Now, I actually find this a reasonable way to phrase their position:
> "We respect the fact that for those of us in the United States, we live in a democratic republic in which the public elects our officials and they decide, pursuant to the rule of law, the policies the government will pursue."
(They do go on to say they disapprove, in the interests of quoting fairly)
But to clarify, as a Brit, I feel this way about our own government and Brexit. I disagree with brexit. I disagree with many of our government's actions.
But.
They were voted in. People voted for Boris, they voted for Trump. Even now, the Conservative party is 15 points ahead in some polls.
A small, unlikable part of me says we shall "reap what we sow", but at some point, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that a large segment of my fellow citizens like what they're sowing.
I don't really have a point to this. It's a shame that as a democracy we vote in individuals who pursue policies that some of us personally find reprehensible. However, I am getting a unique and unasked-for insight into how it must have felt for those individuals with non-PC viewpoints for all those years.
I guess that might be the point: this is the world we live in. Some people find this OK, even preferable. We can't pretend otherwise any more. And that's rather sobering.
The people have never voted for Boris to lead, and they have never voted for the present government either.
Boris was voted into his position by 0.13% of the population.
...
As for Brexit. Well, people do like to say it was a democratic referendum 3 years ago (while saying more votes would be undemocratic).
But to believe that, you have to be happy to ignore the 4 million adults (5.5 million if you include 16+ year olds) who weren't allowed to vote but whose lives are most directly and severely affected by it. Include Brit pensioners abroad who are now talking about losing access to essential medical care but unable to move back (because they own homes in the EU at prices that don't work for moving to the UK), and non-Brit EU citizens, some of whom are expected to be deported in due course, breaking up families. (Forget about the non-EU families of EU citizens, who always had shitty treatment, so they're used to having no say.)
That does not fit any true definition of democracy that I could call decent. "No taxation without representation" and all that.
This article (which I only just stumbled across while searching for something else) sets it out as a violation of several types of human rights, and I basically agree since I was thinking the same thing for a while now:
I think that's also a reasonable and consistent position, but,
1) Did the same analysis apply to Dehomag? Was it okay to provide big data analytics to power the Holocaust because the Holocaust was entirely legal under domestic law too, because it was enacted by a party that gained power democratically?
2) Why is GitHub donating over 100% of the revenue from this contract to charity, instead of either canceling it or just accepting the revenue if they are really okay with letting democracy do its thing?
3) How should GitHub management reconcile their views with those of employees who disagree?
[+] [-] katet|6 years ago|reply
> "We respect the fact that for those of us in the United States, we live in a democratic republic in which the public elects our officials and they decide, pursuant to the rule of law, the policies the government will pursue."
(They do go on to say they disapprove, in the interests of quoting fairly)
But to clarify, as a Brit, I feel this way about our own government and Brexit. I disagree with brexit. I disagree with many of our government's actions.
But.
They were voted in. People voted for Boris, they voted for Trump. Even now, the Conservative party is 15 points ahead in some polls.
A small, unlikable part of me says we shall "reap what we sow", but at some point, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that a large segment of my fellow citizens like what they're sowing.
I don't really have a point to this. It's a shame that as a democracy we vote in individuals who pursue policies that some of us personally find reprehensible. However, I am getting a unique and unasked-for insight into how it must have felt for those individuals with non-PC viewpoints for all those years.
I guess that might be the point: this is the world we live in. Some people find this OK, even preferable. We can't pretend otherwise any more. And that's rather sobering.
[+] [-] jlokier|6 years ago|reply
Actually no.
The people have never voted for Boris to lead, and they have never voted for the present government either.
Boris was voted into his position by 0.13% of the population.
...
As for Brexit. Well, people do like to say it was a democratic referendum 3 years ago (while saying more votes would be undemocratic).
But to believe that, you have to be happy to ignore the 4 million adults (5.5 million if you include 16+ year olds) who weren't allowed to vote but whose lives are most directly and severely affected by it. Include Brit pensioners abroad who are now talking about losing access to essential medical care but unable to move back (because they own homes in the EU at prices that don't work for moving to the UK), and non-Brit EU citizens, some of whom are expected to be deported in due course, breaking up families. (Forget about the non-EU families of EU citizens, who always had shitty treatment, so they're used to having no say.)
That does not fit any true definition of democracy that I could call decent. "No taxation without representation" and all that.
This article (which I only just stumbled across while searching for something else) sets it out as a violation of several types of human rights, and I basically agree since I was thinking the same thing for a while now:
"In some respects the Brexit referendum was a violation of human rights" https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/09/brexit-referen...
[+] [-] geofft|6 years ago|reply
1) Did the same analysis apply to Dehomag? Was it okay to provide big data analytics to power the Holocaust because the Holocaust was entirely legal under domestic law too, because it was enacted by a party that gained power democratically?
2) Why is GitHub donating over 100% of the revenue from this contract to charity, instead of either canceling it or just accepting the revenue if they are really okay with letting democracy do its thing?
3) How should GitHub management reconcile their views with those of employees who disagree?
[+] [-] thoughtstheseus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomohawk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foolzcrow|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]