zlacker

If your government isn't willing to compromise with you but desires something from you, it's pretty straightforward that you should withhold as much as you can until they decide to compromise.

>>dastbe+(OP)
>If your government isn't willing to compromise with you

I'm not sure I see a reason that the government must compromise with a give company.

If Boeing decided that ICE should behave even worse, would we cheer on ICE for compromising?

I think we'd argue that the right place for that sort of thing is at the ballot box.

>>duxup+w7
You're conflating the end result and the means. I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that, just like I don't cheer on companies when they donate to campaigns for racists or people who vote for racists.

The government also doesn't have to compromise. Maybe there's a competitor who is less particular about who they do business with or in fact thinks the cruelty is actually cool and good. gitlab is 100% neutral on who they do business with, for example.

>>dastbe+xa
>I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that,

You would cheer on Boeing for asking that ICE be more cruel?

>>duxup+fd
You said

> If Boeing decided that ICE should behave even worse, would we cheer on ICE for compromising?

I said

> I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that,

emphasis on the "n't" in "wouldn't". And to be specific, I would not (<- that not is load bearing) cheer for Boeing advocating for more cruelty, nor would I cheer on the government for acquiescing.

If you want to compel private companies to do work for an unprotected class like a federal law enforcement agency, then yes at that point you should probably go and vote to make sure that happens.