|
|
|
|
|
by the_af
539 days ago
|
|
> "It is immoral to not produce weapons of war for western countries and the US in particular" I cannot imagine that a substantial "many" people believe this. How does it work exactly? If you have any expertise even adjacent to weapons building (e.g. being a programmer) and you are not building weapons for the US due to a lack of effort (as opposed to failing the interview) you're doing something immoral? I don't think many would agree with this. I suppose his stance is somehow more nuanced? (I wouldn't agree with it either, but at least it would be slightly more reasonable). |
|
This describes it fairly well, although I was thinking of a CNBC interview in particular. He does so many that it’s hard to catalogue.
The argument is roughly that “the west” and “western morality” are critical institutions to be protected, and refusing to protect them is immoral.
And yes, a lot of people support his ideals. Major chunks of the tech investment class, thousands of workers at Palantir, the U.S. State Department, the Acela corridor, etc. It is probably a minority viewpoint amongst normal Americans, but we’re talking about tech workers here. :)