3 ms·

> 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 grav

> 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.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically" Yes, is this actually being done? That's my question.