3 ms·
"Working for" implies paid employment. He never worked for Google. The think tank is supposed to be independent from its donors. If, in practice, it's not as in
by tarboreus 9y ago
"Working for" implies paid employment. He never worked for Google. The think tank is supposed to be independent from its donors. If, in practice, it's not as independent as it's supposed to be, all the more reason to admire him for following the spirit of what the organization was supposed to do. In no way was he legally or morally beholden to Google, despite the fact that it was ultimately revealed that they were in a position to get him fired. If I hold a gun to your head, you don't owe me anything--though you might still do what I say.
- trapperkeeper74 9y agoThe correct response would be "Go ahead, kill me now, motherfucker." ;)
- tarboreus 9y agoA morally defensible, if impractical, position. Kant would be proud.
- trapperkeeper74 9y agoZoom! Let me explain that joke, and the truth behind it. Murderers and would-be murderers are more likely to: - derive enjoyment of begging victims than indifferent ones - respect someone whom is willing to pay the price Furthermore, in way, this is what Christians and nonviolent leaders like Gandi originally meant about "turn the other cheek"... not being meek and defenseless but to volunteer for punishment. The bully or abuser is confused and/or gives respect for such, and then is more likely to stop doing it. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than nothing. Only a good guy with a gun or having massive balls and a plan, can stop a bad guy with a gun. ;)