3 ms·

> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society

> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? If you can sweep controversy under the rug until such time that it's convenient then good luck ever getting change to occur for the better. > by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face. Making it anonymous & fungible is only necessary if you're unable or unwilling to stand up for your actions. If you're unwilling to stand up for what's right or are doing something you know is unethical, then what right do you have to the proceeds from your actions?

minitel 8y ago
> The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? Spoken like someone who was raised in a culture where airing grievances led to getting what you wanted most of the time. I mean, it's not illogical. There's a reason why the activist archetype is so respected in our society. It gets results! But the outlook that fuels activists to push things things until they win: "I'd rather burn everything to the ground than not get what I want" is also an incredibly short sighted and selfish way to look at things. This is the human condition I guess. We take things for granted. Like the stability we've grown up in, so much that we're willing to sacrifice our inheritance [a stable and mostly fair society] chasing windmills. Luckily we've amassed so much wealth and institutional inertia that I think it'll be a while before it all comes tumbling down.
- bdhess 8y ago
  > This is the human condition I guess. We take things for granted. Like the stability we've grown up in, so much that we're willing to sacrifice our inheritance [a stable and mostly fair society] chasing windmills. The notion that this is a “stable and mostly fair society” is not self-evidently true. And I suspect that if the question were surveyed, the results would differ dramatically across identity groups.
  - minitel 8y ago
    Even the poorest "identity groups" in the United States own more wealth than most other "identity groups" across the planet. Western Society also goes out of its way to embrace "the outsider" insofar as it tries very hard to include them in everything to the point of ridiculousness. This tradition of inclusion goes all the way back to Rome, which preferred integration over annihilation (excepting Carthage). But I get it. It feels good to complain and to hate on things. Especially when there is no downside (e.g. you get patted on the back and told you're a holy person). You might even convince some of the oppressed "identity groups" you're speaking for to help you implement your pet projects along the way.
leereeves 8y ago
What good is a society without due process or presumption of innocence, where a disputed allegation would be punished without proof?
- ben_w 8y ago
  I suspect that at a certain level, corporations must have accountability similar to nations. Right now corporations don’t need to be democratic, they don’t need to allow any type of “freedom of speech” and indeed have strong incentives/prohibitions against it in the case of no-disparagement clauses. I think people may need to be allowed a vote in the companies they work for/monopolies that service them, and that freedom-of-speech rules for corporations, employees, and customers is likely to follow that of their host nations — not equally free everywhere, but that no-disparagement clauses would be legal in the UK and illegal in the USA, for example.
- lovich 8y ago
  Do companies apply any of that to employees unless they are a protected class? If they want you gone you're gone for whatever reason they make up if they even make one. You don't get to have a presumption of innocence or due process. Why shouldnt companies be treated the same way by their employees?
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I think we'd all like to see contracts meant to prevent those abuses honored. It's only unfortunate that more of us don't have such contracts.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  That's not a court. It's a company. And just like they can decide to hand out golden parachutes to execs accused of misbehaving they could chose not to. That's not the same as punishment by a court of law after 'due process'.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I thought the $90 million was required by a contract. If not, and Google made the decision to offer the money after the accusation, that's different.
weberc2 8y ago
> Making it anonymous & fungible is only necessary if you're unable or unwilling to stand up for your actions. Doesn’t this presuppose “good” people are in charge?

minitel 8y ago

> The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? Spoken like someone who was raised in a culture where airing grievances led to getting what you wanted most of the time. I mean, it's not illogical. There's a reason why the activist archetype is so respected in our society. It gets results! But the outlook that fuels activists to push things things until they win: "I'd rather burn everything to the ground than not get what I want" is also an incredibly short sighted and selfish way to look at things. This is the human condition I guess. We take things for granted. Like the stability we've grown up in, so much that we're willing to sacrifice our inheritance [a stable and mostly fair society] chasing windmills. Luckily we've amassed so much wealth and institutional inertia that I think it'll be a while before it all comes tumbling down.

bdhess 8y ago
> This is the human condition I guess. We take things for granted. Like the stability we've grown up in, so much that we're willing to sacrifice our inheritance [a stable and mostly fair society] chasing windmills. The notion that this is a “stable and mostly fair society” is not self-evidently true. And I suspect that if the question were surveyed, the results would differ dramatically across identity groups.
- minitel 8y ago
  Even the poorest "identity groups" in the United States own more wealth than most other "identity groups" across the planet. Western Society also goes out of its way to embrace "the outsider" insofar as it tries very hard to include them in everything to the point of ridiculousness. This tradition of inclusion goes all the way back to Rome, which preferred integration over annihilation (excepting Carthage). But I get it. It feels good to complain and to hate on things. Especially when there is no downside (e.g. you get patted on the back and told you're a holy person). You might even convince some of the oppressed "identity groups" you're speaking for to help you implement your pet projects along the way.

leereeves 8y ago

What good is a society without due process or presumption of innocence, where a disputed allegation would be punished without proof?

ben_w 8y ago
I suspect that at a certain level, corporations must have accountability similar to nations. Right now corporations don’t need to be democratic, they don’t need to allow any type of “freedom of speech” and indeed have strong incentives/prohibitions against it in the case of no-disparagement clauses. I think people may need to be allowed a vote in the companies they work for/monopolies that service them, and that freedom-of-speech rules for corporations, employees, and customers is likely to follow that of their host nations — not equally free everywhere, but that no-disparagement clauses would be legal in the UK and illegal in the USA, for example.
lovich 8y ago
Do companies apply any of that to employees unless they are a protected class? If they want you gone you're gone for whatever reason they make up if they even make one. You don't get to have a presumption of innocence or due process. Why shouldnt companies be treated the same way by their employees?
- leereeves 8y ago
  I think we'd all like to see contracts meant to prevent those abuses honored. It's only unfortunate that more of us don't have such contracts.
jacquesm 8y ago
That's not a court. It's a company. And just like they can decide to hand out golden parachutes to execs accused of misbehaving they could chose not to. That's not the same as punishment by a court of law after 'due process'.
- leereeves 8y ago
  I thought the $90 million was required by a contract. If not, and Google made the decision to offer the money after the accusation, that's different.

weberc2 8y ago

> Making it anonymous & fungible is only necessary if you're unable or unwilling to stand up for your actions. Doesn’t this presuppose “good” people are in charge?