zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
Is GitHub a hug part of what ICE ... does?

Personally I wouldn't want to work for a company actually detaining people, but call me terrible but I'm not sure I'd feel the same about letting them pay to host some code...

>>duxup+1h
There's a big strain of consequentialism running through the modern left - no neutral service is held as neutral if it permits the 'wrong' customers.

>>Fellsh+zh
Suppose that:

1. You provide tools to a group. 2. You believe (in a informed way) that the group intends to act immorally. 3. Your tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally.

Do you have any responsibility for what happens?

>>karpie+1l
Suppose that I'm highly religious:

1. I make tools (wedding planning software)

2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my tools to plan a gay wedding)

3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally

Do I have any responsibility for what happens?

Or (alternatively):

1. I make tools (highly specialized chemicals)

2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my chemicals to improve abortions)

3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally

Do I have any responsibility for what happens?

=====

IMO, it's better not to attempt to be morality police. Focus on making great tools.

>>umvi+Cn
In both cases, you very clearly have some responsibility. In an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous way.

I'm struggling to see how this is intended as a counterexample. Is it because disapproving of homosexuality is wrong? That doesn't at all change the entailment of responsibility by the conjunction of foreknowledge of consequences with uncoerced action.

If you walk out into a public street and fire a pistol around you randomly, you are clearly responsible for any death or injuries thereby caused (given that you were aware of the likely outcomes), even if it is through negligence or indifference rather than deliberate intent.

>>flambl+Px
Well, I disagree. I have more of a "live and let live" or "golden rule" type philosophy. I wouldn't want someone denying me service because they disagree with my beliefs (and by extension, actions), so I don't deny service to people who have beliefs (and by extension, actions) I disagree with.

>>umvi+pz
Would you sell a man a gun if they told you:

"hey, if you sell this to me, I'm going to go shoot that black kid outside", and then showed you a few videos of them doing this before?

>>karpie+mB
Well in this case since they showed me video evidence of murder, I would call the police (assuming I don't live in a CHAZ zone).

This is bogus though. Will Home Depot allow me to buy some rope if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope.

>>umvi+iC
> if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope.

I'd hope (and expect!) that home depot employees would ask you to leave if you made those statements while trying to purchase rope.

>>joshua+9D
They might, but I doubt it. Especially if I made the comments in jest. "What's all that rope for?" "A lynching wink"

Home Depot (the company) will not make any effort to ban me from using their chain even if an employee did make me leave the premises. I could just go home and order it online from HomeDepot.com and have it shipped right to me.