5 ms·

And your point is what? That demonstrating outrage here is in some way invalid since similar outrage was not demonstrated in every other similar situation? Do I

by sheri 12y ago

And your point is what? That demonstrating outrage here is in some way invalid since similar outrage was not demonstrated in every other similar situation? Do I have no moral authority to speak up in this situation if I have not before? Maybe we should boycott Amazon. Not boycotting Dropbox because we didn't do the same for Amazon doesn't get us anywhere.

powera 12y ago
Yes. Selectively demonstrating a ridiculous amount of outrage at the hate target of the day is absurd. The fact that you couldn't possibly do it in every similar situation shows why it is absurd.
- ryanobjc 12y ago
  You make some great points. I also note that if I wanted this controversy to fade away, I would seed conversations with people who say things exactly like this. There is no way to know for sure!
- arjie 12y ago
  Very Kantian. But there are other things for which the argument is successful. Take feeding a starving man, for instance. You cannot feed them all. That's absurd. Therefore, it is also absurd that you can feed the man starving in front of you. That argument follows the same structure. For what it's worth, I'm not talking about Ms. Rice here. It's the argument that bothers me. Seems shaky.
- bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  If I wasn't selective in what, when and how I choose to protest my only options would be a) not give a shit, ever, or b) not leave my house and possibly kill myself. Some of us live in the real world where we have to pick our battles.
dmix 12y ago
The system Condaleeza represents is still active and is heavily entrenched. This campaign may be a good start, but its going to take much more than that to change anything -- and that requires a strong moral consistency than extends well beyond participating in an occasional mob. Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you shouldn't boycott Dropbox, it's that you are probably not really doing anything as a result of not doing it when it matters. The thing that created Condaleeza is still moving full steam ahead.
- general_failure 12y ago
  Well, one has to start somewhere. You start with small things and if things work out, you expand the scale.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  > Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you shouldn't boycott Dropbox, it's that you are probably not really doing anything as a result of not doing it when it matters. That's probably true, but we have to consider the situation in the context of what's practicable in our own lives. I have a Dropbox account, and I use Amazon's cloud service to host my sites. I will be canceling my Dropbox account as a protest, but probably will not cancel Amazon's cloud services. Why? Because I still need my paycheck, I still need to put food on my kids' plates at the end of the night -- and I do this in part with Amazon's cloud services. I have to pick and choose, and compromise along the way when I'm making my voice heard. It's okay that sometimes some big companies get away it, and some don't. Godaddy got picked on a lot... there was a symbol attached to the Godaddy situation (a CEO who hunts elephants, and says weird things) -- in the end we won, because there was an easy narrative to follow. It wasn't perfect justice all the way, but what matters is progress was made at the end of the day -- SOPA was then beaten. In a similar fashion, it's okay if folks decide to stick with Amazon's services, because ditching it would bring them a lot of inconvenience. We don't all have the resources and time to be ditching every service we don't like on principle -- we can pick and choose. We can pick and choose, especially, when there's momentum going on. Right now there's momentum going on with this Dropbox thing -- let it happen, this is how progress is made. Next time, a company will think twice before appointing to their board a warmonger. edit (mostly to duaneb): to be clear, I am canceling my paid Dropbox account. Though, I think it's a good idea to cancel free Dropbox accounts in this case as well.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    Dropbox doesn't matter. Your money does. It speaks volumes about you that you are outspoken on ethical issues except where your wallet is. Like the vast majority of Americans. Of course, that's precisely the attitude that gets us gay marriage (good), two wars, a dying environment, and an absolutely unsustainable economy based on putting our lower class out of work.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
It's a pretty popular anti-activism stance, yeah. Unless you're an ascetic hermit who makes your own toilet paper, you're not allowed to protest anything without being labeled a hypocrite. And of course if you do become an ascetic hermit, then you're just a crazy hippie.
grifpete 12y ago
I think C Rice is an disturbing figure because she appears to be a contradiction. Nobody expects much of figures such as Rumsfeld or Chaney - they come across as ruthless unprincipled technocrats who are prepared to do some extraordinary dangerous things in pursuit of their ideological convictions. But CR is obviously highly intelligent and somehow more relatable. Which makes her actions feel like a betrayal. Hence the highly emotive reaction to her apologetics. One senses she should and indeed must know better.
- rantanplan 12y ago
  >in pursuit of their ideological convictions Now that is an overstatement! Please don't give them so much credit. They are just sociopaths in pursuit of (more)power; no ideology behind them.

by sheri 12y ago

powera 12y ago

Yes. Selectively demonstrating a ridiculous amount of outrage at the hate target of the day is absurd. The fact that you couldn't possibly do it in every similar situation shows why it is absurd.

ryanobjc 12y ago
You make some great points. I also note that if I wanted this controversy to fade away, I would seed conversations with people who say things exactly like this. There is no way to know for sure!
arjie 12y ago
Very Kantian. But there are other things for which the argument is successful. Take feeding a starving man, for instance. You cannot feed them all. That's absurd. Therefore, it is also absurd that you can feed the man starving in front of you. That argument follows the same structure. For what it's worth, I'm not talking about Ms. Rice here. It's the argument that bothers me. Seems shaky.
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
If I wasn't selective in what, when and how I choose to protest my only options would be a) not give a shit, ever, or b) not leave my house and possibly kill myself. Some of us live in the real world where we have to pick our battles.

dmix 12y ago

The system Condaleeza represents is still active and is heavily entrenched. This campaign may be a good start, but its going to take much more than that to change anything -- and that requires a strong moral consistency than extends well beyond participating in an occasional mob. Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you shouldn't boycott Dropbox, it's that you are probably not really doing anything as a result of not doing it when it matters. The thing that created Condaleeza is still moving full steam ahead.

general_failure 12y ago
Well, one has to start somewhere. You start with small things and if things work out, you expand the scale.
selmnoo 12y ago
> Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you shouldn't boycott Dropbox, it's that you are probably not really doing anything as a result of not doing it when it matters. That's probably true, but we have to consider the situation in the context of what's practicable in our own lives. I have a Dropbox account, and I use Amazon's cloud service to host my sites. I will be canceling my Dropbox account as a protest, but probably will not cancel Amazon's cloud services. Why? Because I still need my paycheck, I still need to put food on my kids' plates at the end of the night -- and I do this in part with Amazon's cloud services. I have to pick and choose, and compromise along the way when I'm making my voice heard. It's okay that sometimes some big companies get away it, and some don't. Godaddy got picked on a lot... there was a symbol attached to the Godaddy situation (a CEO who hunts elephants, and says weird things) -- in the end we won, because there was an easy narrative to follow. It wasn't perfect justice all the way, but what matters is progress was made at the end of the day -- SOPA was then beaten. In a similar fashion, it's okay if folks decide to stick with Amazon's services, because ditching it would bring them a lot of inconvenience. We don't all have the resources and time to be ditching every service we don't like on principle -- we can pick and choose. We can pick and choose, especially, when there's momentum going on. Right now there's momentum going on with this Dropbox thing -- let it happen, this is how progress is made. Next time, a company will think twice before appointing to their board a warmonger. edit (mostly to duaneb): to be clear, I am canceling my paid Dropbox account. Though, I think it's a good idea to cancel free Dropbox accounts in this case as well.
- duaneb 12y ago
  Dropbox doesn't matter. Your money does. It speaks volumes about you that you are outspoken on ethical issues except where your wallet is. Like the vast majority of Americans. Of course, that's precisely the attitude that gets us gay marriage (good), two wars, a dying environment, and an absolutely unsustainable economy based on putting our lower class out of work.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

It's a pretty popular anti-activism stance, yeah. Unless you're an ascetic hermit who makes your own toilet paper, you're not allowed to protest anything without being labeled a hypocrite. And of course if you do become an ascetic hermit, then you're just a crazy hippie.

grifpete 12y ago

I think C Rice is an disturbing figure because she appears to be a contradiction. Nobody expects much of figures such as Rumsfeld or Chaney - they come across as ruthless unprincipled technocrats who are prepared to do some extraordinary dangerous things in pursuit of their ideological convictions. But CR is obviously highly intelligent and somehow more relatable. Which makes her actions feel like a betrayal. Hence the highly emotive reaction to her apologetics. One senses she should and indeed must know better.

rantanplan 12y ago
>in pursuit of their ideological convictions Now that is an overstatement! Please don't give them so much credit. They are just sociopaths in pursuit of (more)power; no ideology behind them.