still much more likely to die during police interventions." Care to link to a source?

I try to do my best to assume good faith, but sometimes comments like this make it really hard. In any case, here's two links. One's from Drexel University, the other is a meta-composition of resources by an organization connected to the Kennedy School at Harvard. Educate yourself. [1] https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2016/December/Black-Men-3-tim... [2] https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-...

The reason why this is contentious is because it relies on how you are defining 'a police intervention.' Very few people I see debating this issue dispute that blacks are killed at 2.5x the right whites are by the police. What they dispute is that this disparity exists because of police officer bias, and they point to differing crime and geographic factors that cause the disparity. In that case, blacks and whites might be shot at the same right within the context of a given police interaction, but what that specific context is and the frequency of that context between black and white populations differs.

The 2.5x number isn't really disputed, it is the reason for it & the policy that is proposed because of it that is contentious.

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

#672

Post by nordsieck »

afiori wrote: post #659
nordsieck wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not. Perhaps you could explain the difference?

In one case I am declaring that something needs to be true, in the other I am declaring that I believe something as true. The authority fallacy is that a certain position cannot be challenged as some expert are infallible. Similarly to how you believe 2 + 2 = 4 you also believe Aristotle was the arbiter of truth. As an argument it exposes no attack surface because you do not admit criticisms of the position. It is no…

> In one case I am declaring that something needs to be true, in the other I am declaring that I believe something as true.

Those are not as different as you seem to believe.

> Sort of how a dictionary is used, it is not that the dictionary must be true we understand that it is possible for it to be wrong, it is just that we agree not to contest it in most cases for ease of conversation.

That is not how dictionaries are used. Dictionaries document how language is used in the recent past by a sufficiently large number of people. They are a trailing indicator of how language is used.

If you description was actually accurate, there would be no new slang (e.g. yeet) and words would not change their usage (e.g. "they" is now also a gender neutral singular).

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

#673

Post by sukilot »

dnautics wrote: post #543
monocasa wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's right. You don't know. Why don't you enlighten us instead of playing coy?

What, do you want specific details? In the mid 80s, My parents took me to a diner, specifically BOB AND EDITH's on columbia pike, in Arlington VA. During the 80s, Asian Americans were very rare in the Washington DC area, and moreover, there was a trade war going on between the US and Japan. It was fashionable at the time for short fiction to feature dystopian US futures where the active currency was the Yen. We arriv…

Imagine if in addition to all you also couldn't even live in the place you do, because until recently it was legal to write on a deed of property that said an Asian-American couldn't own that property or live there.

The fact that racism exists doesn't mean that civil rights protections are useless to you.

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

#674

Post by pmiller2 »

kuzimoto wrote: post #487
drekembe wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I would rather live in a society that has full respect for people than full respect for private property.

Unfortunately you can't make everyone have respect for one another. If you force them via laws, that would probably just make them more resentful.

Forcing everyone to act as if they have respect for one another is good enough. They can resent it all they want, for all I care.

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

#675

Post by [deleted] »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #652
jlokier wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you provide some examples supporting the claim that the "court of public opinion" doesn't have a good track record? Does the regular outcome of popular votes in favour of shafting minorities, restricting human rights etc. rather than general fairness and dignity for all persons regardless of background count?

"Popular" votes often differ substantially from actual public opinion due to things like gerrymandering, the two-party system, absence of ranked-choice voting, voter suppression, and the the like.

[deleted]

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

#676

Post by sukilot »

kuzimoto wrote: post #592
VBprogrammer wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Freedom of association is a human right. However, for example, operating a corporation is not.

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

#677

Post by afiori »

staticassertion wrote: post #638
afiori wrote: post #601

> I think if the bar is "don't kill minorities" Take this as my personal possibly wrong opinion, but this kind hyperbolic phrasing is only going to hurt your cause. The same as people defending "punch a nazi" slogans. They will give your tribe influence, but also steadily decrease your chance at long term victory. Honestly I cannot understand how many people (I don't care about sides) can believe in progress via viol…

I support punching nazis too. I consider that moderate, given that the nazi ideology involves much worse.

:(

Then I have at least two question: 1) how much proof should I collect that someone is a nazi before I punch them? 2) how much should I believe other's people claim that someone is a nazi?

Or is it a matter of court? is it a crime to be a nazi or is it simply a punchable offense? Is there an official agency that labels nazis? Or maybe it is a matter of activism, I can punch them while they are declaring nazi ideologies but not in their off-time. What do I do if they change the name of their ideology?

Is there a continuum between nazi and non-nazi? should the punch also have a continuum or is there a cut-off point?

Also how many punches is being a nazi worth? This last one is relevant after a dozen or so if they are still a nazi my hand is going to hurt... or maybe... do I become a nazi if I stop punching nazis?

I in part apologize for the condescending tone. But I consider this very important. I am not against making nazism illegal[1] but you are literally proposing violence as a completely normal form of advocacy.

To me you are literally the most dangerous person in term of risk of an authoritarian regime. Again, you are literally saying that violence against political opponents, and not rule of laws, is the obviously correct and moral choice.

[1] it is so in Germany and it makes sense

PS: I admit I have discarded at least another comparatively more reasonable option. You might mean to say that puching nazis is a form of civil disobedience; as a form of activism to say that nazism should be made illegal. This is slightly less nightmarish, but still I don't understan how _starting_ violence in the streets became the moderate option.

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

#678

Post by devalgo »

kgin wrote: post #646
devalgo wrote: post #642

I don't understand the calls to abolish ICE. Open borders are simply not a realistic policy in the current world. We can barely keep things operating as it is in the US, what would happen when tens of millions of largely unskilled immigrants were to stream across the border? Do people actually think nothing negative will happen?

The specific incarnation of border controls as ICE isn't the only way to control the border. I'm sure that some people are advocating for completely open borders without concern for consequences. But I think the larger call is saying that ICE as it currently is conceived as a paramilitary-style organization is not the way control the border and manage immigration.

>But I think the larger call is saying that ICE as it currently is conceived as a paramilitary-style organization is not the way control the border and manage immigration.

This seems like what people on the right do with Trump. He'll say some outlandish or indefensible thing on Twitter and pundits will walk it back and lay out some complex argument to support it. It's not convincing in either case. It's the same with abolish the police. The protesters seem to be very clear that's what thy want and people will go to great lengths explaining oh no what they really want is to divert funding to community groups and improve training they don't actually want to abolish the police. Like what? Is anyone stupid enough to believe this stuff?

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

#679

Post by m0zg »

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…

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity

This is easy to fix: just exclude Microsoft from participation in any federal tenders. Either you do business with all of the federal government, or you don't. It's pretty straightforward. Right now, the situation is pretty absurd: Microsoft will sell dual use tech to China (which, let me remind you, runs concentration camps for Muslims), and to countries which literally throw gay people off the roofs, but US federal law enforcement is somehow not quite good enough to deal with. This is extreme hypocrisy, but it's pretty typical overall. I would encourage Microsoft to be consistent, and sever its business ties with countries where the human rights are not respected at least to the extent they are in the United States.

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

#680

Post by austincheney »

mchanson wrote: post #31
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…

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.

I find that completely absurd. I work at a large bank. If my employer provides services to ICE am I practicing politics by showing up to work? Is my employer practicing politics by providing loans at the standard rate and standard anti-discriminatory process equally to all applicants? To be free of politics should my employer stop providing loans to everybody?

At what point does this make sense in an objectively measurable way?

Post reply on HN