5 ms·

Listening to that argument is a clear “catch 22”. If he quits his job, it’s not much of a stance but obviously staying is not a stance either. What was he suppo

by human 6y ago

Listening to that argument is a clear “catch 22”. If he quits his job, it’s not much of a stance but obviously staying is not a stance either. What was he supposed to do? I think that in a capitalist country we choose who we buy from and who we work for. These are two powerful choices that can shape society. He’s doing the right thing.

majewsky 6y ago
> obviously staying is not a stance either This is not obvious to me.
- thomasfedb 6y ago
  I think the suggestion here is: if you are in a position to leave your job, and you do not, then than is implicit support for your employer.
  - indigochill 6y ago
    I might even say explicit support. After all, how better to support a company than directly working for them? In some business models you're probably generating more value for the company working for them than you would as a customer.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    Ah sorry, I think I parsed this wrong. I thought it meant "no stance" instead of "not much of a stance".
luckylion 6y ago
> He’s doing the right thing. He worked at Facebook, let's not get carried away. Working at Facebook and then leaving because of the non-intervention wrt to the President is a bit like manufacturing landmines quite happily, but having a change of heart because you saw a dog stepping on one. You've still been manufacturing landmines all that time, making money and not giving a damn.
- mauvehaus 6y ago
  Beating people up for not having your morals is not a great way to get them on your side. Facebook has been on my list of companies not to work at for a long time, but I have friends who work there. Accepting that other people value different things and being willing to interact with them on a basic, human level is a lot more likely to build bridges and lead to constructive conversation about important matters down the road than casting people aside because they don't conform to your worldview today. I'll grant you that Facebook, among others, enables exactly the sort of thing I'm advocating against. I'll grant you that it seems to promote people yelling at each other over the internet instead of building the relationships that enable difficult conversations in time. And I'll grant you that they do it to sell ads for shit we mostly don't need. But that doesn't make everybody who works there bad, and it doesn't mean that people who decide that continuing to work there is no longer consistent with their values should be equated with merchants of death when they publicly leave. You're castigating somebody for voting with their feet, but presumably mostly because they didn't do it as soon as you did.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > You're castigating somebody for voting with their feet, but presumably mostly because they didn't do it as soon as you did. No. I'm saying they did always vote with their feet. And "get money, fuck society" was the vote they cast. Facebook isn't the army, there is no draft, they had and have plenty of other options. It's greed and a general feeling of superiority that sees the general population the same way the owners of factory farms see pigs.
- tjchear 6y ago
  That analogy does not work though. Landmine's sole purpose is to kill/injure whoever steps on it. I don't use Facebook much, but plenty of people have benefited from it. Instead of personal cost to him, I'd rather view it through the lenses of the impact of his action. It's inviting a lot of constructive conversation and making people re-evaluate Mark's decisions, which I think overall is a net positive.
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by human 6y ago

majewsky 6y ago

> obviously staying is not a stance either This is not obvious to me.

thomasfedb 6y ago
I think the suggestion here is: if you are in a position to leave your job, and you do not, then than is implicit support for your employer.
- indigochill 6y ago
  I might even say explicit support. After all, how better to support a company than directly working for them? In some business models you're probably generating more value for the company working for them than you would as a customer.
- majewsky 6y ago
  Ah sorry, I think I parsed this wrong. I thought it meant "no stance" instead of "not much of a stance".

luckylion 6y ago

> He’s doing the right thing. He worked at Facebook, let's not get carried away. Working at Facebook and then leaving because of the non-intervention wrt to the President is a bit like manufacturing landmines quite happily, but having a change of heart because you saw a dog stepping on one. You've still been manufacturing landmines all that time, making money and not giving a damn.

mauvehaus 6y ago
Beating people up for not having your morals is not a great way to get them on your side. Facebook has been on my list of companies not to work at for a long time, but I have friends who work there. Accepting that other people value different things and being willing to interact with them on a basic, human level is a lot more likely to build bridges and lead to constructive conversation about important matters down the road than casting people aside because they don't conform to your worldview today. I'll grant you that Facebook, among others, enables exactly the sort of thing I'm advocating against. I'll grant you that it seems to promote people yelling at each other over the internet instead of building the relationships that enable difficult conversations in time. And I'll grant you that they do it to sell ads for shit we mostly don't need. But that doesn't make everybody who works there bad, and it doesn't mean that people who decide that continuing to work there is no longer consistent with their values should be equated with merchants of death when they publicly leave. You're castigating somebody for voting with their feet, but presumably mostly because they didn't do it as soon as you did.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > You're castigating somebody for voting with their feet, but presumably mostly because they didn't do it as soon as you did. No. I'm saying they did always vote with their feet. And "get money, fuck society" was the vote they cast. Facebook isn't the army, there is no draft, they had and have plenty of other options. It's greed and a general feeling of superiority that sees the general population the same way the owners of factory farms see pigs.
tjchear 6y ago
That analogy does not work though. Landmine's sole purpose is to kill/injure whoever steps on it. I don't use Facebook much, but plenty of people have benefited from it. Instead of personal cost to him, I'd rather view it through the lenses of the impact of his action. It's inviting a lot of constructive conversation and making people re-evaluate Mark's decisions, which I think overall is a net positive.
- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]