The difference is not serving black or queer people isn't a moral judgement -- it's just discrimination (there isn't anything inherently wrong with being Black the same way there isn't anything wrong with being queer or Asian or Indian, those things aren't a choice unlike being a Nazi). At best, not serving minorities is a shitty moral judgement.
Not serving ICE is a more legitimate moral judgement because ICE has the option to change their behavior and ICE is genuinely bad.
Slippery slope is one of those silly things I see from free speech advocates. I tend not to see the bad impacts in real life because if the government isgoing to restrict free speech, they will do it regardless of what anti-hate speech laws currently exist.
There is nothing inherently wrong with serving ICE. You might not like it, but many of your compatriots do.
I don't like what they do at all, I think it's reprehensible, backwards, and purely uncivilised. But people you utterly hate have friends too, and they see something different than you do, and we do not have a singular moral world-view.
This situation with ICE should totally change, but that change is a function of your vote, not a function of protesting against Gitlab.
I very strongly argue that there should never be a single perspective on morality, in the way that these posts suggest there should.
Lots of people support ICE, maybe, but that doesn’t prevent a lot of people from thinking it’s inherently wrong.
The more clear cute example is weapons research. Loads of researchers and institutions outright rule out weapons research, because they find it wrong.
Besides, “inherently wrong” is a subjective thing anyways, if only by the fact some people agree to your statement and some people don’t, despite everyone having the same set of facts
> But people you utterly hate have friends too, and they see something different than you do, and we do not have a singular moral world-view.
So because shitty people have friends, we should throw in the towel and refrain from enforcing moral codes in our own lives, behavior, and economic decisions? That's pretty weak stuff.
Capitalism is nothing but an economic system where you own the means to production. There is no inherent morality.
Nobody has an issue with you making choices and voting with your dollars. The issue is forcing those choices on everyone else (as in a business, especially as a non-owner) through your own interpretation of morality.
It refers to "you" vs the state. You create a factory or a business or a new patent and you're responsible. You gain the profits or suffer the losses and nobody else can take it from you.
Workers are obviously not business owners, but they do own their own labor and are free to take whatever job they want, not be assigned to it from some central authority.
Not serving ICE is a more legitimate moral judgement because ICE has the option to change their behavior and ICE is genuinely bad.
Slippery slope is one of those silly things I see from free speech advocates. I tend not to see the bad impacts in real life because if the government isgoing to restrict free speech, they will do it regardless of what anti-hate speech laws currently exist.