4 ms·

Attacking companies for working with leaders who happen to have a conservative political viewpoint is simply unacceptable. For goodness sake, Condoleezza Rice

by mcherm 13y ago

Attacking companies for working with leaders who happen to have a conservative political viewpoint is simply unacceptable. For goodness sake, Condoleezza Rice was the US Secretary of State! There are a substantial number of people who found her to be an excellent leader -- including at least 2/3 of the US Senate. I am quite liberal, but I do not believe in blacklisting people because of their political beliefs. At one point, this country blacklisted "Communists" because of their beliefs -- it was not enforced directly by the government, but the blacklisting was nevertheless quite real. Let us not recreate that sad chapter in our history with "Conservatives" replacing the "Communists".

insuffi 13y ago
This has nothing to do with political beliefs or a conservative background. You can be a conservative in all possible ways and still uphold moral principles. The last time I checked morality does not include lying, undermining human rights, waging foreign wars.
- mcherm 13y ago
  In the Brendan Eich case (and yes, I know that's not the same as Ms. Rice) his only objectionable actions were to contribute a small amount to a political campaign and to not publicly repudiate that donation. That case was 100% about political beliefs. In the case of Condoleezza Rice, there are plenty of actions to object to including undermining human rights and helping to wage wars. By all means, prosecute Ms. Rice for violations of human rights and then ban her from the board as a convicted felon. I wouldn't even mind an outcry against her participation on Dropbox's board because of her stance on government surveillance of data storage companies. But to me, an outcry against her for war crimes smells of overdone politics. That being said... I don't mind any person choosing to boycott a company for any reason they choose (including association with Ms. Rice). What I object to is a hue and cry that effectively blacklists her (and others) for their political beliefs.
  - insuffi 13y ago
    Like I said below, this has nothing to do with her political beliefs. It has to do with actions she was directly involved in. Describe what her political beliefs are and why people are objecting to them(and why they shouldn't object, as per your opinion), if you're so sure of your position. But you can't mention the words "war", "human rights", "surveillance". This leaves you with just the theoretical definition of her political beliefs.
- rjohnk 13y ago
  It has everything to do with her political beliefs and conservative background. Just admit it. You can still disagree with her and boycott Dropbox. Just say that you disagree with her political beliefs. The things the article referenced are all political.
  - insuffi 13y ago
    Nope. In my world, morals matter more than political affiliation. Conservative or not, neither of those is inherently bad. What matters is how it's executed. Oh, and by the way,I have observed this trend in the US where people who are liberals automatically disagree with conservatives just because. Sorry, I do like me some critical thinking, you know? You have that, right? I explained my case loud and clear. War is bad, regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal.
    - rjohnk 13y ago
      But you said it had nothing to do with her political beliefs - Going to war against Iraq is a political statement as she and others believed that WMDs were there and posed a threat to the region and the World. It's a political belief. I'm not arguing your moral stance. What I see is wanting something both ways - being able to say you don't disagree with politics of the woman, then disagreeing with the politics of the woman. (BTW, I'm not incensed, I'm the type that could argue all day with someone and then go shoot the breeze with a cold one later)
      - insuffi 13y ago
        Except she did know that there were no WMDs there, and so did the rest of the admin. Even if the WMDs were there, that in no way posed a threat to the region or the World. If anything, that was just a charade. It's widely known the US had a close relationship with Saddam. Expanding on her making a political statement, people would have every right to condemn her that political statement if it's a pure lie. P.S. Political affiliation/beliefs, like I said, don't make you a bad person. Fucking shit up and holding a certain belief are not connected. EDIT: Plus, following your logic, if you're a republican and you beat your wife, does that mean being a republican is bad?
joshstrange 13y ago
>> Attacking companies for working with leaders who happen to have a conservative political viewpoint is simply unacceptable. Yes it would be if her "viewpoint" was all that was brought into question but it's not. She assisted in lying to the American public to start a war and she has come out multiple times in support for warrantless wiretapping. This isn't about what she thinks or which political party she belongs to it's about what she DID.

by mcherm 13y ago

insuffi 13y ago

This has nothing to do with political beliefs or a conservative background. You can be a conservative in all possible ways and still uphold moral principles. The last time I checked morality does not include lying, undermining human rights, waging foreign wars.

mcherm 13y ago
In the Brendan Eich case (and yes, I know that's not the same as Ms. Rice) his only objectionable actions were to contribute a small amount to a political campaign and to not publicly repudiate that donation. That case was 100% about political beliefs. In the case of Condoleezza Rice, there are plenty of actions to object to including undermining human rights and helping to wage wars. By all means, prosecute Ms. Rice for violations of human rights and then ban her from the board as a convicted felon. I wouldn't even mind an outcry against her participation on Dropbox's board because of her stance on government surveillance of data storage companies. But to me, an outcry against her for war crimes smells of overdone politics. That being said... I don't mind any person choosing to boycott a company for any reason they choose (including association with Ms. Rice). What I object to is a hue and cry that effectively blacklists her (and others) for their political beliefs.
- insuffi 13y ago
  Like I said below, this has nothing to do with her political beliefs. It has to do with actions she was directly involved in. Describe what her political beliefs are and why people are objecting to them(and why they shouldn't object, as per your opinion), if you're so sure of your position. But you can't mention the words "war", "human rights", "surveillance". This leaves you with just the theoretical definition of her political beliefs.
rjohnk 13y ago
It has everything to do with her political beliefs and conservative background. Just admit it. You can still disagree with her and boycott Dropbox. Just say that you disagree with her political beliefs. The things the article referenced are all political.
- insuffi 13y ago
  Nope. In my world, morals matter more than political affiliation. Conservative or not, neither of those is inherently bad. What matters is how it's executed. Oh, and by the way,I have observed this trend in the US where people who are liberals automatically disagree with conservatives just because. Sorry, I do like me some critical thinking, you know? You have that, right? I explained my case loud and clear. War is bad, regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal.
  - rjohnk 13y ago
    But you said it had nothing to do with her political beliefs - Going to war against Iraq is a political statement as she and others believed that WMDs were there and posed a threat to the region and the World. It's a political belief. I'm not arguing your moral stance. What I see is wanting something both ways - being able to say you don't disagree with politics of the woman, then disagreeing with the politics of the woman. (BTW, I'm not incensed, I'm the type that could argue all day with someone and then go shoot the breeze with a cold one later)
    - insuffi 13y ago
      Except she did know that there were no WMDs there, and so did the rest of the admin. Even if the WMDs were there, that in no way posed a threat to the region or the World. If anything, that was just a charade. It's widely known the US had a close relationship with Saddam. Expanding on her making a political statement, people would have every right to condemn her that political statement if it's a pure lie. P.S. Political affiliation/beliefs, like I said, don't make you a bad person. Fucking shit up and holding a certain belief are not connected. EDIT: Plus, following your logic, if you're a republican and you beat your wife, does that mean being a republican is bad?

joshstrange 13y ago

>> Attacking companies for working with leaders who happen to have a conservative political viewpoint is simply unacceptable. Yes it would be if her "viewpoint" was all that was brought into question but it's not. She assisted in lying to the American public to start a war and she has come out multiple times in support for warrantless wiretapping. This isn't about what she thinks or which political party she belongs to it's about what she DID.