GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#691

Post by iron0013 » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #689

iron0013 wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dang, it's not name-calling to call concentration camps what they are. ICE literally runs concentration camps. There's no exaggeration, trolling, or flame-warring involved in saying so. It's simply the same way that it's not libelous to call someone who committed murder a "murderer"--because they earned the title when they committed the murder.

When I said name-calling I was referring to words like vile and cynic. Words like concentration camp seem to me in a different category. They aren't necessarily name-calling, but they do have dual semantics: a factual aspect and a pejorative one. If all a comment does is repeat those words and add additional pejoratives, that's not a substantive comment by HN standards. Repeating pejoratives very much feels like "say…

It's clear that you've thought about this, so what do you suggest is the appropriate way to have a constructive conversation with someone who openly endorses atrocities? The pro-atrocity side is welcome to describe the crimes they support in warm, fuzzy terms that do not offend those with delicate sensibilities, but the anti-atrocity side cannot even freely state their case because it naturally involves invoking the truth of horrific events. Are we bound to stay silent about such actions because those who support them may be offended by being associated with their plainly factual content?

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#692

Post by V-eHGsd_ » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 12:03 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #680

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doubly wrong since race has nothing to do with it I can't see the gp comment, but from what you're quoting, I feel compelled to correct you. gp doesn't say that the people who use the term "illegals" are racist "because" they say illegals. gp just says that it's a comment, in their experience, that's used by racists. there's an important difference, do you see it? >> Maybe I am way off base? > Yes, you are. nah, no…

> gp just says that it's a comment, in their experience, that's used by racists Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. Racism does not make one incapable of using language in the same way non-racist people do, so every expression can be - and usually would be - used by racists. Words "a", "and" and "the" are used by racists. Obviously, the distinction is only meaningf…

> Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist.

you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me paraphrase something that, if you have an open mind, might help elucidate the issue.

"I'm not saying that everyone who says, 'illegals' is racist, but an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'"

> Yah, this very time.

no, you.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#693

Post by vinay427 » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 7:04 AM UTC

swebs wrote: post #315

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The words you use have an effect on how others feel and how they're perceived. The word "illegals" can have negative connotations, and it's a dehumanizing word.

The word has negative connotations because you're describing a very negative thing. If you suddenly decide to use a new word, it will also inevitably develop negative connotations. Stephen Pinker explains it well: https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyo...

Thanks for mentioning this, it was definitely worth a read. For a rather more legible version for anyone else interested: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-04-06-19940962...

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#694

Post by fiter » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #685

fiter wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that if you do not feel comfortable with the work you are doing, then you should stop. If you feel comfortable with it because you've compartmentalized, then I imagine you would not stop. And, unfortunately, there's often some reason to compartmentalize some situations: because your competitor will just as soon take the business. It certainly would have been better if we could have gotten US policy…

> because your competitor will just as soon take the business. So what? You might as well be a hitman because, if you're not, somebody else will. You're just leaving money on the table by not being a killer for hire. Your own principles don't depend on what your competitors will do.

I stated that in the beginning and then moved on because the world is not black and white like the case of being a hitman (besides that is already solved politically). You are going to face situations that are ambiguous as I believe was the case for most Americans at the time of the IBM sales for the Nazi censuses.

That specific point was about the importance of using your political power to act as a group in a way that will actually affect the world, rather than solely appeasing your conscience/principles.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#695

Post by School-Cotton » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #586

zozbot234 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hong Kong is part of China. Under the "One Country Two Systems" model, it has more 'experimental' and 'innovative' policies than the rest of the country (such as choosing their local government officials via democratic elections). But then again so does Shenzhen in other ways.

Hong Kong has never had democratic elections. It has elections but they are non-democratic, as the “functional consistencies” system rigs them in one side’s favor. “One country, two systems” refers to Hong Kong’s separate economic and legal system, not to democracy.

Replying to myself as I can no longer edit: “consistencies” was a typo (or maybe a think-o) for “constituencies”

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#696

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #692

smsm42 wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gp just says that it's a comment, in their experience, that's used by racists Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. Racism does not make one incapable of using language in the same way non-racist people do, so every expression can be - and usually would be - used by racists. Words "a", "and" and "the" are used by racists. Obviously, the distinction is only meaningf…

> Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me paraphrase something that, if you have an open mind, might help elucidate the issue. "I'm not saying that everyone who says, 'illegals' is racist, but an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" > Yah, this very time. no, you.

> you seem to be having a hard time with this

It may come as a surprise to you, but when people disagree with you, it's usually not because they don't understand the infinite wisdom of your words. It's often because they understand and think you're talking nonsense. And sometimes - like in this case - it's because you are.

> an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'"

So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". Obviously, that doesn't make these expressions taboo. It would only be meaningful if the link went the other direction - if this designation was predominantly used by racists. So what you're doing here is trying to imply it's the case, by stating the reverse and hinting there's a casual link, but because your case for it is so weak that it would not tolerate direct confrontation, you avoid telling it directly. So that, when challenged, you can feign innocence and cry "I didn't say it's racist, I just said it's used by racist!". Taken literally, you didn't, but you words only have any meaning if that's exactly what you tried to imply without saying it directly, as to avoid being confronted and revealed as falsity. This is an insincere and I'd even say cowardly way to discuss things - casting implications without daring to stand behind them and defend them.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#697

Post by V-eHGsd_ » Sun, Nov 03, 2019, 1:31 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #696

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me paraphrase something that, if you have an open mind, might help elucidate the issue. "I'm not saying that everyone who says, 'illegals' is racist, but an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" > Yah, this very time. no, you.

> you seem to be having a hard time with this It may come as a surprise to you, but when people disagree with you, it's usually not because they don't understand the infinite wisdom of your words. It's often because they understand and think you're talking nonsense. And sometimes - like in this case - it's because you are. > an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" So what? Awful lot of racists also like to s…

> So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening".

sigh

this is the second time you've said essentially, "racists say a lot of other things too, so clearly 'illegals' isn't racist". that's not a particularly helpful or clever point.

are there non-racist people who say "illegals"? sure. do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do. does the original commenter probably understand the connotations? yeah, good bet they do.

do you? I honestly don't care.

I pose this question for you: are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status?

think hard.

anyway, like I said, elucidating the point only works if you have an open mind. I guess yours isn't.

cheers.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#698

Post by atypical22 » Sun, Nov 03, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

smudgymcscmudge wrote: post #336

duxup wrote: post #19

I'd like to get a feel about what volume of employees have an issue with these things. From issue to issue I hear about various forms of employees making themselves heard but it is REALLY hard to jive with what that means. We've seen Google employees post about some ideas that seemed to be genuinely popular (measure that how you will...) but later ideas or advocacy were reportedly far less supported by the general em…

About a quarter of the company has signed the protest letter. I signed the letter just so people would stop nagging me to sign. I don’t care about ICE. I suspect there are others who got pressured into signing.

I’m also a GitHub employee. The letter is posted in an internal repo and the history is visible to all employees. This person (smudgymcscmudge) is very identifiable based on his public comments on HN. He never signed the repo. I’m not sure why he’s lying about that, but sure makes me wonder if he’s telling the truth about being pressured to sign.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#699

Post by notSupplied » Sun, Nov 03, 2019, 4:33 AM UTC

dcposch wrote: post #473

supernova87a wrote: post #348

I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Xerox or Canon (or whoever) probably makes copiers that ICE uses to make copies. Lenovo or Apple probably makes hardware that they use also t…

> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used > Where do we start? Where do we stop? Often when moral question pops up on HN, the top comment is some variation of > But where do we we draw the line? > I wonder whether we should even try. Counterpoint: cynicism is too easy. Actually giving a shit is harder, it's uncomfortable, it involves compromise. Yes, there's ambiguity. Ye…

The argument is not "too hard to draw a line, so we should not do it", it is "too hard to draw a line, which means it is arbitrary, lacking in legitimacy, and prone to corruption."

Engineers are a powerful class of people with the opportunity to swing their weight around on political issues like this. Some believe this opportunity should be seized for good, others believe it is just a soft form of tyranny, an undemocratic exercise of power. This is particularly true when in your own country, where you ought to use the power of the vote to make a difference.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#700

Post by Trias11 » Sun, Nov 03, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #647

Trias11 wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really buy a few shares of Apple and get on a high horse trying to steer AAPL revenue strategy to my liking and beliefs. Shareholder I am - but lets get realistic.

Sure you can: https://www.fastcompany.com/40514341/two-activist-apple-shar...

>> ... which together own around $2 billion of Apple stock, have published an open letter urging Apple to think differently about ...

Lol, there is a small difference between few shares and few $billion worth of shares. Latter' voice is easier to be heard.