6 ms·

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 no

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.

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.