5 ms·

Tech needs fewer conscientious objectors, not more. These people rarely know anything about what they're protesting, and resort fearmongering and populism to ge

by Aunche 8y ago

Tech needs fewer conscientious objectors, not more. These people rarely know anything about what they're protesting, and resort fearmongering and populism to get what they want without even attempting to resolve things civilly. The most recent example is Google's AI ethics council debacle. Activist employees were so stubborn that they can't won't even let people have a discussion about AI ethics because one of them held views they disagree with. Half the authors of the American Constitution thought that slavery should be legal, but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways.

nrb 8y ago
...and all it took was 200 years of rancor & malice and one of the bloodiest wars in the history of our country to begin to resolve. That’s a pretty extreme reduction of the founding of America with regard to those deep disagreements among the founding fathers. Those who “disagree with” the Heritage Foundation probably take offense by their propensity to outright lie and manipulate to achieve their objectives, most of which run contrary to the values of those working on Google’s AI teams. In light of that, I highly doubt they see Heritage as good-faith actors.
- Aunche 8y ago
  My point about the Constitutional convention is that they were able to postpone resolving a contentious issue in order to make progress on things they can agree on. That's what it truly means to be progressive. IMO, the activists outright lie to and manipulate the public to achieve their objectives by overly simplifying the positions of the Hertitage Foundation. Regardless, it doesn't really matter because the Heritage Foundation represents the beliefs of a large proportion of the population, so their voice is important.
geofft 8y ago
> Half the authors of the American Constitution thought that slavery should be legal, but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways. This is a story of democracy happening in spite of the founding fathers, not because of the founding fathers. It was, as you may know, a long (multiple centuries) and bloody (a pretty big war, plus lots of extrajudicial lynchings etc.) road from what they drafted to universal suffrage. It's still in progress in many ways, and a lot of people were hurt in the progress. So this seems like a pretty good argument that we should not let people who have views that are contrary to the long-term goal be setting the direction of how to get to the long-term goal.
- bumby 8y ago
  Are you claiming the U.S. founding fathers had an adversarial role in establishing democracy?
  - geofft 8y ago
    If by "democracy" we mean "a certain privileged class of humans have shared influence in their government, usually by voting," then the US founding fathers were rather late to the game - plenty of republics had that already. If by "democracy" we mean "there is no privileged class, and all people born in the land can vote if they are of age and have not had their privileges removed by due process of law," or we mean "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (the Declaration of Independence), or we mean "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.... The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), then yes, I think the people responsible for the Constitution were quite adversarial to that goal. The United Kingdom, in freedom from whom the US founding fathers supposedly established democracy, banned slavery over half a century before the US did and slowly but steadily allowed more people to vote for Parliament during the 1800s. At the time the US Constitution was established, only 6% of the US population could vote, according to https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archiv... .
    - bumby 8y ago
      I think you are missing the point of the parent comment. They implied the U.S. founding fathers made progress toward universal suffrage, not perfected it. While accurate, your point on slavery misses the point too. The parent comment was implying that significant democratic progress was made despite contentious disagreement on important issues like slavery. Your "in spite of" comment comes across as if it's saying "their system was flawed, therefore it didn't make any meaningful contributions and society would have been better without it". Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good... This exemplifies the parent comment's original point about Google's AI ethics committee of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they were unable to meet the expectation that everyone agree on everything. If that maxim isn't met, they just take their ball and go home and the overall system is no better than when it started.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
> but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways. American democracy. It makes absolute sense that the founding fathers of America are the basis of the modern American democracy, but let's not pretend that they lay sole claim to modern democracy.
orblivion 8y ago
I agree they don't have a special understanding of things. I also rolled my eyes at the Heritage Foundation thing, among others. On the other hand, what's the alternative? "Shut up and code"? Google isn't entitled to their work. We all have to operate by our own moral compass at the end of the day, and if you don't feel comfortable with what you're working on, it doesn't seem unreasonable to resign.
blub 8y ago
This just sounds not only like you gave up trying to influence the world around you for the better a long time ago, but for some perverse reason want everyone else to give up too. Worst kind of defeatism.

by Aunche 8y ago

nrb 8y ago

...and all it took was 200 years of rancor & malice and one of the bloodiest wars in the history of our country to begin to resolve. That’s a pretty extreme reduction of the founding of America with regard to those deep disagreements among the founding fathers. Those who “disagree with” the Heritage Foundation probably take offense by their propensity to outright lie and manipulate to achieve their objectives, most of which run contrary to the values of those working on Google’s AI teams. In light of that, I highly doubt they see Heritage as good-faith actors.

Aunche 8y ago
My point about the Constitutional convention is that they were able to postpone resolving a contentious issue in order to make progress on things they can agree on. That's what it truly means to be progressive. IMO, the activists outright lie to and manipulate the public to achieve their objectives by overly simplifying the positions of the Hertitage Foundation. Regardless, it doesn't really matter because the Heritage Foundation represents the beliefs of a large proportion of the population, so their voice is important.

geofft 8y ago

> Half the authors of the American Constitution thought that slavery should be legal, but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways. This is a story of democracy happening in spite of the founding fathers, not because of the founding fathers. It was, as you may know, a long (multiple centuries) and bloody (a pretty big war, plus lots of extrajudicial lynchings etc.) road from what they drafted to universal suffrage. It's still in progress in many ways, and a lot of people were hurt in the progress. So this seems like a pretty good argument that we should not let people who have views that are contrary to the long-term goal be setting the direction of how to get to the long-term goal.

bumby 8y ago
Are you claiming the U.S. founding fathers had an adversarial role in establishing democracy?
- geofft 8y ago
  If by "democracy" we mean "a certain privileged class of humans have shared influence in their government, usually by voting," then the US founding fathers were rather late to the game - plenty of republics had that already. If by "democracy" we mean "there is no privileged class, and all people born in the land can vote if they are of age and have not had their privileges removed by due process of law," or we mean "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (the Declaration of Independence), or we mean "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.... The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), then yes, I think the people responsible for the Constitution were quite adversarial to that goal. The United Kingdom, in freedom from whom the US founding fathers supposedly established democracy, banned slavery over half a century before the US did and slowly but steadily allowed more people to vote for Parliament during the 1800s. At the time the US Constitution was established, only 6% of the US population could vote, according to https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archiv... .
  - bumby 8y ago
    I think you are missing the point of the parent comment. They implied the U.S. founding fathers made progress toward universal suffrage, not perfected it. While accurate, your point on slavery misses the point too. The parent comment was implying that significant democratic progress was made despite contentious disagreement on important issues like slavery. Your "in spite of" comment comes across as if it's saying "their system was flawed, therefore it didn't make any meaningful contributions and society would have been better without it". Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good... This exemplifies the parent comment's original point about Google's AI ethics committee of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they were unable to meet the expectation that everyone agree on everything. If that maxim isn't met, they just take their ball and go home and the overall system is no better than when it started.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

> but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways. American democracy. It makes absolute sense that the founding fathers of America are the basis of the modern American democracy, but let's not pretend that they lay sole claim to modern democracy.

orblivion 8y ago

I agree they don't have a special understanding of things. I also rolled my eyes at the Heritage Foundation thing, among others. On the other hand, what's the alternative? "Shut up and code"? Google isn't entitled to their work. We all have to operate by our own moral compass at the end of the day, and if you don't feel comfortable with what you're working on, it doesn't seem unreasonable to resign.

blub 8y ago

This just sounds not only like you gave up trying to influence the world around you for the better a long time ago, but for some perverse reason want everyone else to give up too. Worst kind of defeatism.