upvote

points

by cramer4next6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Ydarbleoj6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Maybe it's the companies that flank the US president at events in an attempt to gain favor? Or the companies that own private prisons that lobby for immoral policies on policing?
reply
upvoteby sophrosyne425 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You mean the ones that have been doing so for many administrations across both parties?
reply
upvoteby Ydarbleoj4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You think this admin is like others?
reply
upvoteby cramer4next5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This doesn't appear to be unique to the GOP. Plenty of companies flank to whomever is in office. Even at that local government level. "Immoral policies" is subjective and would be in the eye of the beholder. If this was truely quantiative the U.S. wouldn't be a divided nation.
reply
upvoteby Ydarbleoj4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The mere existence of private prisons in the US is immoral. To argue otherwise is a failure to extrapolate what that means at every level of gov and society. Maybe this isn't uniquely the GOP but private prisons have been some of the largest donors to the GOP since Covid.
reply
upvoteby sejje3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> The mere existence of private prisons in the US is immoral.

This doesn't pass a basic logical sniff test.

What if the private prisons provided much greater comfort, rehabilitation, medical and mental care, and so on? How could you call it immoral just for existing?

reply
upvoteby Ydarbleoj3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a great what if despite what we currently know of these prisons and what we know of private companies seeking profit at the expense of whatever you're stating.

There's a country in the 30's that used misinformation to sell what you're suggesting and they, at one point, had a thriving prison system in less than a decade.

Don't be so polyannish.

reply
upvoteby cramer4next2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So if I follow your logic here you feel the same about grocery stores being private? Because if they were run by the U.S. government you wouldn't have 47.9 million people (about 1 in 7 Americans) living in food-insecure households? All because a private company that employs people are tryng to make money?

SRC: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

reply
upvoteby Ydarbleoj2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You're definitely not following my logic because of your false equivalence WRT private companies and private prisons.

If you think prisons should have profit motives where growth only comes from continually seeking punitive policies to imprison people then I don't know what to tell you. The extrapolation isn't that hard and I don't see anything good coming from it. Weird takes.

reply
upvoteby sejje1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> If you think prisons should have profit motives where growth only comes from continually seeking punitive policies to imprison people

Prisons don't get to sentence people, courts do.

reply
upvoteby culi58 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Lol if only. CoreCivic once accidentally left their logo on a bill they wrote for a congressperson and the congressperson forgot to remove it when presenting it. Actually it's happened multiple times. Most "model bills" that are tough-on-crime are written by them.
reply
upvoteby cramer4next2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I think I am because the "equivalence" is private vs government run service. The arugment is equal. There is no public service thats better then the private equivalent. Period.
reply
upvoteby samudrijan5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Oil and gas and the GOP are one and the same.

Dems still subsidize O&G but they have other constituents they need to pay lip service to.

Banking and finance own both parties.

reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I don't see a need to come up with a complete definition at this point. Let's start with cancelling all SpaceX and Palantir contracts and see how we're feeling; that may be enough to keep corporations in line.
reply
upvoteby cramer4next5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Because there is none. Its rhetoric and its personal to you. Its like me saying I haven't spent a nickle on anything Nike because of their narative selling. Hence anyone who wears Nike products is a bad person. Its ridiculous, narrow minded and undemocratic.
reply
upvoteby hardbass5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Telling my mind about anyone or any company is the ideal expression of free speech and democracy. Using government force against a company that refused a contract is the opposite of democracy.
reply
upvoteby rootusrootus3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Using government force against a company that refused a contract is the opposite of democracy

If democracy is working, isn't using the government to express the collective will of the people exactly how it should work? Else why are we bothering to vote in the first place?

reply
upvoteby hardbass3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Collective will of the people cannot supersede your ownership over your business and its right to engage with anyone it wishes to free of government retaliation. The business is people. Feel free to go to a communist country if you want collective action against companies. What other things do you think the collective vote should permit if the numbers tally? Do you support the collective will of the people to gag your free speech? To vote to shoot you dead in the street? Certain rights supersede voting, at least until somehow people manage to repeal the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment etc.
reply
upvoteby rootusrootus3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You seem to have escalated that argument a long ways towards hyperbole. The government refusing to have anything at all to do with a company seems like a perfectly valid position to take, and I expect my representatives to exercise that authority on my behalf. There is some nuance to how much that should extend to companies who themselves do business with the company you are refusing to contract with, but it is not completely wrong.
reply
upvoteby hardbass3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And I think the governments reaction was driven by trump's thuggery not any real reasons, any reasons given were after the fact. I mentioned those examples because you mentioned the collective voice of people, sometimes one needs reminded that unvarnished collective vote is not permitted to do certain things as rights of free expression and property exist, nothing more nothing less.
reply
upvoteby cramer4next4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It sure isn't democratic when only the top 1 percent in charge make those decisions that inflame you. These companies have thousands, if not tens of thousands of employees, that I can guarantee don't agree on statements or positions that the people at the top make as a company whole. So why would you want you punish people who have nothing to do with this. In the end its the regular employees who pay, not the corporate leadership.
reply
upvoteby hardbass5 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Aren't you the one who said this?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49694185

>For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom.

reply
upvoteby hardbass4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I am the last person to "enjoy" that openai is getting boycotted. I respect both companies. And openai themselves probably did it under pressure knowing that Trump is a thug.
reply
upvoteby cramer4next14 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Please provide a source or medical documentation of suffering from TDS regarding:

>> Trump is a thug.

I only use OpenAI since Claude was deemed a a supply chain risk. I never looked back.

reply
upvoteby hardbass10 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Trump is a thug who needs protection money to be paid or he will randomly declare you or your company a threat.
reply
upvoteby hardbass11 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't suffer from Trump Dicksucking Syndrome so I am afraid your diagnosis is mistaken. I use all models freely, why the fuck would I care about some bs military designation, I don't work in defense. Do you work for a defense company? If not why are you so stupid to refuse to use a model for this designation?
reply
upvoteby addandsubtract4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Seems completely rational to me? Why would I do business with a company that doesn't share my moral values? I find the influence money has in politics more undemocratic than anything else.
reply
upvoteby mpalczewski4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I doubt any company shares your moral values. Though a few of them might pay some lip service do some of your moral values. You tell me, have you audit all the companies you do business with to see if they share your moral values.
reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's certainly rhetoric! Corporate leaders must be made to understand that the business risk of collaborating with fascism is greater than or equal to the business risk of standing up for the rule of law. Really, we're being generous if we only punish a few companies and only hit their contracts; a strict application of the law would put quite a lot of CEOs behind bars for their overt bribery of the Trump regime.
reply