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
This isn't people pushing their own political agenda; this is a consequence of the political stance they took. When a company takes a political stance, they should be held accountable for it.

>>karpie+6i
You can support BLM without having a stance on ICE, because BLM is part of a complex venn diagram of political beliefs and affiliations.

This is normal: Just because some republicans think evolution is a hoax, doesn't mean every republican does. Every large political organisation is actually a coalition of people with different beliefs that overlap enough to put them on the same side for now.

Hypothetically, maybe GitHub don't know much about racism, but they're very much opposed to police cruisers intentionally driving into pedestrian protesters.

That would mean they support the current protests, but as long as ICE aren't deliberately driving cars into people, they're not yet opposed to ICE.