3 ms·

the whole "stop weapons development" seems a bit naive to me because these weapons will be developed no matter what. i'd just prefer for Microsoft to do it, rat

by kmlx 8y ago

the whole "stop weapons development" seems a bit naive to me because these weapons will be developed no matter what. i'd just prefer for Microsoft to do it, rather than another much less scrutinised/less exposed outfit. i would like to bring everything out in the open rather than hiding it in some corner of the economy. regarding quitting, I would assume that for any huge corp it's a mixture of staff resigning + publicity + the general "root for the underdogs". but for any other smaller and/or less public corp, I would again assume that staff resigning would count a lot more than any petition no one will see/care about.

eesmith 8y ago
To be more precise, this isn't "stop weapons development" as a general statement but "stop the newly stated weapons development program at Microsoft". It seems like your argument is that since there are 'Syrian arms factories' then every company in the US should be involved in weapons development (presumably so long as it is profitable?). And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no one should object should that happen? Your statement "[X] will be developed no matter what" has been the justification for a huge amount of unethical practices. Just last month I saw https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/space-childbirth-babies/579064/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/space-ch... about a company trying to justify organizing a birth in orbit by 2024 : > Gerrit-Jan Zwenne, one of SpaceLife Origin’s advisers and Edelbroek’s cousin, is convinced that if this company doesn’t do it, another will. ... “I think at some point this will happen anyway, so we better do it in a very open and transparent manner,” Zwenne says. “If it’s somebody working on his own, in isolation, not in contact with the rest of the world, you may discover that something happens and you can’t reverse it.” Yet that project is, by modern medical standards, completely unethical. I'm sure it would not be hard to find many other unethical examples. Remember too that your argument would also justify using chemical weapons again in WWII, and justify a nuclear first strike, and justify all sorts of other barbaric military practices. We should torture our enemies first, because we know they would torture our troops if they could, and it's better that American Freedom does it first. /s I therefore cannot accept that as a valid argument, and instead see it as being very naive. You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open" Well, that's not going to happen, so what's your backup plan? That is, name one open military weapons project. Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft are huge corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy. Which is what you are seeing here. Why then are you saying that it isn't effective? It does not appear that you know much about the history and effect of labor actions, so I do not believe anyone should trust your assertion that the "Best form of protest is to quit".
- kmlx 8y ago
  > And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no one should object should that happen? This assertion is so preposterous I'm not going to reply to it. You have personal issues with weapons systems development. I get it. But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking? Is it a sense of nostalgia as to "how things were before"? Is it peer pressure? Companies changes, products change, people come and go. It's the course of life. >You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open" Well, that's not going to happen, so what's your backup plan? It's already out in the open. No backup plan needed. That's what happens when the likes of MS or Amazon are involved. Again, I'd rather keep it that way. You want to send it back to Raytheon so that we don't hear about it again. No, thank you. > Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft are huge corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy. Which is what you are seeing here. Why then are you saying that it isn't effective? One can quit and then tell the world about what's going on. That would make the prevailing narrative very convincing. Or one could continue to collect their paycheck while at the same time protest. Making their narrative extremely skewed, even hypocritical.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    You've never answered my question, and the only clues you've given lead to that 'preposterous' interpretation. "You have personal issues with weapons systems development" To quote you, "Preposterous." Where have I ever said or even implied that? "But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking?" Of course they shouldn't. But the entire point of my comments is the flip side - why shouldn't an employee try to change the direction of a company? There's plenty of history to show that that's possible. Your last paragraph is simply that there are only two options: work without public complaint or quit. Over and over again, labor history shows that other options exist and are effective. I would argue even more effective. On the one hand we have the Oakland teachers' strike, where the teachers got what they wanted - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-teachers-are-on-strike.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-t... . On the other hand, we have Oklahoma, where over 1/3 of the teachers have left over six years, due to lack of funding, lack of respect, and excess workload - http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60000-feet.html http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60... . But in that case the teachers individually walked out. The narrative of the collectively striking teachers of Oakland has been much more convincing than the narrative of the individually leaving teachers of Oklahoma in making policy change. "It's already out in the open." Umm. Okay, so please define "open", since it appears to be "whatever Microsoft does which Raytheon wouldn't have done." Microsoft doesn't have a long, traditional history of being "open" either, as the AARD code, the so-called 'Halloween documents', and others show. But suppose they are now "open". What is the basis of that openness? Is it part of the corporate charter, or employee contract? If they decide to not be open, or are found to not be open, what should the employees do? It sounds like your only response is "quit", which leaves them in the same place they are now.

by kmlx 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

To be more precise, this isn't "stop weapons development" as a general statement but "stop the newly stated weapons development program at Microsoft". It seems like your argument is that since there are 'Syrian arms factories' then every company in the US should be involved in weapons development (presumably so long as it is profitable?). And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no one should object should that happen? Your statement "[X] will be developed no matter what" has been the justification for a huge amount of unethical practices. Just last month I saw https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/space-childbirth-babies/579064/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/space-ch... about a company trying to justify organizing a birth in orbit by 2024 : > Gerrit-Jan Zwenne, one of SpaceLife Origin’s advisers and Edelbroek’s cousin, is convinced that if this company doesn’t do it, another will. ... “I think at some point this will happen anyway, so we better do it in a very open and transparent manner,” Zwenne says. “If it’s somebody working on his own, in isolation, not in contact with the rest of the world, you may discover that something happens and you can’t reverse it.” Yet that project is, by modern medical standards, completely unethical. I'm sure it would not be hard to find many other unethical examples. Remember too that your argument would also justify using chemical weapons again in WWII, and justify a nuclear first strike, and justify all sorts of other barbaric military practices. We should torture our enemies first, because we know they would torture our troops if they could, and it's better that American Freedom does it first. /s I therefore cannot accept that as a valid argument, and instead see it as being very naive. You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open" Well, that's not going to happen, so what's your backup plan? That is, name one open military weapons project. Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft are huge corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy. Which is what you are seeing here. Why then are you saying that it isn't effective? It does not appear that you know much about the history and effect of labor actions, so I do not believe anyone should trust your assertion that the "Best form of protest is to quit".

kmlx 8y ago
> And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no one should object should that happen? This assertion is so preposterous I'm not going to reply to it. You have personal issues with weapons systems development. I get it. But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking? Is it a sense of nostalgia as to "how things were before"? Is it peer pressure? Companies changes, products change, people come and go. It's the course of life. >You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open" Well, that's not going to happen, so what's your backup plan? It's already out in the open. No backup plan needed. That's what happens when the likes of MS or Amazon are involved. Again, I'd rather keep it that way. You want to send it back to Raytheon so that we don't hear about it again. No, thank you. > Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft are huge corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy. Which is what you are seeing here. Why then are you saying that it isn't effective? One can quit and then tell the world about what's going on. That would make the prevailing narrative very convincing. Or one could continue to collect their paycheck while at the same time protest. Making their narrative extremely skewed, even hypocritical.
- eesmith 8y ago
  You've never answered my question, and the only clues you've given lead to that 'preposterous' interpretation. "You have personal issues with weapons systems development" To quote you, "Preposterous." Where have I ever said or even implied that? "But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking?" Of course they shouldn't. But the entire point of my comments is the flip side - why shouldn't an employee try to change the direction of a company? There's plenty of history to show that that's possible. Your last paragraph is simply that there are only two options: work without public complaint or quit. Over and over again, labor history shows that other options exist and are effective. I would argue even more effective. On the one hand we have the Oakland teachers' strike, where the teachers got what they wanted - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-teachers-are-on-strike.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-t... . On the other hand, we have Oklahoma, where over 1/3 of the teachers have left over six years, due to lack of funding, lack of respect, and excess workload - http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60000-feet.html http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60... . But in that case the teachers individually walked out. The narrative of the collectively striking teachers of Oakland has been much more convincing than the narrative of the individually leaving teachers of Oklahoma in making policy change. "It's already out in the open." Umm. Okay, so please define "open", since it appears to be "whatever Microsoft does which Raytheon wouldn't have done." Microsoft doesn't have a long, traditional history of being "open" either, as the AARD code, the so-called 'Halloween documents', and others show. But suppose they are now "open". What is the basis of that openness? Is it part of the corporate charter, or employee contract? If they decide to not be open, or are found to not be open, what should the employees do? It sounds like your only response is "quit", which leaves them in the same place they are now.