|
|
|
|
|
by _7bxa
2428 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.