Then all political camps will be against you, as you violate each of their norms in turn.
Once at least one major (political) group calls views held by tens of millions of people hate speech, there is no way to avoid being in someone's black book. This is why many companies are aligning with one party - they can't have both, and it's better than none.
People shouldn’t care if trying to do the right thing makes you end up in someones black book. There will always be people who are on the wrong side of things. Just do what you think is best for our society.
But "the right thing" differs from person to person. A 10 person company [say, running a local grocery store] comprised entirely of conservatives will think it's right to allow customers to decide if they want to wear a mask, while the same company comprised entirely of liberals will think that it's right to make customers wear masks and otherwise refuse servicing them. Who decides which company is doing the right thing? You?
Then you'll have to withstand at least one party: twitter mobs, editorials, maybe employee protests or resignations. Both you personally, and your company. It's not surprising that many companies give in. They want to make a product and make money, not to make a political or moral stand.
That's also fine, Coinbase is doing that, and giving generous severence packages to leaving employees as well. There will always be detractors but most people won't really care.
Conveniently not mentioned in the article, though it saw fit to point out that "About 60 Coinbase employees, or 5 percent of the work force, have resigned,"
I’ve never gotten this quote. On the face of it it seems like a high priority that the law should not respect the station of a person. If a society has made something illegal it needs to apply from the least to the greatest, or the law is unjust.
I think what I would take from it is that it all though the laws are the same, they do not effect each person in the same way.
How likely is it for the rich to sleep I under a bridge, beg or steal bread? Those are crimes to punish those too poor to be able to afford anything else.
Or to put it another way, it’s a crime to be poor.
Isn't that just to say that murder is a crime both for the pacifist and the psycopath? If society deems something to be illegal it is illegal for both those who would never do it and those who could gain from doing it. That is fundamental for all laws.
It's one of those quotes you shouldn't think about too much, because it really makes no sense. It's meant to make people feel. Because feelings are easier to manipulate than thoughts.
I strongly disagree. It has a clear point, one you can understand quite clearly with your mind.
Laws against doing things that only desperate poor people do may appear equal, since they in theory apply just as much to the rich. But in practice they only affect the poor. And the way they affect the poor is to close off options, and thereby increase the desperation.
Sure, you should feel that. You should also understand it with your mind.
Any sort of bettering that is not globally experienced equally sustains inequity. To go to an absurd place the improvements I made to my garden this year sustain inequity since I now have and enjoy them and others do not, but they would if I had donated the same amount of time to a community garden. That alone should not be a compelling reason to act.
Consistently. Whatever you policies, apply them as consistently as possible.