zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics. Because once you set a precedence then people will use that as to push their own political agendas. I personally don't like the slippery slope argument since it's very lazy and justifies inaction in many cases. But at the same time when I see news like this, I just wonder how long it will take two different subgroups trying push their own conflicting agendas and how the company should react in such a case.

>>johnce+bg
We are going through a very strange and extreme period in US History. Corporations are a huge part of the political landscape. Of course workers who are powerful will demand things of their workplaces.

All corporations are political. By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political. Now by reversing they would be changing sides. They were already in the political fray.

>>mchans+Ri
The idea that all corporations are political is obviously quite true, especially insofar as potentially-everything is political.

What's interesting is erosion of the norm that corporations should not be particularly political (picking and choosing customers based on politics, touting allegiance to one specific side). This was once a somewhat stronger (political) norm that has fallen by the wayside as the nation has grown more bitterly divided.

I would be happy to see it come back somewhat; I am not convinced that corporate CEOs having an outsized influence on politics is going to take our nation to a healthy place in the long term, either politically, economically, or intellectually. I also expect that the demands of the new orthodoxy will get much, much worse before the situation gets any better.