[arthurjj]

> As I said in another comment, I think it’s important to debate what these companies are doing, how they’re doing it, and whether the United States’ actions are morally and legally justified.

I think it's sometimes hard to debate these issues in tech circles. In my experience something like 5-10% of techies are vocally critical of these companies or anything National Security related. This article headline is a great example, a serious debate is difficult when you compare people who disagree with you to Nazis

I was discussing resume screening with a jr engineer and unprompted he mentioned he would filter out anyone who worked at a defense contractor, not knowing I had worked at one. I tried to make sure he was removed from interviewing as he obviously wasn't mature enough for it.

[sneak]

Not wanting to work with people who are ok with the MIC is not a sign of immaturity.

[arthurjj]

Thank you for demonstrating my first point while trying to contest my second.

[joquarky]

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

[sofixa]

> This article headline is a great example, a serious debate is difficult when you compare people who disagree with you to Nazis

You know that the Nazi comparison isn't because of the disagreement, but because of what that disagreement is based on?

It's really not hard to compare ICE to the Gestapo or SA, core Nazi institutions. They're kidnapping people off the streets in brutal manners, targeting them based on immutable visual characteristics, sending them to camps from where many are never heard of again. Including people who are citizens and thus not even "guilty" of the crime which is supposedly being targeted.

Palantir as a company enables that. In the same way we legitimately call out Dehomag (IBM's German subsidiary) for them enabling all Nazi atrocities, we can call out Palantir for enabling the current atrocities.

It's not "disagreement", it's "if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a fucking Nazi duck".