It’s gotten to the point where I start to ask myself - if you work or Facebook, are you a good person? My personal opinion is that you might be, but you are likely are not.
The truth is that Facebook wouldn't be able to get away with a lot this if they didn't have an incredibly talented engineering division. And even though most individuals aren't making these terrible decisions, they definitely support them through their work.
If Facebook becomes an unattractive destination due to the social cost of working there, that might bring about change.
How do you know this? Facebook invested well over a hundred million dollars into this particular app, I would have to hear some very compelling arguments to see this episode as "misconduct of individual employees".
That being said I agree with the stance on thinking before doing, it's just that I don't believe that Facebooks operational conduct is rooted in individual employees, but rather in their company culture, values and leadership.
Imagine a world where people knew that having Facebook or SCO or Palantir on your resume meant automatic rejection by any company subscribing to the code of conduct. Unethical companies would face huge pressure from their own workforce to clean up their act.
“If you vote for Trump, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a good person, but it does mean that someone being a bad person isn’t a deal breaker for your support”
I think that sentence could start off with “If you work for Zuck...” just as well.
I know good people working for Facebook, but it does make me think "After everything you know about Facebook, the fact you would still work there, makes me respect you a lot less"
"If you vote for Trump and know he's bad..."
"...it does mean that the possibility of someone being a bad person..."
Not quite the same, eh?
Or the person goes even further, and doesn't believe the puritan tenet that "good person == good politician". There were excellent politicians that were bad in their behavior, and vice versa.
E.g. the person might care more about not encouraging a hawkish member of the establishment, that continued to beat the drum of American supremacy and threatened even more wars and tension coming on (e.g. with Iran) -- compared to merely voting someone who is e.g. sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).
In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
Yeah, it doesn't matter. Worse case you get more male justices. What do you really expect will happen? Some justice will be unpointed which will undo women's voting rights or equality laws?
>In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
Well, I don't agree with that. I would not care less if one of my "constitutional interpreters" drinks, takes cocaine, or has extra marital affairs for example. I only care that the direction they take the law is good. There have been legendary lawmakers and politicians that had all kinds of personal vices.
Then again, I'm not American, so I don't have the puritan trait. You guys managed to have a problem with the personal life of MLK too. Nobody in Europe would even think to ask such a BS question:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-honor-Dr-Martin-Luther-King-...
And I don’t care what they do in their personal life either. I care about how those things will effect they laws the pass: if someone drinks and does cocaine and has extramarital affairs, but doesn’t fuck over women/minorities, I’m all for them. If someone does the opposite, I’m against them.
Considering that the President has an powerful role in all federal legislation, an even more powerful role in federal regulation, and can appoint like minded people to a variety of positions (including, but not limited to, the federal judiciary) that have extensive influence and whose terms extend beyond his own, yeah, bigotry—whether based in gender, race, religion, or whatever else—in that office matters quite a bit.