4 ms·

Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political. It's just mature attitude: you accept the process and respect whoever en

Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political. It's just mature attitude: you accept the process and respect whoever ends up in power and whatever policies that decide on. Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though.

rsynnott 6y ago
"I was just following purchase orders"
capableweb 6y ago
> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political But it is, and will always be, political to do anything. If you're accepting a contract with the government, you're saying that you agree that this government should exists, that governments are a good idea in general, and this one is the current rightful government for where you are, otherwise you wouldn't work with them. It's a fruitless exercise in trying to remove politics from anything, because anything can and will be politicalized.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  No. I am saying I respect the political process and the will of those people who voted for the current government. We argue, we vote and then we accept the consequences and work with each other not pack up and cry like 5 years old.
klyrs 6y ago
If the government needs gas chambers, the responsible thing to do is make gas chambers. Don't worry about what they're using them for, that's just process and policy. Click your heels and fall in line, that's the mature, responsible and profitable thing to do. Not like those damned political activists; the world would be a better place if they were in gas chambers anyway. > Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though. Only, ICE was deplorable under Obama too.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  But it's not gas chambers. What ICE does is not universally seen as morally bad unlike gas chambers. USA doesn't have a totalitarian government either. A good sanity check is this: if population is split on the issue it means it's not simple and claiming moral high ground is politicizing. Gas chambers are universally seen as morally deplorable. Deporting illegal immigrants isn't.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    The German population was also split on the Nazi issue. That can't be your litmus test! If holding children in cages, subjecting them to deplorable conditions, separating families, and forcing/denying medical procedures aren't where someone draws the line, then... well... I don't really want to know where they draw the line.
    - bluecalm 6y ago
      Well it must be a litmus test for the universal moral judgement because otherwise it's not universal by definition. I would argue that German population didn't have as much information as we do today and gas chambers as well as other atrocities committed by the Nazis would still be universally rejected then. As to "separating families" and "denying medical procedures" you seem to think it's somehow a God given right to come somewhere and be granted resources and time of others. In many people view it's not. The blame is on the immigrants and their countries not on US. The policy is clear: you can't come without having permission. It's entirely reasonable to not want to give resources to people who are not part of your group, didn't contribute to development of your country, don't help to fund your services and are actively breaking your rules in your own country. It's a difficult situation when someone comes anyway and with small children as well but the blame is not on ICE or your policies. Medical procedures don't grow on trees. Granting them means taking time and resources of others. It means someone will have less time for their families/personal life, that someone else will have to work more to get treatment or in some cases won't get treatment at all or get it later. You can't just hand stuff to all comers or then your policy is meaningless. It also means millions of others who want to immigrate to US legally but respect the procedure will wait for longer or never get in. There are many, many people in the world in a very shitty situation who would love to come to US if given a chance. Knowing that but letting in those who force their way is at best morally suspect. It's nothing like actively pursuing people who live in your society, packing them on trains and killing them in camps. That's why one is universally seen as morally deplorable and the other is a hotly debated issue.
untog 6y ago
> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots I really don't think that's what's happening here. It doesn't take long to read up on the activities ICE has been (very plausibly) accused of doing that would shock many people. Excusing that just because they're a government agency just seems strange to me. Could you object if it was a private company doing it, but not object if it's a government agency? I don't get it.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  The government represents the people and is created through established political process. By refusing to work with it you're showing disrespect to huge portion of the population which elected it. I mean it won't ever be a healthy environment if you pack your things and refuse to play if the other group won the vote.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Just because the government leaders are elected doesn't mean a majority of the population wants everything it does to happen. And disagreeing with specific measures is not the same as "if the other group won the vote" either. And even if an elected government does something it doesn't make it automatically ethical and worthy of support.
ianleeclark 6y ago
> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political. There's probably an argument to be made that the profit motive has the ability to strip all other political motivations from a decision, but the result of the decision can still be deeply political.
alistairSH 6y ago
It's more gray than that. Some governments and some agencies do enough evil that the decision to do business with them is a moral choice. ICE may be one of those agencies. NSA likewise. Arguably contacting with the US military falls in a similar bucket. I wouldn't call it evil, but it exists almost solely to enforce American interests abroad (vs a purely defensive force). I wouldn't fault somebody for seeing that business as immoral. There's also a huge difference between selling a product to that agency, but is not specific to that agency (Word, Linux tech support) vs something that exists only to enable that organization to do bad (spying equipment, the cages used to imprison immigrants, etc).
- bluecalm 6y ago
  You can always convince yourself something is evil enough. ICE has a lot of support which at least means it's not universally seen as evil. Making a decision to not work with someone who represents widely accepted views/policy is the definition of politicizing. Same goes for military. If it should be a purely defensive force it one ensuring global interests is a polarizing political issue. It's not simply evil or good.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    ICE may have support. But I don’t support forced sterilization. Or splitting families. And I’m sad that a substantial portion of my fellow citizens are ok with either.
    - bluecalm 6y ago
      They are not ok with it. They just understand the blame is not on ICE or US policies but on immigrants and their countries. If your policy is: "if you come illegally we will jail you and send you back when possible but we are also human enough to not keep children in the same adult jail as you" and then you come anyway the blame is on you. I don't think anyone is ok with forced sterilization. I don't really know why you put it on ICE or the immigration policy. It has to be investigated and from the information we have that it doesn't seem to be either widespread nor as simple as you portray it. Sure, investigate it, punish the offenders. It doesn't mean you owe stuff to all comers and have to take care of them.

rsynnott 6y ago

"I was just following purchase orders"

capableweb 6y ago

> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political But it is, and will always be, political to do anything. If you're accepting a contract with the government, you're saying that you agree that this government should exists, that governments are a good idea in general, and this one is the current rightful government for where you are, otherwise you wouldn't work with them. It's a fruitless exercise in trying to remove politics from anything, because anything can and will be politicalized.

bluecalm 6y ago
No. I am saying I respect the political process and the will of those people who voted for the current government. We argue, we vote and then we accept the consequences and work with each other not pack up and cry like 5 years old.

klyrs 6y ago

If the government needs gas chambers, the responsible thing to do is make gas chambers. Don't worry about what they're using them for, that's just process and policy. Click your heels and fall in line, that's the mature, responsible and profitable thing to do. Not like those damned political activists; the world would be a better place if they were in gas chambers anyway. > Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though. Only, ICE was deplorable under Obama too.

bluecalm 6y ago
But it's not gas chambers. What ICE does is not universally seen as morally bad unlike gas chambers. USA doesn't have a totalitarian government either. A good sanity check is this: if population is split on the issue it means it's not simple and claiming moral high ground is politicizing. Gas chambers are universally seen as morally deplorable. Deporting illegal immigrants isn't.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  The German population was also split on the Nazi issue. That can't be your litmus test! If holding children in cages, subjecting them to deplorable conditions, separating families, and forcing/denying medical procedures aren't where someone draws the line, then... well... I don't really want to know where they draw the line.
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    Well it must be a litmus test for the universal moral judgement because otherwise it's not universal by definition. I would argue that German population didn't have as much information as we do today and gas chambers as well as other atrocities committed by the Nazis would still be universally rejected then. As to "separating families" and "denying medical procedures" you seem to think it's somehow a God given right to come somewhere and be granted resources and time of others. In many people view it's not. The blame is on the immigrants and their countries not on US. The policy is clear: you can't come without having permission. It's entirely reasonable to not want to give resources to people who are not part of your group, didn't contribute to development of your country, don't help to fund your services and are actively breaking your rules in your own country. It's a difficult situation when someone comes anyway and with small children as well but the blame is not on ICE or your policies. Medical procedures don't grow on trees. Granting them means taking time and resources of others. It means someone will have less time for their families/personal life, that someone else will have to work more to get treatment or in some cases won't get treatment at all or get it later. You can't just hand stuff to all comers or then your policy is meaningless. It also means millions of others who want to immigrate to US legally but respect the procedure will wait for longer or never get in. There are many, many people in the world in a very shitty situation who would love to come to US if given a chance. Knowing that but letting in those who force their way is at best morally suspect. It's nothing like actively pursuing people who live in your society, packing them on trains and killing them in camps. That's why one is universally seen as morally deplorable and the other is a hotly debated issue.

untog 6y ago

> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots I really don't think that's what's happening here. It doesn't take long to read up on the activities ICE has been (very plausibly) accused of doing that would shock many people. Excusing that just because they're a government agency just seems strange to me. Could you object if it was a private company doing it, but not object if it's a government agency? I don't get it.

bluecalm 6y ago
The government represents the people and is created through established political process. By refusing to work with it you're showing disrespect to huge portion of the population which elected it. I mean it won't ever be a healthy environment if you pack your things and refuse to play if the other group won the vote.
- detaro 6y ago
  Just because the government leaders are elected doesn't mean a majority of the population wants everything it does to happen. And disagreeing with specific measures is not the same as "if the other group won the vote" either. And even if an elected government does something it doesn't make it automatically ethical and worthy of support.

ianleeclark 6y ago

> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political. There's probably an argument to be made that the profit motive has the ability to strip all other political motivations from a decision, but the result of the decision can still be deeply political.

alistairSH 6y ago

It's more gray than that. Some governments and some agencies do enough evil that the decision to do business with them is a moral choice. ICE may be one of those agencies. NSA likewise. Arguably contacting with the US military falls in a similar bucket. I wouldn't call it evil, but it exists almost solely to enforce American interests abroad (vs a purely defensive force). I wouldn't fault somebody for seeing that business as immoral. There's also a huge difference between selling a product to that agency, but is not specific to that agency (Word, Linux tech support) vs something that exists only to enable that organization to do bad (spying equipment, the cages used to imprison immigrants, etc).

bluecalm 6y ago
You can always convince yourself something is evil enough. ICE has a lot of support which at least means it's not universally seen as evil. Making a decision to not work with someone who represents widely accepted views/policy is the definition of politicizing. Same goes for military. If it should be a purely defensive force it one ensuring global interests is a polarizing political issue. It's not simply evil or good.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  ICE may have support. But I don’t support forced sterilization. Or splitting families. And I’m sad that a substantial portion of my fellow citizens are ok with either.
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    They are not ok with it. They just understand the blame is not on ICE or US policies but on immigrants and their countries. If your policy is: "if you come illegally we will jail you and send you back when possible but we are also human enough to not keep children in the same adult jail as you" and then you come anyway the blame is on you. I don't think anyone is ok with forced sterilization. I don't really know why you put it on ICE or the immigration policy. It has to be investigated and from the information we have that it doesn't seem to be either widespread nor as simple as you portray it. Sure, investigate it, punish the offenders. It doesn't mean you owe stuff to all comers and have to take care of them.