After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract • Hacker News Board

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

#691

Post by staticassertion » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #677

staticassertion wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ideolo…

I think it's stupid as hell to have to convince anyone that nazis are worth punching, but whatever, I'll give you one response and leave it.

1) IDK, start with anyone who says they're a nazi. There are tons of people who are openly fascist, white supremacists. No need to worry about grey lines, plenty of punching to go around. If you really want to push the boundaries, go for people who are openly hateful towards minority groups - it's usually not subtle. Punch away, totally ethical.

2) Up to you, it's your punch.

> Is there a continuum between nazi and non-nazi?

Sure but who cares? There may be a continuum but there's also huge parts of the spectrum that are extremely clear cut. Hitler falls in the continuum of nazis, and it's hardly a grey area simply by virtue of being gradient.

> Also how many punches is being a nazi worth?

IDK, depends on the nazi, and how many punches it takes to accomplish what you set out to do.

> do I become a nazi if I stop punching nazis?

Again, your call. It's really weird to me that you have such a hard time with this. You position this like there's tons of moral ambiguity, but I find it extremely concerning that you have a hard time determining who is and is not a nazi. The people who run around with swastikas and want to kill minority groups? They're the nazis buddy, don't worry about whatever weird grey area you've got concocted. When in doubt, feel free not to punch - it's that easy! When they're definitely a nazi, as so many are, and so obviously so, do your thing!

> To me you are literally the most dangerous person in term of risk of an authoritarian regime.

Weird, to me it's the nazis, since like, they advocate for fascism and genocide. Whereas I just feel it's ethical to punch genocidal fascists. Seems like one of us should be a lot scarier than the other

Anyway, I'm sorry you have such a weak ethical compass that somehow "nazis are bad" is a big deep scary question for you.

P.S. If you think the people punching nazis started the violence, I'd recommend reading up!

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

#692

Post by afiori » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #672

afiori wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Dictionaries are a form of consensus, a descriptive consensus rather than normative. In particular the usage of a dictionary (eg in law) is to justify your choices of wording.

In a sense the power of a dictionary is that you are allowed to use those meanings (indeed they mostly contain positive information and rarely what words do not mean)

> If you description was actually accurate, there would be no new slang (e.g. yeet)

Completeness ad accuracy are different.

> words would not change their usage (e.g. "they" is now also a gender neutral singular)

Speech can be sometimes accurate and sometimes less accurate. As a medium the value of speech is what you can express with it, it is in general not a form of art per se.

>> 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.

I indeed believe they are quite different, 2=2 must be true in terms of the statements I understand it to be. Evolution on the other hand is something that I simply believe.

I cannot even fathom[1] what a proof of "not 2=2" could be, as in even if you had one I would be unable to understand it or believe it.

Evolution is something that instead can be disproven, even more than that a huge chunk of why scientist believe it is because experimental result could disprove it but instead keep confirming it.

[1] this is an important logical concept: for a statement of facts to be (at the very least) well formed you must be able to understand what it would be required for a proof and/or a confutation.

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

#693

Post by umvi » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:41 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #660

kelnos wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've gotten downvoted for some reason, but I think you're right. The religious people I know could no more choose not to believe than I can choose to believe. Religious belief or non-belief comes as a response to life's experiences, heavily influenced by the level of indoctrination inflicted by parents when we're young. When I was 11 or 12, I realized I didn't believe in god (I didn't know the term "atheist" at the…

Once we assume free will doesn't exist, these debates are moot.

It's not useful to assume free will doesn't exist for this very reason. All debates are moot. Democracy is moot.

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

#694

Post by prepend » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

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…

I work in an organization where people prefer “on prem” solutions that they have complete control over. Unless there’s a legal injunction or law, I can’t imagine how much of a pain this is going to be to argue.

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

#695

Post by djrogers » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #662

kelnos wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You got it backwards. The fact that unfree nations are seen as human rights violations shows that free speech is a public good even when illegal.

Why don’t you peruse the elected members of the UN Human Rights Council and get back to us on who is seen as ‘human rights violations’.

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

#696

Post by ByteJockey » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #505

rattray wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm glad that GitHub workers are allowed to protest this. It is heartening. That doesn't change the fact that I'm personally disappointed that they're executing that privilege on this particular issue.

"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.

> I think ICE needs reforms, but I don't believe a pressure should be put on them to impose changes

I'm in one of those weird moods where I want to see if I can argue something that sounds weird at first. If that's not your thing just ignore this post.

Putting pressure on ICE isn't going to change anything. Institutions cannot be trusted to reform themselves. In fact, it's going to be worse than doing nothing. The people involved will feel like they have "done their part" and will do fewer useful things in the future than they would have otherwise, mostly because they wasted their time on this thing.

Pressure has to be put on congress to reform ICE. Anything that distracts from that, or makes people feel a sense of accomplishment without furthering that goal is worse than useless.

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

#697

Post by ironmagma » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #395

quadrifoliate wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. They have a problem with their employer, and are being heard in the court of public opinion. Why is that "a bummer"? I don't have a particular opinion on whether or not what they are doing is an effective way to accomplish their aims. But workers speaking out for any reason, ranging from unethical wage suppressio…

Yeah, that's a good question. I think that's why this case upsets me. I want to live in a world where, as another commenter put it, executives will think twice before taking actions that they know their employees won't like. Because they should know that employees have power, and a voice, and must be listened to. In this case, there's no way the executives can sanely take the requested action. It'd be terribly damagi…

To suggest that Github “can’t” end this contract is crazy talk. If a huge chunk of the company won’t do it, they must end the project.

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

#698

Post by jacksnipe » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #651

dnissley wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. It’s called a dog whistle. Damore knew exactly what he was saying, who it would appeal to, and how to attempt to cover himself when the whole thing blew up in his face.

100% this.

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

#699

Post by Yhippa » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

I'm surprised we haven't seen more Balkanization of services. When IBM and others announced they're not selling facial recognition technology to governments, I have to imagine there are companies who are absolutely willing to. Maybe this is happening already and I am not informed.

Also this for social media like Facebook and Twitter.

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

#700

Post by prepend » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #232

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…

ICE is not a person. ICE does not have a "race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion." It is a social construct and a very recent one at that. Denying service to ICE the organization isn't even remotely comparable to denying service to actual human beings.

“Creed” [0] is a protected class and it will be interesting to see a legal determination if this is discrimination based on the creed of the organization. Namely, carrying out its congressional mandate.

I think that social constructs could be discriminated against based on race, religion, sex, etc if it was discriminated against because its members were part of a protected class.

[0] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...