upvote

points

by Henchman2120 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Defletter20 hours ago|
next
[-]
I wasn't aware of that, no. I can say that it wasn't a feature of our history lessons in school, nor in various Holocaust documentaries I have watched, nor something that came up in conversation with friends and colleagues, nor have I personally seen it when it's been posted to HackerNews (if this is anything to go by: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=IBM%20holocaust&sort=byDate&ty...). I only learned about Oracle's complicity because it has resurfaced in coverage regarding the current ongoing genocide. But you are proving my point: what do I do now with this information?
reply
upvoteby zahlman19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> But you are proving my point: what do I do now with this information?

I would use it to question the premise

> we should divest from companies and organisations complicit in genocide

which in reality I decided was obviously wrong the first time I heard it, many years ago. In fact, I don't think this concept of "complicity" is morally valid at all.

reply
upvoteby Defletter19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Continuing the red/blue pill metaphor from earlier, what you're describing is not dissimilar to Cypher's betrayal to be plugged back in.
reply
upvoteby mitchdoogle19 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Mass genocide happened plenty of times before the advent of computers, so I take issue with your assertion that IBM made the holocaust possible.
reply
upvoteby inigyou14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They were, and still are - multiple times a year. But THE german holocaust was the most effective by orders of magnitude. And they have technology to thank for that. Computing machines (primitive as they were) made it possible to track the status of each Jew. Railways made it possible to move them. Chemical plants produced the gas in the needed quantities. Industrial incinerators made it possible to dispose of the remains. They didn't just go down to Home Depot and buy a bottle of poison gas. They had a system end-to-end as efficient as any factory.
reply
upvoteby lucianbr20 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Are you aware of the world you live in?

Certainly this world comprises many other things than the Holocaust and IBM's support of it. Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.

reply
upvoteby zahlman19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.

I don't think that's what GP was saying at all.

reply
upvoteby lucianbr6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Maybe say what you think they were saying? What is it with these maximally ambiguous comments?

To me "Are you aware of the world you live in?" suggests "If you don't even know this, you don't know anything. This is the first thing anyone should know". I'm willing to learng if they meant something else, but I guess that's asking a lot.

reply
upvoteby zahlman6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The point is that Oracle's actions are unremarkable in the context of the existing state of the world, and that corporations are generally not concerned with the morality of their customers.

This was, to my thinking, such a straightforward interpretation that it didn't bear making explicit; and your interpretation genuinely didn't even occur to me.

reply
upvoteby Defletter5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It doesn't surprise me that corporations [whose primary, if not sole concern is the profit motive] don't care about the morality of their customers. What I don't understand is why you're objecting to me voting with my wallet, something that's been a popular retort against progressive and humanitarian movements for at least the past two decades.
reply
upvoteby zahlman5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> What I don't understand is why you're objecting to me voting with my wallet

I did nothing of the sort.

I simply said that I disagree with your stated motivations for your vote.

The way that you discuss your plan makes it sound as if you consider it morally incumbent upon others to follow suit. I do object to that.

reply
upvoteby Defletter4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> I simply said that I disagree with your stated motivations for your vote.

That's a semantic distinction without a difference.

> The way that you discuss your plan makes it sound as if you consider it morally incumbent upon others to follow suit. I do object to that.

That's more or less true: I do believe that people should BDS corporations that knowingly and willingly harm humanity (eg: aid and abet genocide); that it's not within our interests to let such things slide. And while I am biased, this doesn't feel like a particularly controversial take: it feels like I'm just spelling out basic civics. But.. this is also just like my opinion, man. You do you.

reply