5 ms·

> So they are volunteerily sabotage U.S. military to help the Russians and Chineses. Choosing to not do work, or requesting to not do work, that is mostly (en

> So they are volunteerily sabotage U.S. military to help the Russians and Chineses. Choosing to not do work, or requesting to not do work, that is mostly (entirely?) unrelated to the work you were expecting to be doing at a software company in the US is not "sabotaging" the US military. It is also no indication of intent to help the Russian or Chinese military. Your words are very nearly slanderous to the protesters, as you have placed a false intent to commit some kind of treason? on them, an intent for which they have shown no evidence of having.

dx87 8y ago
They aren't just choosing to not work on the project, Microsoft said that they will help employees find other projects at the company to work on. The protesters are trying to get public support behind them so Microsoft drops the contract completely, preventing anybody at Microsoft from being able to work on the project, even if they want to.
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  I don't see how any of this relates to direct sabotage of US military. Again, requesting that your bosses not make a specific sales is not an act of sabotage nor is it in any way aide to Russia or China. The United States must set positive examples for the world. A country that effectively forces corporations and their employees for the military is fascist. The public pressure for Microsoft to work with the military is disconcerting. Opposing people like the OP make it sound like anyone who holds a differing opinion is mentally ill or something. This isn't an okay state of affairs.
  - judge2020 8y ago
    It's not direct, it's indirect sabotage. As said in OP, tech giants from China and Russia don't have employees protesting military aid just because 'the technology is scary and can do harm'. I also highly doubt the US 'setting an example' will change any of their minds. If none of the United States tech giants sign with the Government, it's very likely that the US's technology used for an upcoming world war will be inferior to that of the US's enemies.
    - whatislovecraft 8y ago
      > tech giants from China and Russia don't have employees protesting military aid just because 'the technology is scary and can do harm'. Citation needed? How do you know this? And if they don't have that, it seems like they might not have that due to totalitarian rule and a fear of the population to speak opinions. That's not a society we should emulate. > I also highly doubt the US 'setting an example' will change any of their minds. Why not? I think that it would. Demonstrating the economic impact of focusing these developments on useful, productive concerns would leave them in the dust. Seems like they would like to keep up? I don't follow your logic. > If none of the United States tech giants sign with the Government, it's very likely that the US's technology used for an upcoming world war will be inferior to that of the US's enemies. Again, I disagree and view it as the opposite. Also, if we are so bent on preparing for this future war - without conversation or allowing any kind of other ideas at all - it seems like the war will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > The protesters are trying to get public support behind them So what? Exercising their right to free speech does not "sabotage U.S. military". > so Microsoft drops the contract completely, Yes, effecting larger change is the purpose behind most political speech. These employees are simply exercising their rights to speak their opinions, assemble with other like-minded people, and advocate for their political position to as wider audience in the press. To argue that they somehow don't have these rights denies the long history of SCOTUS decisions that support speech critical of the military or US policy.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > To argue that they somehow don't have these rights denies the long history of SCOTUS decisions that support speech critical of the military or US policy. I strongly agree. The employees very clearly have the right to speak their minds, on their time. And they can quit if they disagree with the business path Microsoft ultimately chooses. Microsoft typically has the right to fire employees if they're not compatible with the business path that Microsoft chooses to pursue. Overall it's a simple context. Each side has to choose what's most important. Microsoft historically is nowhere near as ideologically driven as Google and other modern Silicon Valley companies, it's obvious what Microsoft will choose to do.
    - pdkl95 8y ago
      > And they can quit if they disagree with the business path Microsoft ultimately chooses. Or, they can collectively petition, negotiate, or even apply direct political pressure against their employer. Is that what the real argument is about here? Lots of fear and anger that if engineers start to gain experience with the power of collective action, they might start to have notions about creating a union?

dx87 8y ago

They aren't just choosing to not work on the project, Microsoft said that they will help employees find other projects at the company to work on. The protesters are trying to get public support behind them so Microsoft drops the contract completely, preventing anybody at Microsoft from being able to work on the project, even if they want to.

whatislovecraft 8y ago
I don't see how any of this relates to direct sabotage of US military. Again, requesting that your bosses not make a specific sales is not an act of sabotage nor is it in any way aide to Russia or China. The United States must set positive examples for the world. A country that effectively forces corporations and their employees for the military is fascist. The public pressure for Microsoft to work with the military is disconcerting. Opposing people like the OP make it sound like anyone who holds a differing opinion is mentally ill or something. This isn't an okay state of affairs.
- judge2020 8y ago
  It's not direct, it's indirect sabotage. As said in OP, tech giants from China and Russia don't have employees protesting military aid just because 'the technology is scary and can do harm'. I also highly doubt the US 'setting an example' will change any of their minds. If none of the United States tech giants sign with the Government, it's very likely that the US's technology used for an upcoming world war will be inferior to that of the US's enemies.
  - whatislovecraft 8y ago
    > tech giants from China and Russia don't have employees protesting military aid just because 'the technology is scary and can do harm'. Citation needed? How do you know this? And if they don't have that, it seems like they might not have that due to totalitarian rule and a fear of the population to speak opinions. That's not a society we should emulate. > I also highly doubt the US 'setting an example' will change any of their minds. Why not? I think that it would. Demonstrating the economic impact of focusing these developments on useful, productive concerns would leave them in the dust. Seems like they would like to keep up? I don't follow your logic. > If none of the United States tech giants sign with the Government, it's very likely that the US's technology used for an upcoming world war will be inferior to that of the US's enemies. Again, I disagree and view it as the opposite. Also, if we are so bent on preparing for this future war - without conversation or allowing any kind of other ideas at all - it seems like the war will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
pdkl95 8y ago
> The protesters are trying to get public support behind them So what? Exercising their right to free speech does not "sabotage U.S. military". > so Microsoft drops the contract completely, Yes, effecting larger change is the purpose behind most political speech. These employees are simply exercising their rights to speak their opinions, assemble with other like-minded people, and advocate for their political position to as wider audience in the press. To argue that they somehow don't have these rights denies the long history of SCOTUS decisions that support speech critical of the military or US policy.
- adventured 8y ago
  > To argue that they somehow don't have these rights denies the long history of SCOTUS decisions that support speech critical of the military or US policy. I strongly agree. The employees very clearly have the right to speak their minds, on their time. And they can quit if they disagree with the business path Microsoft ultimately chooses. Microsoft typically has the right to fire employees if they're not compatible with the business path that Microsoft chooses to pursue. Overall it's a simple context. Each side has to choose what's most important. Microsoft historically is nowhere near as ideologically driven as Google and other modern Silicon Valley companies, it's obvious what Microsoft will choose to do.
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    > And they can quit if they disagree with the business path Microsoft ultimately chooses. Or, they can collectively petition, negotiate, or even apply direct political pressure against their employer. Is that what the real argument is about here? Lots of fear and anger that if engineers start to gain experience with the power of collective action, they might start to have notions about creating a union?