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
Sure, I wouldn't want anyone denying me service because they disagree with how I dress or other actions that are otherwise harmless. That being said, there is an incredibly wide divide between "I casually disapprove of your actions, but I will serve you anyway" and "your actions serve to strategically terrorize, harm, and silence minorities and those without the ability to effectively defend or represent themselves, and I will serve you anyway despite knowing that my service will strengthen your ability to do so."

>>kuyan+pD
People who oppose abortions (at least the vocal ones) don't "casually disapprove" of abortions. Some of them call it baby-murder. They could add that it harms and silences babies and those without the ability to effectively defend or represent themselves.

The CCP's position seems to be that anything vaguely resembling disrespect of the CCP or their leader will lead to revolution, and therefore must be suppressed with whatever means necessary.

It's generally possible for people to see small, seemingly-harmless, and sometimes-unintentional actions as being part of / enabling / normalizing some terrible threat, which must therefore be burned down, and anyone who opposes such burning must themselves be burned too. I think this happened with the Inquisitions, for example.

It doesn't solve the issue to say "the different political factions will judge for themselves which infractions against their beliefs are harmless". People are very capable of inflaming their own political passions to cast any issue as being the first step towards the end of the world. It only works if there is some common, overarching framework that the different factions agree on. If the common foundation is democracy, then I think that framework would probably be "that which the law allows is permissible; peacefully advocating your policies is permissible; if you think the law is wrong, advocate to change the law". Civil disobedience is a step outside that framework, but (by design) one of the most harmless.