4 ms·

It's only grandstanding if you don't mean it. If you mean it enough to pay the cost, whether it is lower income working for an ethical company, or jail time fo

It's only grandstanding if you don't mean it. If you mean it enough to pay the cost, whether it is lower income working for an ethical company, or jail time for civil disobedience, then one is most certainly NOT grandstanding. > Sometimes, poor people are poor because they have ethics. Agreed. But that is the nature of ethics: Doing the right thing vs doing the selfish thing. You simply cannot claim to be an ethical person when you choose the latter over the former. You cannot claim to be an ethical person when you claim, as FussyZeus does in his comments, that it's someone else's problem, that you are only doing your job.

FussyZeus 7y ago
> But that is the nature of ethics: Doing the right thing vs doing the selfish thing. You simply cannot claim to be an ethical person when you choose the latter over the former. You cannot claim to be an ethical person when you claim, as FussyZeus does in his comments, that it's someone else's problem, that you are only doing your job. I have repeatedly pointed out how one is meant to weigh their personal ethics against obligations that are hardly selfish. No one has yet answered. If your child is in chemotherapy and their lives are dependent on your health insurance, is that selfish? You know even just changing jobs will mean a lapse in coverage, usually between 1 and 6 months. Do you think your child's cancer gives a shit about your ethics? I'm not arguing that employees should never take a stand. Absolutely do, if you're able. I'm saying dismissing entirely that anyone who doesn't is a lackey of a system they're refusing to question is ridiculous and insulting, and I'm pointing out that if such behaviors were regulated against, there would be NO NEED for the employees to take a stand on it, because it would be a settled matter. No one has yet deigned to explain why we can't have regulations for things like user privacy, the handling of user data, consequences for companies losing/misusing/exposing user data, or any one of the dozens of other issues that are in sore need of word-on-paper laws that are far from partisan issues, but are generally agreed on, except of course for Facebook, Twitter, and the rest who's business models will more or less implode when they can no longer do business unethically. But no, by all means, blame the fucking engineers. It's obviously their fault, not the fact that reality isn't black and white, the choices aren't always easy, but God forbid we put some human context in this instead of repeatedly insisting that there's no way we'd be the baddies, because nobody ever got stuck between a rock and a hard place before, nobody ever stole an apple because they were starving, no one ever had to take a high interest loan to buy FOOD before. I tell ya it's threads like this that remind me just how sheltered a lot of tech workers are. I'm glad things have always apparently been sunshine and rainbows for you, some of us weren't so lucky.
- eevilspock 7y ago
  If you truly are between the rock and a hard place described in your hypothetical(?) situation, I wouldn't judge. I specifically said, "This is ONLY a legit excuse for people who are genuinely struggling to survive." I am not "dismissing entirely" the reality that some people face. I'm all for regulations. I was taking issue with you putting all the burden on law rather than personal responsibility and morality. Even in cases of survival, there are lines. Would you buy a kidney to save your child from a poor person in China or India who's selling it to pay their rent or their daughter's dowery, who's being exploited by the middleman who's taking most of what you pay? I agree there are often conflicting moral pulls that must be weighed. But my overall point is that that is not what usually is happening. People in SV can afford to have less income; they'd just not be as comfy or materialistically bountiful. We don't need to have cars if we live in an urban location; but saving 60 minutes on one's commute and not having to sit next to strangers is more important than the environment or rejecting the ethics of the company that is paying you the salary that affords you the car. > nobody ever stole an apple because they were starving I actually have no ethical issue with this. I believe, frankly, the current system is incredibly unjust. > I'm glad things have always apparently been sunshine and rainbows for you, some of us weren't so lucky. That's exactly my point. People who's sunshine and rainbows come courtesy of high SV salaries from companies that profit off of unethical behavior and unethical system dynamics (e.g. Google and Facebook profiting off advertising and privacy violation) are precisely the people I'm talking about. BTW, I gave up a my high 6-figure salary 7 years ago and now work with underserved children and minimum wage, am writing about social justice issues, and am working on tech-based educational tools to wake people up to the harmful system dynamics they contribute to.

FussyZeus 7y ago

> But that is the nature of ethics: Doing the right thing vs doing the selfish thing. You simply cannot claim to be an ethical person when you choose the latter over the former. You cannot claim to be an ethical person when you claim, as FussyZeus does in his comments, that it's someone else's problem, that you are only doing your job. I have repeatedly pointed out how one is meant to weigh their personal ethics against obligations that are hardly selfish. No one has yet answered. If your child is in chemotherapy and their lives are dependent on your health insurance, is that selfish? You know even just changing jobs will mean a lapse in coverage, usually between 1 and 6 months. Do you think your child's cancer gives a shit about your ethics? I'm not arguing that employees should never take a stand. Absolutely do, if you're able. I'm saying dismissing entirely that anyone who doesn't is a lackey of a system they're refusing to question is ridiculous and insulting, and I'm pointing out that if such behaviors were regulated against, there would be NO NEED for the employees to take a stand on it, because it would be a settled matter. No one has yet deigned to explain why we can't have regulations for things like user privacy, the handling of user data, consequences for companies losing/misusing/exposing user data, or any one of the dozens of other issues that are in sore need of word-on-paper laws that are far from partisan issues, but are generally agreed on, except of course for Facebook, Twitter, and the rest who's business models will more or less implode when they can no longer do business unethically. But no, by all means, blame the fucking engineers. It's obviously their fault, not the fact that reality isn't black and white, the choices aren't always easy, but God forbid we put some human context in this instead of repeatedly insisting that there's no way we'd be the baddies, because nobody ever got stuck between a rock and a hard place before, nobody ever stole an apple because they were starving, no one ever had to take a high interest loan to buy FOOD before. I tell ya it's threads like this that remind me just how sheltered a lot of tech workers are. I'm glad things have always apparently been sunshine and rainbows for you, some of us weren't so lucky.

eevilspock 7y ago
If you truly are between the rock and a hard place described in your hypothetical(?) situation, I wouldn't judge. I specifically said, "This is ONLY a legit excuse for people who are genuinely struggling to survive." I am not "dismissing entirely" the reality that some people face. I'm all for regulations. I was taking issue with you putting all the burden on law rather than personal responsibility and morality. Even in cases of survival, there are lines. Would you buy a kidney to save your child from a poor person in China or India who's selling it to pay their rent or their daughter's dowery, who's being exploited by the middleman who's taking most of what you pay? I agree there are often conflicting moral pulls that must be weighed. But my overall point is that that is not what usually is happening. People in SV can afford to have less income; they'd just not be as comfy or materialistically bountiful. We don't need to have cars if we live in an urban location; but saving 60 minutes on one's commute and not having to sit next to strangers is more important than the environment or rejecting the ethics of the company that is paying you the salary that affords you the car. > nobody ever stole an apple because they were starving I actually have no ethical issue with this. I believe, frankly, the current system is incredibly unjust. > I'm glad things have always apparently been sunshine and rainbows for you, some of us weren't so lucky. That's exactly my point. People who's sunshine and rainbows come courtesy of high SV salaries from companies that profit off of unethical behavior and unethical system dynamics (e.g. Google and Facebook profiting off advertising and privacy violation) are precisely the people I'm talking about. BTW, I gave up a my high 6-figure salary 7 years ago and now work with underserved children and minimum wage, am writing about social justice issues, and am working on tech-based educational tools to wake people up to the harmful system dynamics they contribute to.