Could you be so kind and explain how would you ensure those who would be losing their livelyhoods survive? And their families?
We tend to peg a face to a company and demonize the whole from one person, like the tweeter debacle and that hair enhanced loon that bought it out of a whim, motivated by spite.
How many have lost their jobs already and how many more would lose them if the company was to be dissolved for punishment in their spread of false information (thus, aiding and abetting) that have led to the terrible losses and even worst for many?
Or perhaps Facebook, with their assistance with covering and gagging the genocide in Myanmar?
This doesn’t mean I disagree with severely punishing these entities. Fine them in millions and billions, force them to break into competing entities, severely regulate and control their actions. But kill a company because, and in this particular case for BMW, they could cooperate or cease to exist, perhaps in horrendous ways?
That would make the punishment as bad or worst than the crime.
I don’t agree with your dichotomy, but ignoring that for a second, saying “the punishment as bad or worse than the crime” makes it sound like you think someone losing their job is “as bad or worse” than genocide - maybe reconsider
Wherever you work, are you so powerful there that you can refuse to follow intructions or operational guidelines? Are you so financially secure you can just quit your job and leave if you are aware the company is involved in unethical practices? Don’t you those who depend or rely on you for security in their lives?
If so, congratularions.
But many, if not most, don’t have that power and security. They need to work in order to live and take care of others.
Going back to the tweeter/musk debacle: how many were purged from the company or left it for dissent, how many stayed, even though they knew the company was going to engage in behaviours and practices completely contrary to its history and how many have really signed up for the new boss’s “vision”?
Crude analogy but valid enough.
If the company was to be dissolved as punitive action, as you suggest, where would those who stayed because they had to find jobs, considering they would be condemned by association?
Wait, let me try to answer that on your behalf: it would be necessary to lead proper investigations, to determine who was voluntarily, willingly, involved and those who were stuck with no other option.
Or are you perhaps suggesting that no matter what, the moment you complied, regardless your personal agreement, you are as guilty as those who made the initial decision that turned the company on its head?
This isn’t a black and white world. Please stop to consider these downfall of your decisions onto others.
your analogy between twitter employees not quitting because of Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and BMW workers not quitting because of BMW’s active participation in the holocaust isn’t just crude, it’s appallingly disrespectful.
I ask you again to think about whether you really mean that losing one’s job is “as bad or worse than” genocide.
I’d be happy to discuss with you, what I think someone could do if they find themself working for an organisation perpetrating atrocities (or encouraging them, as Twitter and Facebook are) - a sneak preview of my opinion is “they could certainly do more than sit there” - but I don’t think there’s any chance of it a productive conversation unless we can agree that being rounded up and exterminated is universally, objectively, worse than being fired from a job.
Let’s be clear here too. There was real dissent in Germany and the Nazis shipped those who fought back to camps first. These people just doing their jobs made their choice.
Could you be so kind and explain how would you ensure those who would be losing their livelyhoods survive? And their families?
We tend to peg a face to a company and demonize the whole from one person, like the tweeter debacle and that hair enhanced loon that bought it out of a whim, motivated by spite.
How many have lost their jobs already and how many more would lose them if the company was to be dissolved for punishment in their spread of false information (thus, aiding and abetting) that have led to the terrible losses and even worst for many?
Or perhaps Facebook, with their assistance with covering and gagging the genocide in Myanmar?
This doesn’t mean I disagree with severely punishing these entities. Fine them in millions and billions, force them to break into competing entities, severely regulate and control their actions. But kill a company because, and in this particular case for BMW, they could cooperate or cease to exist, perhaps in horrendous ways?
That would make the punishment as bad or worst than the crime.
I don’t agree with your dichotomy, but ignoring that for a second, saying “the punishment as bad or worse than the crime” makes it sound like you think someone losing their job is “as bad or worse” than genocide - maybe reconsider
Wherever you work, are you so powerful there that you can refuse to follow intructions or operational guidelines? Are you so financially secure you can just quit your job and leave if you are aware the company is involved in unethical practices? Don’t you those who depend or rely on you for security in their lives?
If so, congratularions.
But many, if not most, don’t have that power and security. They need to work in order to live and take care of others.
Going back to the tweeter/musk debacle: how many were purged from the company or left it for dissent, how many stayed, even though they knew the company was going to engage in behaviours and practices completely contrary to its history and how many have really signed up for the new boss’s “vision”?
Crude analogy but valid enough.
If the company was to be dissolved as punitive action, as you suggest, where would those who stayed because they had to find jobs, considering they would be condemned by association?
Wait, let me try to answer that on your behalf: it would be necessary to lead proper investigations, to determine who was voluntarily, willingly, involved and those who were stuck with no other option.
Or are you perhaps suggesting that no matter what, the moment you complied, regardless your personal agreement, you are as guilty as those who made the initial decision that turned the company on its head?
This isn’t a black and white world. Please stop to consider these downfall of your decisions onto others.
your analogy between twitter employees not quitting because of Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and BMW workers not quitting because of BMW’s active participation in the holocaust isn’t just crude, it’s appallingly disrespectful.
I ask you again to think about whether you really mean that losing one’s job is “as bad or worse than” genocide.
I’d be happy to discuss with you, what I think someone could do if they find themself working for an organisation perpetrating atrocities (or encouraging them, as Twitter and Facebook are) - a sneak preview of my opinion is “they could certainly do more than sit there” - but I don’t think there’s any chance of it a productive conversation unless we can agree that being rounded up and exterminated is universally, objectively, worse than being fired from a job.
Contrary to your expectations, I’m very open to have a dialogue.
Please, elaborate your point.
Contrary to your expectations, I’m very open to have a dialogue.
Please, elaborate your point.
Let’s be clear here too. There was real dissent in Germany and the Nazis shipped those who fought back to camps first. These people just doing their jobs made their choice.