[thunky]

> That is flawed logic though. If enough people refuse to do certain types of work,

Sure that would solve it, but the issue is that this will never happen.

People will never stop doing objectionable things for money.

You won't even be able to get enough people to agree that there is a problem that needs solving.

[FartyMcFarter]

> Sure that would solve it, but the issue is that this will never happen.

Not sure what you mean by that. Some bad things will keep happening, but:

a) that doesn't excuse working on bad things.

b) not all bad things will get worked on.

If you always use other people as an excuse to do bad things that you don't believe in, you really need to reevaluate your thought process.

[thunky]

> a) that doesn't excuse working on bad things.

Yes, as an individual you can (and should) choose to not do bad things. But the original point being made was that this individual choice is not going to make any difference as long as someone else comes along behind you to do it.

And my point is that it's unrealistic to think that people are collectively going to stop doing "bad" things for money. We can't even expect to agree on what "bad" is, let alone expect people to throw their career in the toilet for it.

Should everyone working at Nike quit because of their objectionble practices? You may believe so. All I'm saying is that it's just not going to happen.

[FartyMcFarter]

> But the original point being made was that this individual choice is not going to make any difference as long as someone else comes along behind you to do it.

I know. But the original point is wrong or at least it doesn't tell the whole story.

That is, not all bad things will get done, and some bad things will get harder/more expensive to do if lots of people refuse to do it. Seeing it as a binary thing is overly reductive and may lead people down the path they disagree with.