29 ms·

Good, but not enough. They also need to cancel their contracts with DHS, the Police, the Army, and any other US Gov agency, especially while Trump is in power.

prepend 7y ago
I don’t know how they can live with themselves by allowing Coca Cola as a customer. Any idea how much damage sugar does? Chef is contributing to the obesity epidemic and Coca Cola costs more lives than ICE.
- KingMachiavelli 7y ago
  /s ? Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
  - prepend 7y ago
    Only because the harm caused by Coca Cola is magnitudes worse. Coke has been operating for 100 years. ICE isn’t even 29 years old.
- tylermac1 7y ago
  That's quite the stretch. Equating the moral issue of detaining children indefinitely to producing a beverage is really something.
  - ng12 7y ago
    This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their CI/CD stack do more damage to children than advertising freebase sugar to them? I'd say probably not, especially since ICE is just going to migrate to a new stack.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. If you wish to propose a secondary harmful acction, you are free to take down your repos that Coca-Cola uses, same as anyone else? (I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)
      - ng12 7y ago
        I feel like it's worth recognizing that a company can be as morally ambivalent as they want as long as the particular brand of moral laxity isn't politically unfavorable at the time.
      - mixedCase 7y ago
        > What is being asked here is "...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?" If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
        yongjik 7y ago
        > ... making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border. Are you talking about Chef or this whole discussion thread (myself included)?
        mixedCase 7y ago
        > But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear Specifically that, in the context of this comment subtree. If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically then we cannot play favorites and dismiss other Chef customers who also behave unethically; Coca-Cola being responsible of much more illness, death, and abuse of the poor than ICE despite just "producing a beverage". Do we care about moral issues, or do we care about just this specific issue for a particular reason? Looking at the root comment from this chain (and from south of the border, mind you) it seems there are ulterior motives at play.
  - bendbro 7y ago
    That's a rather ignorant thing to say. Obesity is a crisis in America and is having a real health impact.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      People choose to drink soda. It's a far cry from separating children and locking them into cages. Not remotely comparable.
      - wostusername 7y ago
        >People choose to drink soda. People also choose to cross the border illegally.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        The children aren't choosing to do so. Also, it's not illegal if you're filing an asylum claim (which most are).
      - whybenull 7y ago
        Do these families who are not citizens of the USA choose to try to enter the USA? And way to be a sensationalist by using terms like "cages".
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        The children are not choosing to do so in any meaningful sense, no. But anyway, most of the families are filing for asylum, which is legal. They aren't entering illegally; they are filing for asylum at the border. We're the ones choosing to cage them instead of treating them more humanely. And it's not sensationalist to speak the truth. There are plenty of photos and videos. We are actually doing this.
      - prepend 7y ago
        Their choice is manipulated by massive advertising, contracts with schools, exclusive lock-ins. Children have less of a choice, I think in drinking soda than families do in seeking asylum. It’s not choose one or the other, person if Chef is a moral company they should block both.
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    > detaining children indefinitely See, when somebody throws something like this out, I can’t tell if they’re just uninformed or being intentionally misrepresentative. Family separation started under the Clinton administration when they found that large number of children were being assaulted in predominantly adult detention facilities, as well as finding that many of the migrant children were being accompanied by adults who were not their parents (that is, were being trafficked). I’m… not entirely sure what else you expect the border patrol to do other than, but I have to suspect it’s something like “don’t detain anybody, give them a court date and hope they show up for it” which was the policy until recently. They have a difficult job and a difficult mandate - trying to make them out to be the bad guys here just makes it harder, but isn’t going to help anybody.
    - melq 7y ago
      So this person isn't allowed to object to the practice simply because it's been going on for a while? What is your point here?
      - dodobirdlord 7y ago
        There was a lot more content to that response than the simple fact that the practice has been going on for a while, and I think that your response demonstrates bad faith.
  - prepend 7y ago
    I mean if you look at lives lost it seems quite obvious. Americans and the world consume too much sugar. Empty calories contribute to obesity. Thousands of detained children are bad. Tens of millions dead from obesity is certainly worse than that right? Also it’s quite possible to not work with lots of terrible companies that are doing great harm. Why stop with just a few. Surely chef will help the world by not doing business with all the bad companies of the world.
- rudiv 7y ago
  Someone from a non-American perspective might think of how many murders of union organizers they've gone along with before the obesity epidemic.
- revscat 7y ago
  > Any idea how much damage sugar does? Plastic, too. Coca-Cola is the largest source of plastic waste in the world.
tenaciousDaniel 7y ago
^ and that's why I supported the Chef CEO's original position. You people are never satisfied.
turk73 7y ago
Mass, uncontrolled immigration is great if you're a billionaire or a corporation, but not so great if you're a regular citizen. No other country on the planet has been more tolerant or generous than the US but we pay taxes for ourselves first and foremost, not to invite all the world's problems to our door. I see it up close and personal in my kids' schools where ESL has soaked up so much funding that gifted programs and even Special Ed are cut. How much will I have to pay in property taxes to invite all the world's children to the USA? Are you aware that it can't become 100% of my income? It's not even close to that elastic. The people who paid taxes have a social contract with local and state government to provide school services of appropriate agreed upon quality. I would prefer we focus on that and leave all the woke, virtue-signaling bs behind. Oh and also: I refuse to live as a planet 'citizen' where the baseline level of individual freedom for me is China! I might as well revolt because some least common denominator citizenship status as "world citizen" is equivalent to "nothing at all." Those who do support our nation will set up separate tech, separate finance, separate banking, a whole separate Internet if need be. And we won't forget all your derangement, either, so beware.

prepend 7y ago

I don’t know how they can live with themselves by allowing Coca Cola as a customer. Any idea how much damage sugar does? Chef is contributing to the obesity epidemic and Coca Cola costs more lives than ICE.

KingMachiavelli 7y ago
/s ? Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
- prepend 7y ago
  Only because the harm caused by Coca Cola is magnitudes worse. Coke has been operating for 100 years. ICE isn’t even 29 years old.
tylermac1 7y ago
That's quite the stretch. Equating the moral issue of detaining children indefinitely to producing a beverage is really something.
- ng12 7y ago
  This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their CI/CD stack do more damage to children than advertising freebase sugar to them? I'd say probably not, especially since ICE is just going to migrate to a new stack.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. If you wish to propose a secondary harmful acction, you are free to take down your repos that Coca-Cola uses, same as anyone else? (I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)
    - ng12 7y ago
      I feel like it's worth recognizing that a company can be as morally ambivalent as they want as long as the particular brand of moral laxity isn't politically unfavorable at the time.
    - mixedCase 7y ago
      > What is being asked here is "...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?" If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
      - yongjik 7y ago
        > ... making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border. Are you talking about Chef or this whole discussion thread (myself included)?
        mixedCase 7y ago
        > But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear Specifically that, in the context of this comment subtree. If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically then we cannot play favorites and dismiss other Chef customers who also behave unethically; Coca-Cola being responsible of much more illness, death, and abuse of the poor than ICE despite just "producing a beverage". Do we care about moral issues, or do we care about just this specific issue for a particular reason? Looking at the root comment from this chain (and from south of the border, mind you) it seems there are ulterior motives at play.
- bendbro 7y ago
  That's a rather ignorant thing to say. Obesity is a crisis in America and is having a real health impact.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    People choose to drink soda. It's a far cry from separating children and locking them into cages. Not remotely comparable.
    - wostusername 7y ago
      >People choose to drink soda. People also choose to cross the border illegally.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        The children aren't choosing to do so. Also, it's not illegal if you're filing an asylum claim (which most are).
    - whybenull 7y ago
      Do these families who are not citizens of the USA choose to try to enter the USA? And way to be a sensationalist by using terms like "cages".
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        The children are not choosing to do so in any meaningful sense, no. But anyway, most of the families are filing for asylum, which is legal. They aren't entering illegally; they are filing for asylum at the border. We're the ones choosing to cage them instead of treating them more humanely. And it's not sensationalist to speak the truth. There are plenty of photos and videos. We are actually doing this.
    - prepend 7y ago
      Their choice is manipulated by massive advertising, contracts with schools, exclusive lock-ins. Children have less of a choice, I think in drinking soda than families do in seeking asylum. It’s not choose one or the other, person if Chef is a moral company they should block both.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > detaining children indefinitely See, when somebody throws something like this out, I can’t tell if they’re just uninformed or being intentionally misrepresentative. Family separation started under the Clinton administration when they found that large number of children were being assaulted in predominantly adult detention facilities, as well as finding that many of the migrant children were being accompanied by adults who were not their parents (that is, were being trafficked). I’m… not entirely sure what else you expect the border patrol to do other than, but I have to suspect it’s something like “don’t detain anybody, give them a court date and hope they show up for it” which was the policy until recently. They have a difficult job and a difficult mandate - trying to make them out to be the bad guys here just makes it harder, but isn’t going to help anybody.
  - melq 7y ago
    So this person isn't allowed to object to the practice simply because it's been going on for a while? What is your point here?
    - dodobirdlord 7y ago
      There was a lot more content to that response than the simple fact that the practice has been going on for a while, and I think that your response demonstrates bad faith.
- prepend 7y ago
  I mean if you look at lives lost it seems quite obvious. Americans and the world consume too much sugar. Empty calories contribute to obesity. Thousands of detained children are bad. Tens of millions dead from obesity is certainly worse than that right? Also it’s quite possible to not work with lots of terrible companies that are doing great harm. Why stop with just a few. Surely chef will help the world by not doing business with all the bad companies of the world.
rudiv 7y ago
Someone from a non-American perspective might think of how many murders of union organizers they've gone along with before the obesity epidemic.
revscat 7y ago
> Any idea how much damage sugar does? Plastic, too. Coca-Cola is the largest source of plastic waste in the world.

tenaciousDaniel 7y ago

^ and that's why I supported the Chef CEO's original position. You people are never satisfied.

turk73 7y ago

Mass, uncontrolled immigration is great if you're a billionaire or a corporation, but not so great if you're a regular citizen. No other country on the planet has been more tolerant or generous than the US but we pay taxes for ourselves first and foremost, not to invite all the world's problems to our door. I see it up close and personal in my kids' schools where ESL has soaked up so much funding that gifted programs and even Special Ed are cut. How much will I have to pay in property taxes to invite all the world's children to the USA? Are you aware that it can't become 100% of my income? It's not even close to that elastic. The people who paid taxes have a social contract with local and state government to provide school services of appropriate agreed upon quality. I would prefer we focus on that and leave all the woke, virtue-signaling bs behind. Oh and also: I refuse to live as a planet 'citizen' where the baseline level of individual freedom for me is China! I might as well revolt because some least common denominator citizenship status as "world citizen" is equivalent to "nothing at all." Those who do support our nation will set up separate tech, separate finance, separate banking, a whole separate Internet if need be. And we won't forget all your derangement, either, so beware.