zlacker

>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+(OP)
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+13
>I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that,

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

>>duxup+J5
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.