5 ms·

> What a soulless perspective. disagree, strongly. you present a false dichotomy. you can be a human with a soul and disagree (strongly) with your employer and

by fargle 3y ago

> What a soulless perspective. disagree, strongly. you present a false dichotomy. you can be a human with a soul and disagree (strongly) with your employer and still take their salary to do your job. it's not your job to decide how the software you build is used - there's several democratic governments, shareholders, company officers, etc. that get to decide that. when you are an employee that is the deal you made when you decided to work for them. > Most software jobs are not paying their workers a salary for them to become soulless robots. They are paying you to produce code, and to have expertise on the matters at hand. agree. totally true. notice how they are specifically not paying you to protest global political issues in their executive offices. > I will remain a free opinionated human, regardless of whether I am taking a paycheck or not, and if the company does not want a human, they can fire me and try to replace me with someone like you, or with an AI. again, totally understandable and fine. however, these people are not just "opinionated". they decided to stage a "protest". that is NOT what they were being paid to do. and they decided to protest their own employer. on that employer's property. you are free to have your own opinion about your employer, his politics, his customers, etc. you are not free to stage a takeover and make a public protest about it on his property. you are not free to disagree publicly and embarrass or harass him and then expect he will not hire someone else next week instead of you. if you don't like it: buy a majority position or run for office. if you really can't stomach it, then the only ethical thing to do is quit - you can demonstrate your conviction by sacrificing yourself. but you have no right to injure/annoy/bother anyone else about your political ideas at work. from a pragmatic standpoint, that was stupid. from a practical standpoint, it will do nothing to help their cause, quite likely damage it instead. it doesn't demonstrate good ethics, "having a soul" or anything like that. it demonstrates incredible immaturity, entitlement, and naivete.

calf 3y ago
Why is any of this true? All you're doing is setting the meta-rules, but who gave you this special freedom to define the rules for others? I mean, that's the conceit of your argument. It's the rhetoric of political belief which is why "check your beliefs at the door" is a completely disingenous argument. The very argument you and others offer is foundationally a political belief - a belief about what are freedoms - masquerading as something everyone should uncritically accept as given. That's the lie that you are telling to yourself and others.
- xcv123 3y ago
  It's really not that complicated. Employees are allowed to have their political beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe, while doing the job you are paid to do. Their employer can choose to fire them if they behave unprofessionally. That's what happened.
- fargle 3y ago
  it is a belief. it's a belief in actual freedom - one where we are free to decide whether to do business or not with who we choose. if we choose to contract with a FANG for lots and lots of money, but we have "sell our soul" and promise not to harangue the CEO in the mens' room, that's OK. if we choose not to promise that, for much less $$, that's also OK. and checking your beliefs are the door is a strawman. you're allowed to have beliefs. you're even allowed to voice them, discuss them in a professional way. they do not have to be hidden. but you cannot harass/annoy/intimidate/etc. but if you still do not like those rules, that's fine too! don't sign up for them - leave. if you were really principled in your beliefs, you would NOT "check them at the door" - you would not work there nor participate. but you can't have it both ways AND then claim moral high ground too.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo. Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest. [0]https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-legacy-racism-birmingham-opinion-carroll/ https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-leg...
    - fargle 3y ago

by fargle 3y ago

calf 3y ago

Why is any of this true? All you're doing is setting the meta-rules, but who gave you this special freedom to define the rules for others? I mean, that's the conceit of your argument. It's the rhetoric of political belief which is why "check your beliefs at the door" is a completely disingenous argument. The very argument you and others offer is foundationally a political belief - a belief about what are freedoms - masquerading as something everyone should uncritically accept as given. That's the lie that you are telling to yourself and others.

xcv123 3y ago
It's really not that complicated. Employees are allowed to have their political beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe, while doing the job you are paid to do. Their employer can choose to fire them if they behave unprofessionally. That's what happened.
fargle 3y ago
it is a belief. it's a belief in actual freedom - one where we are free to decide whether to do business or not with who we choose. if we choose to contract with a FANG for lots and lots of money, but we have "sell our soul" and promise not to harangue the CEO in the mens' room, that's OK. if we choose not to promise that, for much less $$, that's also OK. and checking your beliefs are the door is a strawman. you're allowed to have beliefs. you're even allowed to voice them, discuss them in a professional way. they do not have to be hidden. but you cannot harass/annoy/intimidate/etc. but if you still do not like those rules, that's fine too! don't sign up for them - leave. if you were really principled in your beliefs, you would NOT "check them at the door" - you would not work there nor participate. but you can't have it both ways AND then claim moral high ground too.
- krapp 3y ago
  Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo. Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest. [0]https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-legacy-racism-birmingham-opinion-carroll/ https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-leg...
  - fargle 3y ago