3 ms·

I can see where he's coming from: if he refuses to do business with ICE because he disagrees with something they're doing (whether he or they are actually wrong

I can see where he's coming from: if he refuses to do business with ICE because he disagrees with something they're doing (whether he or they are actually wrong), he's implicitly endorsing every aspect of every customer he does choose to do business with.

tenaciousDaniel 7y ago
Also committing to scrutinize the internal business practices of every future partner. It's easy enough to point at ICE and say that they're actions don't align with your values. But you're setting a precedent for your company - one that will be very hard to live up to down the road.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  Mr. Crist is not just the CEO of Chef. He is also a citizen of the United States of America. As a citizen, he has duties that should take priority over his responsibilities as Chef CEO. By virtue of his position as CEO, his influence and his responsibility to wield that influence in the public interest are greater.
- maxwell 7y ago
  You don't see the divide between those who operate concentration camps, and those who do not?
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  No they aren't. They haven't scrutinized ICE at all - they're operating on nationally reported information.
notus 7y ago
I disagree with that implication. Refusing to do business with ICE in this context is just saying that their actions are so bad that they cannot support that level of evil. All that implies of the people they continue to work is they don't meet that threshold of evil. It's not a black and white thing.
vageli 7y ago
By this logic no one can ever take a stand, lest they be criticized for being inconsistent in the application of their principles. Gotta start somewhere, no?
- shakezula 7y ago
  That’s what these types want, though. They want to have plausible deniability and a solid excuse while they’re cashing their checks, they don’t actually want to make hard choices.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
awakeasleep 7y ago
This is common 'tech guy' thinking where an action is immoral and impossible unless it can be generalized to apply to every situation for all time. It's bullshit though. That isn't how life works, it's not a humane standard to hold people to, and no one does it. You make judgements. The squeaky wheel gets noticed. And just because you notice one squeaky wheel doesn't mean you are required to inspect every wheel for potential squeaks every time you are aware there may be wheels somewhere in the future.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

tenaciousDaniel 7y ago

Also committing to scrutinize the internal business practices of every future partner. It's easy enough to point at ICE and say that they're actions don't align with your values. But you're setting a precedent for your company - one that will be very hard to live up to down the road.

Porthos9K 7y ago
Mr. Crist is not just the CEO of Chef. He is also a citizen of the United States of America. As a citizen, he has duties that should take priority over his responsibilities as Chef CEO. By virtue of his position as CEO, his influence and his responsibility to wield that influence in the public interest are greater.
maxwell 7y ago
You don't see the divide between those who operate concentration camps, and those who do not?
lazyasciiart 7y ago
No they aren't. They haven't scrutinized ICE at all - they're operating on nationally reported information.

notus 7y ago

I disagree with that implication. Refusing to do business with ICE in this context is just saying that their actions are so bad that they cannot support that level of evil. All that implies of the people they continue to work is they don't meet that threshold of evil. It's not a black and white thing.

vageli 7y ago

By this logic no one can ever take a stand, lest they be criticized for being inconsistent in the application of their principles. Gotta start somewhere, no?

shakezula 7y ago
That’s what these types want, though. They want to have plausible deniability and a solid excuse while they’re cashing their checks, they don’t actually want to make hard choices.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

awakeasleep 7y ago

This is common 'tech guy' thinking where an action is immoral and impossible unless it can be generalized to apply to every situation for all time. It's bullshit though. That isn't how life works, it's not a humane standard to hold people to, and no one does it. You make judgements. The squeaky wheel gets noticed. And just because you notice one squeaky wheel doesn't mean you are required to inspect every wheel for potential squeaks every time you are aware there may be wheels somewhere in the future.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]