cluthe

You're right that it is an anti-pattern of capitalism. However it is possible for an anti-pattern to be completely rational, while having horrible consequences, given the way the system is set up. The consequences might be more clearly unacceptable when you see it with Blackwater, but exactly the same perverse incentives are driving every company.

Its not the consumers fault. The average consumer is going to act like the average consumer - and they are very unlikely to change any time soon. If capitalism causes problems when consumers act like consumers then that's a problem with capitalism.

The problem isn't even with AT&T, it is systemic. These companies exist in a system with perverse incentives that forces them to provide the lowest quality service possible, that consumers will still tolerate, in order to maximize profits. These aren't shitty business practices, they are completely rational for maximizing profits.

I'm from Hong Kong, I'm sitting in Central Hong Kong right now. Read again what I said. If you think being able to vote between 2 or 3 CCP approved candidates is a real democratic system then I don't know what to say to you.

A democratic system that is being abused is better than no system of democracy at all. There are many efforts in the USA to get money out of politics and try to get true democracy again. Those efforts are happening within a democratic system, that you seem to be taking for granted, of which Hong Kong and China do not have.

I don't understand this (American?) tendency to insist on comparing everything that happens in the world to what happens in the USA. It's almost as if you are expected to first check what USA has done, and then apply equal amounts of criticism to the USA for that, before you are then allowed to say anything on any topic.

Hongkongers and other people around the world, don't care about the USA. We don't feel the need to use USA as a benchmark when discussing issues in our own countries.

That's not HK style, that's the corporate media's style, and you see it everywhere. The protesters have actually shown a lot of class - it's the police and government who need to show some class and have a more measured response to peaceful protests.

Discrimination isn't subjective, either something is discrimination or it isn't. It would require cognitive dissonance to be someone who is opposed to discrimination while holding a personal belief that supports discrimination.

There is a difference between respecting your freedom of choice and respecting your actual choice. If your belief is repulsive to your peers and discriminatory then you need to realize there are going to be consequences for holding that belief and acting on that belief when it comes time to try to fit in with society. Your freedom of choice does not give you freedom from all consequences of that choice. On the other hand LGBT people are NOT free to choose to marry the person they wish if laws like the one Mr Eich supported exist.

If you stand against discrimination and apply social pressure to the people who choose to continue to support discrimination then you are, in fact, on the side AGAINST discrimination.

Sure, if a CEO supported and donated money to a law that would stop Christians from being able to get married like everyone else then i would hope they are publicly criticized and pressured to defend their beliefs and the actions they have taken as a result of those beliefs. I wouldn't say they should be fired but they should be made to feel that actions taken to discriminate against others can have social consequences in both your personal and professional life.

This isn't exactly true. Free speech just means you need to respect someones RIGHT TO VOICE their viewpoint. There is a difference between respecting someones right to free speech and respecting the actual person and/or their viewpoint. If the viewpoint someone expresses is repulsive you are under no obligation to respect that person or their viewpoint. Criticizing bad ideas and calling people out on them and applying social pressure to those people for their bad ideas is what makes the market place of idea's work, it stops bad harmful ideas like racism and LGBT discrimination from propagating. Criticizing someone and saying you don't respect that person anymore because of their ideas is not the same as disrespecting or taking away their right to free speech.

The problem is that he donated money to support a law that discriminates against people. It's not a private personal opinion that isn't harming anyone, his personal belief has directly contributed to discrimination. Beliefs are never truly personal and private, what people believe affects their behavior and interaction with others.

He wants Mozilla to be inclusive, while also supporting the exclusion of gay people from marriage. The hypocrisy of bigots is astounding.