Hacker News Reader

> Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices.

If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong (cries of "Godwin!" go here). I mean, money's money, right? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable, and genocide is just a political question, on which the German people have spoken (and even if they didn't, again, whether democracy is good or not is also a political question).

But no, it doesn't work that way. We do actually expect corporations to be political to some extent. The only real question here is what that extent is. I don't really have a problem drawing the line at someone like Trump. If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected.

Unless, of course, you really do think that IBM was in the right.

> to their human management practices.

You (perhaps unconsciously) did not address the full assertion which precisely refers to human management practices where the two atomic operations (so to speak) are hiring (append) and firing (remove).

To settle according to what ethical framework corporations must abide when they do business with other entities is a vast topic that goes well beyond the particular scope of this HN thread. In case I was not clear, by politically neutral agents I am referring to the fashion by which corporations consume and exchange human capital within a defined social body. This is not the same as saying that a company is apolitical; since they do that all the time (through lobbying on single-issue bills etc.).

>If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong

As I said, this is off-topic. Though I am a bit amused by how you justify your own authoritarianism (motivated by your morals) by pointing to Trump's supposed. Do you also think that it was unethical for journalists to let Trump participate to the debate? After all, it provides a platform for his rancid, heinous, dangerous, seditious, genocidal ideas for millions of Americans to hear. Or that hunting down and firing the three (let's be generous and say four) software engineers that support Trump at company X is a necessary condition to prevent <literally_genocide> or <literally_Hitler> taking power.

It is rarely a good idea to crackdown on individuals because they hold a set of beliefs that does not fit your schema for "Good and honourable things to believe in". Especially during an election period where plurality is a necessary condition for democracy to work.

Reading other comments, it appears that I haven't made my point clearly enough, and most responses aren't quite to what I had in mind. So let me clarify.

I was specifically addressing the assertion that corporations should get a free pass on any indirect political effects of their business decisions, because they're apolitical by definition. IBM was a counterexample to that - their decision to sell their goods and services to Germany was very much a business decision, but it was also unavoidably political (as would be any other decision - if they refused the sale, it would have also been political).

Hence, corporations are not politically neutral agents. From there follows that they are responsible for the political consequences of their actions. The degree of indirection involved reduces said responsibility, and can remove it entirely if it's remote enough; the important point is that this is a matter of degree, and not an absolute.

So we can agree to disagree where the appropriate line for such responsibility lies, so long as we agree that there is a line. But when you argue about where to draw said line, "corporation is a politically neutral agent" (or, to rephrase it in more familiar terms, "nothing personal, just business") is not an argument in support of any particular placement. It has to be decided on other grounds - for most people, I'd imagine it would be their subjective utilitarian assessment of how damaging the resulting politics are, or can potentially be.

There is no such thing as full isolation when you're interacting with people. Different interactions have a different degree of it, but it is always possible to overcome it with taint by association, if the original taint is strong enough. At some level, a person cannot be my friend. At another level, I would be uncomfortable being around them in general. At another, even indirect financial or other support is unacceptable. And so on.

No, I don't think companies should be firing individuals merely for expressing their desire to vote for Trump - although depending on what the company does, it may be a prudent business decision. But there are degrees of support that go beyond voting.

Note that I did not, and do not, call for any government actions pertaining to this. It's all in the realm of private choices, exercising one's freedom of speech and freedom of association. I don't see how this has anything to do with authoritarianism. Trump's platform, in contrast, is widespread state-sponsored discrimination, so I stand by my assertion that it is authoritarian.

There's also a distinction between the corporation's position and the position of the individuals that make up the corporation. Politics are not transitive: just because you believe something does not mean your business partner believes it, nor should it.

Would have been nice for Brenden Wich when he was burned on a stake for his support for Prop 8.

Yeah, and I think what happened to Brendan Eich was pretty terrible as well.

What is the correct response to someone like Brendan though?

To monetarily support a movement that seeks to take away this right is morally reprehensible. As another poster said in this thread: with escalating power in society comes escalating responsibility not to do harm. I have high respect for Eich for his accomplishments, but I still think that it was important that somehow in some way it was made clear by society that this is not acceptable -- especially for someone in a high position. Let's reframe this situation to make it more powerful: support Eich was against the right to marry across racial lines. Then certainly you would be for his firing, right? But it's the same thing, only that we need 50 more years to efface the stigma that still exists with gay marriage so that saying you're against gay marriage is as bad as saying you're against interracial marriage.

You now you have the benefit of hindsight, what do you think would have been the ideal response to Brendan -- both by Mozilla and by the community? Curious to hear your thoughts.

A correct response would be to let people think what they want as long as they do not threaten public order or support criminal activities. It is not up to you to decide what is right or wrong.

>is morally reprehensible.

And I think that this is the heart of the issue here. That you want to punish people for holding certain beliefs.

Would it be ok to fire someone because they are not a strict adherent of veganism while you are? After all, if you consider it morally reprehensible to kill innocent animals you are only left to contemplate the evilness of those who partakes in those activities. And evilness must be fought right? So fire that person.

>Being fired was an appropriate response in my eyes. Let's reframe this situation to make it more powerful: support Eich was against the right to marry across racial lines. Then certainly you would be for his firing, right?

Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of legalism in the West. It establishes that an individual is innocent until proven otherwise. Holding a certain belief does not make you mechanically guilty of a crime. Partaking in a criminal activity does. Has this person hindered the enforcement of democratic laws because of their beliefs? Is this person a sworn public servant representing the state? No. Then why should that person be fired for disagreeing with you?

To broaden the discussion, we could take the example of eugenism which the catholic church has fought tough and nails during a time it was considered futurist and full of potential. Nowadays, the consensus is to consider it an unethical and reprehensible practice. My point being: the consensus changes and not linearly. What is accepted today might be looked back as an aberration or a crime against common sense. The only way you can guarantee that a society's morality is not reified is by allowing dissenting opinions to exist as long as they are passive and part of a discussion.

Yes, that means being potentially exposed to some nasty things (according to you) but you will survive it. Trust me, you will.

> And I think that this is the heart of the issue here. That you want to punish people for holding certain beliefs.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean their opinion is less valid. Because an opinion is political doesn't mean it doesn't affect peoples trust and not wanting someone in a position of power when you don't trust them is a valid opinion just as much as the opposite. Innocent until proven otherwise is a legal concept, free speech instead emphasizes everyone right to have their own opinion regardless of its merit.

It would have been a proper response if he publicized his donation, I think. Since he didn't, it wasn't.

There's a difference between being neutral on political questions and being neutral on crimes against humanity. Knowingly and deliberately assisting in a genocide is illegal; supporting fringe political candidates is fortunately not.

A fringe candidate who advocates for war crimes and dismantling the democratic institutions of America. I think you're giving Trump too much of a pass here.

Can you name a politician at the national level with an executive position or foreign-policy-related legislative position who doesn't advocate war crimes?

I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm giving Trump supporters a pass, because I believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position they espouse. (In fact, with Trump's many contradictory statements, this is guaranteed for any of his supporters!)

If one of your employees advocates for genocide, go ahead and fire them. If one of your employees supports a candidate who advocates for genocide -- well, it might call into question their judgment, but maybe they like the rest of the platform and think that the call for genocide is mere hyperbole.

The crux of this whole situation rests on how "bad" a person considers Trump and by proxy Trump supporters. At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.

Let's bring it to be less extreme. Is it "ok" for an employee to be reprimanded for supporting the KKK? What about David Duke who formerly led the KKK? What about if they are a member of Stormfront?

There are groups and positions that cross a line that is acceptable and that line is different for each person. We can delegate to the government - I.e. Groups that are "officially" designated as hate groups - but many people don't.

There are many people (Trump supporters AND critics) that interpret some of Trump's most defining and consistent policies as racist, sexist, islamaphobic and xenophobic. So Trump to many people is beyond their line of acceptability. And therefore the supporters are too.

The messiness of the situation is that it is so subjective despite there being an objective component to it (objective is: unacceptable opinions should not be tolerated. Subjective is: what is unacceptable?)

how "bad" a person considers Trump and by proxy Trump supporters

Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights; the fact that a candidate is reprehensible does not justify exercising collective punishment against his supporters.

At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.

I don't know if there is a National Socialist party in the USA, but if there was then I don't think anyone should be fired for supporting their political activities.

Of course, if a National Socialist party included a paramilitary wing which was carrying out violent attacks on political enemies, supporting them would no longer be a matter of supporting a political organization; it would be supporting a criminal organization, which is certainly not a constitutionally protected right.

>> Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights

First Amendment is a constitutionally protected right. It is perfectly legal to say something "all Jews should be gassed" at a public rally. Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?

We're not talking about laws here, note. No-one is saying that we should jail those people or fine them. We're talking about private actions - ostracism, boycott, and other forms of (ironically) exercising one's individual freedom of speech and of association.

Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?

Of course not. We should absolutely hold Trump responsible for what he says. The disagreement here is whether we should hold Trump supporters responsible for what Trump says.

(And I'm not sure if saying "all Jews should be gassed" is legal; in Canada it would probably fall under hate speech laws on the basis of inciting violence, but the USA has stronger protection of free speech rights. Per Brandenburg, it may be that "all Jews should be gassed" would be legal but "we should beat up the Jews" wouldn't, in that the latter advocates more imminent violence.)

I'm pretty sure it would be legal in US. Something like "let's go gas some Jews" would be getting into the imminence territory, but the blanket statement of desire is protected speech.

As for your main point; I think that saying that we're holding Trump supporters responsible for what he says is not really correct. We're holding them responsible for what they say by the act of supporting him and/or his platform.

And the platform is always a thing under consideration. Even someone who's supporting Trump because "Hillary is worse" is still making a relative comparison between his platform and hers, which is a political statement - and I don't see why they should get a pass on being responsible for that statement and its implications.

It all becomes a lot less ambiguous if you pick some specific thing instead of discussing it in abstract, and spell out all the consequences in full. Say, I know quite a few people who are going to vote for Trump for the sole reason that they consider him better on gun rights. But when you account for his "law & order" dogwhistling, and unpack it, what they're really saying then is, "my right to own a semi-automatic firearm is more important than this black dude's right to be treated with dignity by the police and the courts". Some people actually find it acceptable even when worded that way, but I'm not one of them.

Out of curiosity, can you explain why you think there is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate and no such right to support a criminal organization (assuming by "support" you mean simply voicing support and not actually funding or committing crimes yourself)? It sounds good to me, but I can't think of where the constitution actually says that.

Of course, the real problem I have with your comment is that you say "collective punishment" is not justified. I'm not so sure I agree. I have no problem with collective action like boycotts, even if the boycott is in response to a perfectly legal action. This is just basic economic freedom and freedom of association. Perhaps you're speaking specifically about terminating someone's employment, which does have some specific legal protections.

Milton Firedman's most famous work is Capitalism and Freedom and yet within that work, he completely rejects Hollywood blacklists (or "boycotts" if you prefer). If you consider his main point is that under communism, people are un-free, it seems odd that he would sympathize with avowed members of American communist party, who would ultimately like to bring communism to the US, and in Friedman's eyes, result in societal catastrophe. Doubly so given the power of persuasion that Hollywood writers wield. So why does he reject the ability of studio execs to simply exercise their freedom of association, and not contract with blacklisted writers?

The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.

So a political organization has to commit a crime before being seen as unacceptable? At that point may it already be too late (org has too much power)

If a political organization has not committed a crime, then what they are doing is legal and then they have the constitutional right to do it.

Legally, yes. Whether that is socially acceptable or not is another matter.

National Socialist Order of America is perfectly legal, for example. But I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the notion that being a member of it should be socially acceptable, and that people should just respect your choices.

> There are many people (Trump supporters AND critics) that interpret some of Trump's most defining and consistent policies as racist, sexist, islamaphobic and xenophobic. So Trump to many people is beyond their line of acceptability. And therefore the supporters are too.

Wouldn't that qualify these people at least as racist as Trump could possibly be himself ?

Where is the limit for these people, by the way ? Not buying stuff from people with some "unacceptable" political orientation ? How about religious orientation ? How about people who feel men and women aren't equal because of religious affiliation ? How about muslims who espouse the "kill anyone leaving islam" rule of that religion ?

We should not care if we are to have a well-functioning politcial system. Doesn't seem either party is interested in that, but still.

> I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm giving Trump supporters a pass, because I believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position they espouse.

I have held that position for a while, but it became untenable due to the sheer number of outright awful positions that Trump espouses. It's no longer possible to say, "yeah, this one thing isn't nice, but there's still a net benefit".

At this point, there's no rational way to conclude that anything about Trump candidacy has a net benefit, unless you subscribe to some of his more abhorrent notions about religion, race etc - e.g. people of the "I'm not a racist, but there's something about blacks that makes them commit crimes and riot" persuasion, say. Or "I'm for freedom of religion, but Islam is a death cult". And so on.

So no. I don't buy into that whole "the call for genocide is mere hyperbole" thing. It would require such a manifest lapse of judgment to be realistic, that I would demand strong evidence of such in other matters to accept it.

You realize that you're calling for the excommunication of 40% of America, right? That is not a productive thing. I consider Trumpism a real threat to my life, but Trump supporters are fine with me. Once a bad idea spreads too far, you can't isolate it. You have to engage it productively.

Which part of trump's platform makes it OK to vote for him despite his openly advocating war crimes?

There's nothing which would make me want to vote for him. But I don't presume to speak for everybody.

I agree that however hateful and ridiculous he gets, Trump is not a nazi. I roll my eyes whenever someone calls him a nazi or implies he is a nazi. For example, this guy : https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785769454516916228?lang=fr

I think there's a contradiction in PG's (and Sam Altman's) public attitude towards Trump and their attitude regarding Thiel.

I mean either Trump is beyond the pale, in which case they should not associate themselves with any of his supporters, or he is not, in which case they should cut the goddamn hyperbole.

Freedom is the right to be wrong. Freedom of speech isn't fought at Michaelangelo's David; its fought at Larry Flynt's Hustler.

The fact that these arguments always seem to require one said to make up crazy nonsense is pretty telling. He advocates nothing of the sort.

Trump advocates killing the families of terrorists.

http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-trump-says-kill-terror...

He also advocates torture.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5775d740e4b04164640f6597

These are things that we do already. I'm not sure that admitting it openly turns someone into the second coming of Stalin.

Ok? Neither of those are war crimes or dismantle US democracy, which are the claims in question.

Per Common Article 3 of Geneva Conventions, killing families of terrorists and torture are war crime.

No, try reading it. We do both of those things all the time. Where's the war crimes trials? Those are only war crimes under certain circumstances.

he wants to jail journalists and his political opponents and he's been actively undermining the legitimacy of the electoral process for weeks

i don't know how to describe that other than he wants to 'dismantle US democracy'

He wants to jail Clinton, because she has committed numerous felonies. And how has he been "actively undermining the legitimacy of the electoral process"? That's what Clinton did, remember? You know those Podesta emails that proved what everyone with a brain already knew? That Sanders never had a chance and the DNC had it rigged from the start?

Whether something is a crime against humanity or not is also a political question, strictly speaking. How many countries have refused to recognize the Armenian genocide for the sake of some political gain, again?

> There's a difference between being neutral on political questions and being neutral on crimes against humanity

For this to be true, there would have to be some non-political definition of "crimes against humanity".

it wasn't illegal in the country where it took place

"If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected."

On the contrary. Self-described Marxist regimes murdered over 100 million people in the last century (far more than the Nazis). So by your reasoning it's okay to fire anyone who's a Marxist?

Marxism itself is not a political platform. It's a philosophical and socioeconomic school of thought with some particular axioms and methodology. None of these involve, or directly lead to, mass murder.

Specific political ideologies that use Marxism as a philosophical basis for their platforms, like Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, are responsible for mass murder. And yes, I would consider it okay to privately discriminate against people who publicly espouse such ideology.

"None of these involve, or directly lead to, mass murder."

So it's sheer coincidence that it has led to starvation, slavery, and mass murder every time it's been implemented?

100 million dead bodies is enough to convince me that it's a bad idea.

I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on you at this point.

> So it's sheer coincidence that it has led to starvation, slavery, and mass murder every time it's been implemented?

No. It's the consequence of the fact that all that have been implemented are offshoots of one particular political ideology, namely Marxism-Leninism. And that is the case because it was the only Marxist-inspired ideology that was brutal enough to prevail against attempts to suppress it - more liberal-minded Marxists that put more emphasis on democracy, such as the German Spartacus League, were violently suppressed.

After that initial period, practically every left-wing movement was quickly co-opted by Soviet Russia / USSR, if not created by them outright, and so it inherited the ideology. In some cases, viable alternatives were also violently suppressed by Soviet agents (as was the case with e.g. anarchists in Spain during the Civil War).

Stalinism, Maoism etc are all derivatives of that same system.

Marxist philosophies have been implemented in many European countries in the form of social democracy.

Socialism and Marxism are not synonymous, no matter how much you would like to pretend that's the case.

Edit: in my original post, I said that "self-described Marxist regimes murdered 100 million people".

Which of the social democracies you mentioned explicitly describes itself as Marxist?

This argument can hardly apply when the choice is between "politics as usual" and "carpet bomb the constitution". Your fascism screed might be intended to come off as sarcastic, but Trump has literally threatened to deport legal citizens, kill innocent civilians abroad, shut down unfriendly newspapers, and imprison his political rivals. I wonder: what sort of rhetoric would it take for people to recognize the seeds of fascism?

And no, corporations are certainly not politically neutral agents, for better or for worse. In fact, I'd say they're among the most powerful players in shaping the future of the world.

Your logic resembles that which says people who use Copyleft licenses are not truly committed to Freedom because they don't allow use of their code in non-free programs.

Being committed to diversity-- or freedom, or any ideal--does not mean you have to be nice toward or even tolerate the antithesis of that ideal.

Citizens United basically allows corporations to compel political participation of their employees regardless of their politics.

No, unions do that. Corporations do not extract money from their employees for political purposes.

I'll just leave this here: http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-grow...

Unions are a completely different aspect of employment.

If you are outraged by corporate political ideology being forced on employees, then surely you are outraged over union political platforms that go above and beyond the objectives of a union (to maximize compensation) and serve to increase labor competition and depress wages, right?

At a union shop, a worker has no choice but to financially support the political agenda of the union, even if that agenda runs counter to the worker's best interest and/or ideals.

Exactly. The. Same.

Public sector unions take this further by creating a system in which management and labor are both operating under the union banner in a complete conflict of interest.

The whole situation is fucked and there is zero moral high ground in picking a side, much like our Presidential candidates.

> It speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant feedback loops.

telling a corporation to sanction, discipline, or fire a partner is not militant.

the only militant behavior is coming from Trump, when he talks about dropping HRC's security detail and seeing what happens.

diversity of opinion is important, but advocacy of violence and worse - the commission of sexual violence against women - is not.

I'm not certain that ending Thiele's partnership is warranted - I don't know enough about the facts. But this is more than just an "unpopular opinion".

This detente we have where we don't fire people for their political views is extremely valuable, and we should be very very wary about breaking it.

100% agree.

But there is a point at which a candidate /is/ too extreme. All we're doing is having a discussion about where that point is.

Do you disagree that that point exists?

It's funny to see my comments laden with downvotes from (presumably) the people who wanted to respect diversity of opinion.