5 ms·

Salesforce offers to help staff leave Texas as abortion law takes effect

81 points by gamechangr 5y ago

josh_today 5y ago
What do we do about this new dynamic of social corporatism? Do we not follow laws anymore and allow corporations to dictate social justice? (Nothing to do about this specific law but corporations are increasingly taking issues, which should be left to the public voters, in their own hands… do we get to vote for CEOs?)
- foolzcrow 5y ago
  100% agree.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  This doesn’t seem particularly relevant here. I see folks touting that people can “vote” for companies through their wallets and that people who don’t like law of the land in an area can just leave. This is in-line with both of those views.
- lokar 5y ago
  How is the corporation not following the law? I imagine some (many?) SF employees in TX moved there for the job and did not expect this. SF feels at least partly responsible to these people and is offering to help.
- nirav72 5y ago
  I don't see how any laws are being violated here. if Salesforce was somehow encouraging their employees to ignore Texas laws, then thats another thing. But that's not the case here.
  - version_five 5y ago
    Even if laws are being violated, civil disobedience is a valid response to unjust laws. I don't think there is anything wrong, or incompatible with western democracy about companies taking a principled stand against unjust laws, as a person would. The only problem comes when a special interest hijacks a company's notion of what kind of activism is reasonable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- invalidname 5y ago
  This move: helping employees move to a different state is actually totally OK. The problem is the dark money and superpacks (citizens united supreme court ruling etc). This is a bipartisan problem that both Obama and Trump claimed they would fight. Obama couldn't get any traction for this, I'm unaware of anything Trump tried to do other than attacking the liberal side of this. Biden also went out against this but it's very low on his priority list with everything going on... In the supreme court it's pretty clear whose side is at fault. The justices that voted for the case of citizens united are all from the right side of the map. So the only way to reverse this seems to be a complete overhaul of the supreme court which seems unlikely.
  - lokar 5y ago
    Another view is that the constitution as written allows the $$$. That's bad, but the solution is to amend the constitution, not have SCOTUS ignore it.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Another view is that we tinkered to destruction by: direct election of senators and capping growth of house of representatives.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
eurasiantiger 5y ago
We need to collaborate in efforts against corporate Christianity before we have book burnings again. Even if that requires some book burnings.
tootahe45 5y ago
Sounds like a publicity stunt, Salesforce knowing there will be zero uptake of course. The few female employees Salesforce has in Texas are probably of the educated type who aren't having unplanned pregnancies.
- belltaco 5y ago
  >The few female employees Salesforce has in Texas are probably of the educated type who aren't having unplanned pregnancies. What?
- runlevel1 5y ago
  You can be held liable for aiding and abetting as well.[1] You don't have to have an unplanned pregnancy yourself to suffer from this law. Even if you aren't impacted at all, you might not want to live in a state where this sort of law is supported. Still probably not going to be a ton of people, but the gesture can still be appreciated. [1]: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961#:~:text=sec.%20171.208 https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961#:~:text=sec.%201...
  - Arete314159 5y ago
    I think most people are missing the even greater impact of this bill. If it's allowed to stand, it sets a precedent of "I didn't make xyz illegal, that's unconstitutional -- I just set up a system to reward vigilante anti-xyz enforcement." Vigilante enforcement of power structures has a long history in Texas. The Klan was really big there, esp. in East Texas. (Source: I have a lot of Texas ancestry, and we have bad stories about run-in's with the Klan, even though we are white.) Today it's vigilantism against abortion. But the laws signed in a few weeks ago also allow sketchy intimidation tactics at the voting polls. And who knows what else they'll decide to nudge-nudge-wink-wink turn a blind eye to? Maybe you can get a reward if you report your neighbor for renting out his house to the wrong sort of person, doing an end run around fair housing laws? It's really endless.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > Source: I have a lot of Texas ancestry, and we have bad stories about run-in's with the Klan, even though we are white. So does my wife’s family, and that’s because they started some weird sex cult.
belltaco 5y ago
Won't this make Texas less likely to flip blue to stop these kinds of laws?
- gamechangr 5y ago
  Is Texas flipping blue a real thing? Any more than lets say California flipping red?
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    It was before the abortion law. The trends suggested it would be a battleground state in two to four years. I won't touch on the irony of anti-imperialists colonizing Austin, TX.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      The recent voting laws they passed are more of an obstacle towards TX going blue.
      - iratewizard 5y ago
        True. I see it all as a collective effort to maintain control. In the same vain that firing unvaccinates federal employees is a quiet ideological purge.
      - tommymachine 5y ago
        Hard to win (cheat) with all these pesky voting laws going into effect!
        jjeaff 5y ago
        No one was cheating before. The voting laws are put in place to disadvantage blue counties while increasing the opportunity to vote in red counties.
        5y ago
tekromancr 5y ago
As much as anti-abortionists will jump up and down screaming "it's murder!"; I don't think they genuinely believe that. If you had a choice between saving the life of an actual, breathing, crying child vs a tray, filled with dishes, all together accounting for HUNDREDS of fertilized embryos the choice is obvious. The anti-abortionist would have you believe otherwise, of course, but I think deep down in their souls they know it's true.
- Gortal278 5y ago
  You should probably talk to an anti-abortionist. I assure you they do believe it's murder.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    Of course they say that they believe it's murder, but do their actions line up with that? Generally, no.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- splintercell 5y ago
  It would make a lot more sense if you actually took time to understand the opinion of those people whose mind you aim to change with your thought experiments. You can only come up with this thought experiment if you start from the assumption that a tray full of fertilized embryos is not life. Let’s imagine that you do believe that the tray full of fertilizer embryos is life, how would you answer this thought experiment?
  - tekromancr 5y ago
    So, a few issues with this argument. No one is arguing that fertilized embryos are not life, in the same sense that my cuticle clippings, hair clippings or ejaculate are life. The argument whether they are human _lives_. Second, even if one was to believe, intellectually, that a fertilized embryo was a human life; I would STILL expect that person to choose to save the actual, breathing, thinking entity. The one that is capable of surviving independently for more that 8 seconds when not biologically linked to another organism. This is something that every human being understands on a deep, instinctual level. The type of person who would make the alternate choice is a sociopath trying to prove a point. Finally, it would be a mistake presuppose that I fail to understand the opinion of the antiabortionist. I grew up in bible country. I was raised on this shit. I was indoctrinated into these beliefs, and it wasn't until I started examining them under a critical lens that I cast them aside.
b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
Never seen so many dead posts on a thread before. Clearly a polite bunch.

81 points by gamechangr 5y ago

What do we do about this new dynamic of social corporatism? Do we not follow laws anymore and allow corporations to dictate social justice? (Nothing to do about this specific law but corporations are increasingly taking issues, which should be left to the public voters, in their own hands… do we get to vote for CEOs?)

foolzcrow 5y ago
100% agree.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
This doesn’t seem particularly relevant here. I see folks touting that people can “vote” for companies through their wallets and that people who don’t like law of the land in an area can just leave. This is in-line with both of those views.
lokar 5y ago
How is the corporation not following the law? I imagine some (many?) SF employees in TX moved there for the job and did not expect this. SF feels at least partly responsible to these people and is offering to help.
nirav72 5y ago
I don't see how any laws are being violated here. if Salesforce was somehow encouraging their employees to ignore Texas laws, then thats another thing. But that's not the case here.
- version_five 5y ago
  Even if laws are being violated, civil disobedience is a valid response to unjust laws. I don't think there is anything wrong, or incompatible with western democracy about companies taking a principled stand against unjust laws, as a person would. The only problem comes when a special interest hijacks a company's notion of what kind of activism is reasonable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
invalidname 5y ago
This move: helping employees move to a different state is actually totally OK. The problem is the dark money and superpacks (citizens united supreme court ruling etc). This is a bipartisan problem that both Obama and Trump claimed they would fight. Obama couldn't get any traction for this, I'm unaware of anything Trump tried to do other than attacking the liberal side of this. Biden also went out against this but it's very low on his priority list with everything going on... In the supreme court it's pretty clear whose side is at fault. The justices that voted for the case of citizens united are all from the right side of the map. So the only way to reverse this seems to be a complete overhaul of the supreme court which seems unlikely.
- lokar 5y ago
  Another view is that the constitution as written allows the $$$. That's bad, but the solution is to amend the constitution, not have SCOTUS ignore it.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Another view is that we tinkered to destruction by: direct election of senators and capping growth of house of representatives.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

eurasiantiger 5y ago

We need to collaborate in efforts against corporate Christianity before we have book burnings again. Even if that requires some book burnings.

tootahe45 5y ago

Sounds like a publicity stunt, Salesforce knowing there will be zero uptake of course. The few female employees Salesforce has in Texas are probably of the educated type who aren't having unplanned pregnancies.

belltaco 5y ago
>The few female employees Salesforce has in Texas are probably of the educated type who aren't having unplanned pregnancies. What?
runlevel1 5y ago
You can be held liable for aiding and abetting as well.[1] You don't have to have an unplanned pregnancy yourself to suffer from this law. Even if you aren't impacted at all, you might not want to live in a state where this sort of law is supported. Still probably not going to be a ton of people, but the gesture can still be appreciated. [1]: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961#:~:text=sec.%20171.208 https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961#:~:text=sec.%201...
- Arete314159 5y ago
  I think most people are missing the even greater impact of this bill. If it's allowed to stand, it sets a precedent of "I didn't make xyz illegal, that's unconstitutional -- I just set up a system to reward vigilante anti-xyz enforcement." Vigilante enforcement of power structures has a long history in Texas. The Klan was really big there, esp. in East Texas. (Source: I have a lot of Texas ancestry, and we have bad stories about run-in's with the Klan, even though we are white.) Today it's vigilantism against abortion. But the laws signed in a few weeks ago also allow sketchy intimidation tactics at the voting polls. And who knows what else they'll decide to nudge-nudge-wink-wink turn a blind eye to? Maybe you can get a reward if you report your neighbor for renting out his house to the wrong sort of person, doing an end run around fair housing laws? It's really endless.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > Source: I have a lot of Texas ancestry, and we have bad stories about run-in's with the Klan, even though we are white. So does my wife’s family, and that’s because they started some weird sex cult.

belltaco 5y ago

Won't this make Texas less likely to flip blue to stop these kinds of laws?

gamechangr 5y ago
Is Texas flipping blue a real thing? Any more than lets say California flipping red?
- iratewizard 5y ago
  It was before the abortion law. The trends suggested it would be a battleground state in two to four years. I won't touch on the irony of anti-imperialists colonizing Austin, TX.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    The recent voting laws they passed are more of an obstacle towards TX going blue.
    - iratewizard 5y ago
      True. I see it all as a collective effort to maintain control. In the same vain that firing unvaccinates federal employees is a quiet ideological purge.
    - tommymachine 5y ago
      Hard to win (cheat) with all these pesky voting laws going into effect!
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        No one was cheating before. The voting laws are put in place to disadvantage blue counties while increasing the opportunity to vote in red counties.
        5y ago

tekromancr 5y ago

As much as anti-abortionists will jump up and down screaming "it's murder!"; I don't think they genuinely believe that. If you had a choice between saving the life of an actual, breathing, crying child vs a tray, filled with dishes, all together accounting for HUNDREDS of fertilized embryos the choice is obvious. The anti-abortionist would have you believe otherwise, of course, but I think deep down in their souls they know it's true.

Gortal278 5y ago
You should probably talk to an anti-abortionist. I assure you they do believe it's murder.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  Of course they say that they believe it's murder, but do their actions line up with that? Generally, no.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
splintercell 5y ago
It would make a lot more sense if you actually took time to understand the opinion of those people whose mind you aim to change with your thought experiments. You can only come up with this thought experiment if you start from the assumption that a tray full of fertilized embryos is not life. Let’s imagine that you do believe that the tray full of fertilizer embryos is life, how would you answer this thought experiment?
- tekromancr 5y ago
  So, a few issues with this argument. No one is arguing that fertilized embryos are not life, in the same sense that my cuticle clippings, hair clippings or ejaculate are life. The argument whether they are human _lives_. Second, even if one was to believe, intellectually, that a fertilized embryo was a human life; I would STILL expect that person to choose to save the actual, breathing, thinking entity. The one that is capable of surviving independently for more that 8 seconds when not biologically linked to another organism. This is something that every human being understands on a deep, instinctual level. The type of person who would make the alternate choice is a sociopath trying to prove a point. Finally, it would be a mistake presuppose that I fail to understand the opinion of the antiabortionist. I grew up in bible country. I was raised on this shit. I was indoctrinated into these beliefs, and it wasn't until I started examining them under a critical lens that I cast them aside.

b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago

Never seen so many dead posts on a thread before. Clearly a polite bunch.