11 ms·
Finally, somebody's brave enough to say the truth! I've been helping with some work for a small local gang- we do the usual (murder-for-hire, "debt collection"
by XMPPwocky 6y ago
Finally, somebody's brave enough to say the truth!
I've been helping with some work for a small local gang- we do the usual (murder-for-hire, "debt collection", extortion, etc). Although I only do administrative work - keeping records and such. Pays great. But you know what? My wife- my wife of five years- left me when she found out.
Can you believe that? What a fucking fascist. I didn't do anything wrong. I never killed anybody. And, sure, I did also help machine firearms for folks, and I did help with some supply chain issues to make sure we have a reliable supply of bullets, but I never shot anyone. Not one person.
How dare anybody discriminate against me?
- nec4b 6y agoRight, why do we need due process and laws, when we have people like you who know everything by reading a simple article on the web?
- TomMarius 6y agoI really don't want due process and laws to decide who my friends are for me.
- nec4b 6y agoI don't want a mob deciding who should be harassed because of an article.
- TomMarius 6y agoOstracizing someone is not harrasment. It's the opposite.
- gdy 6y agoI find your argument to be quite disingenuous considering that the intention of the ostracism it to harm by denying job opportunities and by exclusion from social relations. Have some decency to call your actions what they are. If you want to harm somebody in retaliation for doing something you don't approve of, don't call it 'the opposite of harassment'.
- TomMarius 6y agoI can see your point but perhaps it's a difference of viewpoint. When I am ostracising someone, it's because something bad they did. I think I have the right to choose with who I associate, and nobody has the right to force themselves upon me.
- gdy 6y agoI don't understand why you are redefining a call for ostracism as "deciding who your friends are" and then classify ostracism as "the opposite of harassment". This pretty much looks like harassment to me: "the developer community need to start ostracising people working for these companies. Don't hire former employees, don't hang hang out with people who work for these companies and conferences. Don't supply services to these companies (build their website, network...)."
- TomMarius 6y agoI don't understand what you don't understand. I can't harass someone I don't interact with.
- hutzlibu 6y agoErm, he made an abstract argument in a satirical way, to counter the abstract argument from parent. I don't see judgment to the concrete case.
- XMPPwocky 6y agoLet's say I am staunchly anti-abortion. I believe any abortion is, unambiguously, murder - the killing of a human being, and, maybe even worse, a child. It's unforgivable- goes against everything I believe in. I also have a friend named Sammy, who's a doctor. Last night I discovered Sammy got a new job at Planned Parenthood, where a significant part of her time will be spent performing surgical abortions. How many articles on the web should I read before I'm allowed to stop being friends with Sammy?
- Blaiz0r 6y agoMaybe the right thing to do is to change your opinions on anti-abortion, and come to understand Sammy better?
- lorenzhs 6y agoIn that example yes, but are you really telling me that I should change my views on whether it's okay for governments to hack journalists and activists to publicly smear them and arrest their sources?
- aronpye 6y agoNope, but you should judge individuals on their individual actions
- profmonocle 6y agoHow is choosing to work for a company that sells surveillance software to despotic governments not an "individual action"?
- Veen 6y agoIt's an interesting position but one with unpleasant implications. Do you think it is morally wrong to work for, say, a terrorist organization planning a chemical weapons attack if all you do is manage procurement for them — you don't make chemical weapons or use them, you just make phone calls and manage a few spreadsheets. Also, do you have the same feeling for the reverse situation? If instead of being an employee, you're the boss. You're aware that your employees are doing something morally wrong and you do nothing to stop them, but you aren't doing it yourself. Do you have any responsibility? In the ethics of war, there is the concept of command responsibility[0], where leaders are responsible for the actions of people under their command. Do you think that is a bad doctrine because the leaders aren't the ones shooting people? No one dies through their individual actions even if their subordinates commit war crimes. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility
- aronpye 6y agoIf you are proven to have aided a killer by providing them with weapons for example, that is accessory to murder. Maybe everyone in that organisation is evil and corrupt, but you cannot just assume that and apply summary judgment without due process.
- varjag 6y agoNo, in case of organizations whose raison d'être is doing something morally repugnant for you, it's okay to apply summary judgement.
- dijksterhuis 6y agoUnclear whether this is legit, or if you're being facetious to demonstrate a point. I'm gonna bet on the latter, seeing as this is HN! You intended to supply a local gang with guns and ammo to earn profit from it, along with the other actions you took. You purposefully set out to profit from their criminal behaviour in full knowledge of what that entailed. I'm not surprised your wife left you. Good on her. Here is a circumstance where your point is not valid, where there is no malicious intent: - Developer A in dept X finds out developer B in dept Y is working on Z. Is uncomfortable with anything to do with Z. - Dev A raises this with line manager C and gets pushed back. - Dev A tries to raise this up higher. Gets push back. - Dev A decides to leave the company because the workplace has now become increasingly hostile. Dev A tried to do the right thing and raise up the fact that project Z was unethical. By presuming guilt by association, Dev A is treated exactly the same as Dev B. Consider engineers at Google. Did every Google engineer work on project dragonfly? Did every engineer know about it until it was leaked to the press? Do the project zero team work on ad tracking? Bringing it back to your example now. If you were an accountant for a printing shop that just happened to be a front, but you never knew about it or suspected it, that's another story. There's no intent to profit from or knowledge of the criminality. Now you're an innocent bystander who was taking advantage of. If your wife left you in this situation, I'd feel for you. This is why we presume innocence until guilt is proven. I, for one, would rather some guilty people slip through the net of justice if it helps us to not habitually punish innocent people for crimes they did not commit. The world is not perfect, nothing is ever black and white.
- surewhynat 6y agoI believe you're missing le point. The google engineers should fear retribution from the community if they don't take action to repair the damage that google caused. No not every engineer was on project dragonfly, but, it should put pressure on every engineer to stand up and do the right thing. And it should put them all at risk, that way as a collective whole you'll choose to do the right thing, in order to not put innocent people on your team at risk.
- black_puppydog 6y agoCool, so there are areas with shades of grey. Claiming that you somehow were not aware of what NSO is doing is just not one of those, at least I won't give you the benefit of the doubt if you're working there as a dev. Likewise, if you work for Hacking team, you know what you are doing.
- abstractbarista 6y agoIt is unfortunate. This reality is inherently unequal.
- MisterTea 6y agoYou hiring?