Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcq3 | Hacker News Reader

Companies should not involve in politics

To think that companies exist out of the political sphere is at best naive, at worst utterly delusional.

> To think that companies exist out of the political sphere is at best naive, at worst utterly delusional.

I'm not who you're replying to and don't necessarily agree with them but they did say that companies /should/ stay out of politics. They think it's better if they aren't, not denying that in the real world politics does have influence.

Should say... I dunno, Alphabet provide un solicited commentary on their take of... Australia's refugee detention centres? Not really.

Should a Russian-based company make a statement on their country invading another as the world (of customers) looks on? Probably.

Politics is everywhere, avoiding it can sometimes be an unintended statement too. Sometimes you have to state your position or others will state it for you.

Nope. In some cases not fighting against something is the same as supporting it. And the people behind those companies are human too, they have their own thoughts, passions, fears. I'd condemn my employer if they stood idly by a war crime literally impacting employees and their families.

Kind of off topic, but Russia hasn't comitted a war crime. They've committed an act of war. Not really the same thing.

They have bombarded civilian targets - there are multiple pictures and videos of civilian buildings and infrastructure such as roads being bombed, with civilians dying. That's very war crimey.

Furthermore, crimes against peace are a type of war crime.

There's a long road to calling that a war crime. Largely what has to be shown is that they meant to target civilians and that there is absolutely no case in which they're targeting Ukrainian forces.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

I suspect you're probably right, that they did so intentionally, but using the right words matters.

Well I guess we need to send every US President since Eisenhower to the Hague in chains, then.

Don't act like Russia is some sort of unique evil, here. The gallons of blood spilled in collateral damage to innocent civilians by US, US-led, or US-financed operations in countries we have absolutely no business being in can fill swimming pools.

Literally anybody writing, posting, tweeting, or writing column-inches about the horrible action by Russia from US soil needs to stop, notice where they are, and recognize that OUR government is orders of magnitude worse, and has been at it for far, far longer.

I will fault the Russians for one thing, here. The FSB should have fabricated evidence of WMDs held in Kiev, claimed that Zelensky was murdering babies, then went in under the banner of Freedom(tm).

This silly business of conducting military options unapologetically for national interests is so old-fashioned. Lying to the world through your media mouthpieces is the way to do it. You'd think there'd still be some of that Pravda spirit left over from the USSR, but I guess not.

Parent may not be a US citizen, and might bravely be saying their opinion within reach of Russia. No context of USA is necessary.

I'm not American, and yes, most US presidents and army commanders and CIA pieces of shit should be brought to The Hague for their war crimes.

I find myself possessed of this strange power to disdain the imperial ambitions of both the USA and Russia.

I'm not a lawyer, soldier, or diplomat, but by my reading of this definition of war crimes, they have.

> https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docindex/v1...

The ICC is what decides a war crime from a military action or act of war, and that takes in a lot of variables it would be difficult to account for. There'll be long investigations after this to figure things out, I'm sure. As I said in another reply, if I was a betting man, I would agree; however, I also dislike the popularization of the term war crime and just throwing it around.

War Criminal or simply Mass Murderer. The leaders who instigated the killing should spend their remaining years in jail.

Well, right now they've officially committed a "special military action" not a war - and there is plenty of stuff that was happening before even that weaksauce declaration came in.

That all said, they have been conducting mass detention of civilians in Ukraine so I think we've probably got some borderline war-crime actions. It'll take a long time to sort out exactly everything that's happened today and the last week - but I'd be surprised if war crimes weren't occurring.

That all said, war crimes are defined by the victor and their declaration and potential repercussions for them is an entirely political process. Countries exist at a scale where the "immutable definition of the law" isn't a thing that actually exists - unless we had a sole disinterested super-power that far surpassed every other power on earth and was able to serve as an impartial judge we can't really have the same concept of a legal system at the international level - this is why The Hague is usually focused on regional conflicts where China, the US, and everyone else has a little enough of a vested interest that they're happy to just score some PR points.

Yes the world is depressing, but it is the way it is.

> That all said, war crimes are defined by the victor and their declaration and potential repercussions for them is an entirely political process.

This is why I pointed out that what they're describing is not a war crime yet. What you're saying is not true, there is a court that deals with war crimes and they do have specific definitions. Unfortunately the term has been popularized and liberally thrown around since then, giving birth to this idea that war crimes are somehow only a colloquial term for bad things happening.

Check out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_court The court that tries war crimes, and also defines them based on Geneva conventions.

The Liebor Code, Hague Conventions, and Nuremberg Principles all heavily influenced the Geneva Convention.

> not fighting against something is the same as supporting it

This is nonsense. This quickly leads to people putting all sorts of demands on companies to support causes they have nothing to do with, and assumes that everyone needs to have the same priorities you do. It's a fallacious, "my cause is more important than anything" argument. If a company's owners, for whatever reason want to get involved in politics, that's up to them. But this "silence is violence" nonsense is not just a low effort rhetorical device to make people shift resources to your cause.

Almost everything interesting involving multiple humans can be described as politics.

In which case the word doesn’t mean anything.

Regardless of whether you agree, you know what the OP meant, because “politics” has a meaning, and it’s not “everything”.

Sure. But companies are inherently political. They survive because of guarantees from the political system in which they live, and different political systems produce different kinds of businesses.

I don't say that the OP produced an unmeaningful sentence. I say OP is incorrect.

As sanctions are looming any company that is based on Russia, has offices in Russia or makes business with Russian companies are at risk of having these sanctions affect their bottom line.

They simply don't have the luxury of staying out of it. Some damage control is needed

Companies make weapons, or tools to make weapons, even if not intended. An IDE could be used to develop a fighter plane control sw. Companies pay taxes that are used to also buy weapons that kill people. Everyone should be involved in politics, even companies.

Then ban lobbying.

Yes, I agree. I don't think this is such an inappropriate stance to have. It's up to the owner in the end, but personally I don't agree in mixing politics with business.

Companies do involve into politics because otherwise they negate their own existence.

Do you negate air and yet breathe? Pretty much the same thing.

Companies are comprised of people and should be allowed to speak on politics if they so choose to.

I absolutely agree - now if only all of the companies in the US could stop lobbying for pro-business legislation we could have a fairer and more equitable world. I care a lot more about how twisted our legal system has become than companies declaring opposition to unjust wars.

Yes, and perhaps later they can claim to just be following orders.

Companies are literally political entities.

I actually agree.

(I say this as a person who is 100% against this invasion).

However the circumstances is that the IntelliJ founders are Russian, and it’s important to point out that it is not the will of the Russian people to invade Ukraine. It is Putin.

It is the will of _some_ of the Russian people. It has to be. It's people doing the invading. If no Russian wanted to invade Ukraine, there would be nobody in uniform invading Ukraine.

Sure. Just like it’s the will of “some” of the UK to go to war with Iraq, despite over a million people protesting against that at the time.

That people follow the government does not mean they agree.

And anyway there’s been a steady stream of propaganda fed to the Russian population, it’s folly to say this isn’t Putins will being projected onto his people.

The same way that the nazis got power with 30% approval and managed to use that power to go to war with the rest of Europe.

I’m not saying it’s not dangerous, I’m saying it’s not all Russia. And IntelliJ are saying as such.

> I say this as a person who is 100% against this invasion

Thanks for clearing that up. There are commenters on HN who have a vested interest in Russia taking eastern Ukraine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com