[tombert]

Talk is cheap on this. Pretty much every government on earth has committed at least one atrocity, and usually many. Would you condemn a public defender for working for the US government, because the US government murdered millions of Native Americans?

I mean, that's a valid enough position to have, but I don't feel like you have really thought it through.

[tadzik_]

Talk is cheap, but so is switching jobs. The broader you go on this the harder it is to avoid, I still pay my taxes even though my government does terrible things with the money, but I don't have much of a choice. I have refused job offers from companies that do things I don't like though because it's not really that much of a loss.

And I don't know what kind of standards public defenders in the US have, but over here it's common than an abuse of power by the police force is followed by a wave of resignations.

[tombert]

I think you're missing my point, I don't think I made it terribly well.

My point is that if we take a job like a public defender, I think most people agree that the action of what they're doing is a good thing. Providing representation to people who cannot afford a lawyer is (I think) nearly universally regarded as "good". However, they are paid by the US government, who has done its share of very evil things. Does that mean I should condemn a public defender because the entity that signs their paychecks does evil stuff?

Personally, I think the answer is "no". Any sufficiently large entity has its share of bullshit, and I personally do not think that every individual that has ever associated with that entity is guilty-by-association by working with them. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I would be surprised if everyone you like passes your purity test then.

[tadzik_]

No, not everyone I like passes my purity test, you're right. I try not to judge them too much for it, they have their reasons (largely economical), and it's their call. I wouldn't do it, but I don't condemn them for it either – and I never said that I would. I merely stated my own stance on this, which is, as you say, cheap to have since I'm in a stable situation and the IT job market is abundant of well-paying jobs.

I see the point that you're getting at, and there's surely the line to be drawn here, and I think it's a question of scale – and the line is placed differently for each individual. I don't have absolutist views on this, and I probably wouldn't feel bad either, as a public defender in the example you bring up. I'd say public defenders are in the clear even if their state-employer also does bad things – since at least some of the things that they do are good and need to be done, like keeping people safe. I wouldn't say the same about Norton since they're one of many and if they went down tomorrow nothing much would really happen.

I don't think it's comparable to the IT industry though. Companies hugely care about their image, and poking holes in that image is an effective – or at least available – way to put pressure on them. Consider how much effort they're making to recruit people, and how heavily they rely on friends recommending their friends. "Your employees will leave and they'll discourage their friends from working with you" will work much better on a tech company than it would on a state that doesn't really compete with anyone else when it comes to public defense.

One's own conscience work similarly in this case. There's a long way to go from "I directly boost profits of a ruthless, replacable corporation" to the "I criticize the society and yet I participate in it" meme.

[saati]

Public defenders are a very important part of the justice system, how does working on very scummy things compare?

[tombert]

The comment I was responding to was talking about condemning everyone at Norton, even the ones who weren’t doing scummy things.