[mikeash]

Excuse me? Not doing business with companies who do things we dislike is exactly how we settle political disputes in a civil society.

Seriously, what the hell is with all these idiots lately saying that we're not supposed to even vote with our wallets anymore? I apologize for my harsh language but I'm just so flabbergasted, and it's such a stupid thing to say that I think "idiots" is justified. Do you really think that we should limit the expression of our dissatisfaction to the ballot box and the internet comment box? Why shouldn't we change how we do business to make a point?

The way some people react to this stuff, you'd think we were talking about assassinating political opponents, rather than criticizing them and taking our business elsewhere.

[zo1]

They'd rather have you believe that voting with your wallet doesn't work. They would prefer that you think the only way to enact change is through coercive governmental power. It fits their world-view and pocket-book quite nicely.

[orochi235]

There's a critical distinction between voting with your own wallet and launching an (anonymous) campaign to ensure someone never works again.

[mikeash]

What's the "critical distinction" between voting with your own wallet and trying to convince other people to vote with theirs too? Seems like it's just "vote with your wallet" plus "free speech".

[orochi235]

To be clear, I'm not trying to say this sort of action should be illegal. Just that I think it's tasteless, shortsighted, and somewhat hypocritical to do anonymously, given that it specifically targets an individual. Which is the other element of this that I find so abhorrent: it's one thing to target an idea, or campaign against someone running for public office. It's another to follow a private citizen around for the rest of his or her life, making demands of anyone who attempts to hire that person. It seems, well, vindictive.

I think I mentioned above that I disagree with basically every decision Dr. Rice ever made while acting as a public official. The Iraq war was a huge disaster, and that was obvious before it even started. But there's a reason we have legal doctrines like qualified immunity: it's detrimental to a public official's ability to perform his or her duties if he or she has to view every decision as a question of personal liability.

Upon further reflection, this isn't nearly as bad as last week's Mozilla witch hunt. You could probably make a legitimate argument in the context of privacy and government surveillance. But given the "success" of that purge, I'm worried that we'll be seeing three more of these campaigns every week. The fact that I've taken a karma beating for (completely earnest) posts I've made in this thread just reinforces my fear that we're becoming a community that finds it harder and harder to brook dissent. And I really thought the kind of person that reads HN was smart enough to see the inherent dangers in that.

Thanks for not calling me an idiot this time. Really made my day.

[mikeash]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to do it again, though. You're arguing that it's a bad thing to hold a public figure accountable for what they do, in a democracy, through purely nonviolent means. You are, in fact, arguing that in a democracy, it's detrimental to an official's ability to perform their job to be held accountable, even something minor like an internet boycott. Does that not imply that things like Congressional oversight and journalistic investigation while they're still in office is even worse? So I need to say it again: idiotic.

Is it tasteless? Maybe. Shortsighted? I don't see how, but I won't argue it strenuously. Hypocritical? Maybe, but I don't really find hypocrisy objectionable in general. Even if I grant all of those, that is a far far far cry from "this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society." "Civil society" does not mean that we must go around being absolutely and completely polite to each other at all times. It means that we solve our disputes nonviolently. Far from being an abrogation of civil society, this action is a shining example of it.

I'm honestly puzzled at what you're saying because it just doesn't make sense to me. I assume you're not against things like public street protests against a sitting president, but the only difference I can see is purely quantitative. Is it that you think it should stop once they leave office, or what?

[orochi235]

It's pretty smooth of you to call me an idiot, double down on that, and _then_ say you don't understand my position.

This sort of intimidation (of Dr. Rice and anyone who associates with her) may not be violent, but it _is_ coercive. That sort of climate is anathema to "civil society," no matter how narrowly you attempt to define the term. (You didn't need to provide a working definition, by the way; it's obvious you don't think it has anything to do with decorum.)

And yes, there is absolutely a distinction between Congressional, journalistic, judicial or even private oversight of a sitting public official, and public hounding of that person once he or she returns to private life. There's also a difference between airing one's grievances (i.e. protest) and making threats if your demands aren't met. Maybe if you disagree with something I've said, you should try to get me fired, too.

[mikeash]

I don't understand your overall position. I understand that one aspect of it well enough to call it idiotic. I stand by that.

If refraining from doing business with a company and encouraging other people to do the same is "coercive" then you've redefined the word to the point where it has essentially no meaning.

Boycotts, strikes, protests, and other non-violent actions have long and proud histories as part of "civil society".

Given that the "threats" being made here are merely that of switching services, I see no difference between this and a peaceful protest, where the implied threat is "we will vote for somebody else".

Seriously, what do you think people should do here? I assume we can rule out violence. Stopping your use of Dropbox just because you disagree with them is apparently not allowed. Talking about it with other people doesn't seem to be OK with you. You seem to basically be saying that you can disagree as long as you shut up about it and don't do anything with your opinion. Is that not true?

[vdaniuk]

What? Is it really tasteless and hypocritical to target anonymously an insanely well-connected individual that was at some point a #4 in the USG chain of command?

[orochi235]

I guess they don't teach you that until Entrepreneurship 102.

[vdaniuk]

That's actually great that you admit the need for some catching up on learning entrepreneurship. There are nice moocs on edx and coursera and udacity.