[yummyfajitas]

I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers).

Uber is engaged in civil disobedience against unjust laws that exist to protect political insiders. When did this become a bad thing?

[wpietri]

You have a very poor understanding of what civil disobedience is.

As MLK wrote, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." [1]

That is manifestly not what Kalanick is doing. He broke laws for his own profit, has energetically avoided the penalties, demonstrates no particular interest in justice, and certainly doesn't care about the conscience of the community.

I also think the "political insiders" thing is just crocodile tears. From his behavior, Kalanick has no problem with industrial interests having outsized power; he just wants to be the one with that power.

[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

[yummyfajitas]

On the contrary, Kalanick is directly appealing to the conscience of the community. Whenever regulators attempt to shut him down he appeals directly to the public: "Bill de Blasio/Shiv Sena/Telangana Taxi Association/etc wants to take away your ride!"

Many in the civil rights movement also broke laws for their own profit or other benefit; they wanted the right to work any job they were qualified for, live in any neighborhood, etc. What's wrong with that?

Does one need to be completely altruistic to oppose injustice? Victims cannot protest, only uninterested third parties?

[vacri]

That is a pretty gross rephrasing of wpietri's point.

[yummyfajitas]

I understand that my comparison is inspiring negative emotions. But that doesn't make it wrong.

Do you have an intellectual (rather than emotional) argument why my rephrasing is somehow invalid?

[inimino]

If you can't see why individuals fighting against systemic racism at great personal risk is an entirely different thing from a billion-dollar company flouting regulations established to protect consumers and employees, then there is little hope that an intellectual argument will make it clear to you.

[vacri]

You are correct that it's not the inspiring of negative emotions that makes your comparison wrong.

I do have an intellectual argument, but you're pretty clearly trolling, so there's no real point in presenting it. You're not stupid and you know what you're doing, so why prolong the pretense?

[yummyfajitas]

Is there any possible way I could ask the same intellectual question without you characterizing it as trolling? Or do you simply declare some topics to be, by definition, trolling?

I stand by what I said. I think that the distinction between our celebrated historical civil disobedience and the modern kind is not so clear. One happened 50 years ago and is part of our modern mythology, the other is a contemporary conflict and as such it obviously doesn't come with "applause-lights" [1].

[1] "Applause-lights" explained: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/

[inimino]

Self-interest is not conscience.

[bogomipz]

Wow you are actually attempting to connect Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, "conscience" and "injustice" with Travis Kalanick and Uber?

That is so messed up.

[noblethrasher]

The case of Rosa Parks wasn't even close to saying “fuck you” to the law, because she did immediately submit herself to the law (as did MLK and other civil rights activists that spent a lot of time in jail).

Civil disobedience not only requires submission to the law, but is most effective when the threat of punishment is existential (e.g. lengthy incarceration or death). Since Uber’s existence depends on defiance of the current laws, it is manifestly impossible that the company’s actions are in any way a form of civil disobedience.

[lgas]

I think part of the problem is that the parallels between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick are not as obvious to everyone as they are to you.

[yummyfajitas]

What I'm pointing out is not some moral parallel between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick. I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement.

This is a strong indication that his argument is invalid, nothing more.

[chiaro]

It's perfectly consistent to believe that the civil rights movement meets one's threshold for justifiable civil disobedience, while Uber's plight does not.

[yummyfajitas]

Perhaps, but that's an argument that needs to be made. It wasn't.

[madgar]

> I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement.

The value of an argument is not a pure function of its syntactic structure but also the specific details of the argument. Context matters. Intent even matters.

The details, context and intent so far suggest that you care more about being right on the Internet than about human beings' welfare.

[yummyfajitas]

The first step in helping human welfare is determining what things are actually good for human welfare. If you can't construct a valid argument for X, that's a hint that X might not be good for human welfare.

[Infinitesimus]

It is a bit sad that you're getting heavily downvoted but no one is willing to have an rational conversation about this. For what it's worth, I disagree with your equation of the two but I think I understand what you're saying.

My 2 cents: On the surface, disregard for law in order to pursue something considered as better for the greater good of the population/humans seems the same in your comparisons.

I think you're meeting so much resistance because we're not 100% rational beings. As mentioned elsewhere, intent and context absolutely affect how we view actions/statements ( debating that is beyond the scope of this argument imo).

At the human/emotional level, it _feels_ (and I'd argue that it is wrong) wrong to say someone disobeying the laws of the land to fight for the right to be treated as a human being is the same as someone disobeying the laws because they want to make more money (Travis). As a species, we hold actions with the intent to preserve/improve our collective good - the definition of which is perhaps shaped by our moral compass - as a higher, more worthwhile and noble aim than actions made solely in the interest of profit.

Even in the court of law, intent shapes an action (eg: murder vs manslaugher)

[yummyfajitas]

I understand that it feels wrong. But I'd suggest the parallels are closer than you think.

First, the folks who "fight for the right to be treated as a human being" also stand to gain monetarily (and otherwise) from that treatment.

Secondly, suppose Kalanick's desire to build Uber is ideological in nature rather than merely profit driven - i.e. suppose he views building Uber as a way to shape the world for the better. (I do believe he views the world this way.) Would that redeem his actions in your view?

Incidentally, I really appreciate the intellectual response. It's far more interesting than the general anger consuming this thread.

[inimino]

If everyone tells you that you are wrong but doesn't care to explain in detail why, it's a hint that you might be wrong. You are not owed a valid argument just because you demand one.

[yummyfajitas]

I usually make a good faith assumption that folks who choose to comment on HN are seeking an intellectual discussion. But while that's a "good faith" assumption, it's not a very good prior these days.

I miss the old days, when we discussed ideas even if they sounded stratnge.

[wpietri]

So true. Random people don't owe an education to aggressive jerks, especially when they give little indication of being willing to listen.

[Qworg]

Uber isn't fighting for people's rights. Not liking taxi services or the laws that protect their business isn't equivalent by any stretch.

[aianus]

Yes, they are. They are fighting for my right to use whichever service I like to drive me from point A to point B.

[marklgr]

Endure the amount of abuse, beating and killing that the civil rights movement was about, and you can have your Uber. Is that a deal?