Microsoft employees protest against Hololens military contract

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, abazigal said:

Taking their opinions into consideration doesn’t mean bending over backwards to accommodate them. 

Chief, the news is that a few bitch employees are complaining. Not Microsoft accommodating these idiots.

[Chett_Manly]

The response should be "If you cannot work for a company that is proudly American, and contracts to the US Military and Governmental agencies, quit."

 

I am sick of these progressive cultists thinking they can force their Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist views on everyone. Even their corporate employer. Stop humoring these people, put them in the unemployment line!

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Deleted by poster.

[Jito463]

On 2/23/2019 at 7:21 AM, Captain Chaos said:

The unfortunate reality is that someone WILL provide this kind of technology to the military.  That being said, I'd be pretty pissed if I were in the developers' place too. 

Imagine creating something that has the potential to improve the world, only to see it being used to kill people.

That's not unfortunate.  A strong military is necessary to the survival of our country, this technology will help ensure our military stays strong.  Yes, soldiers kill in battle.  However, that can improve the world when the ones killed are those who wish evil upon us.

23 hours ago, elderago said:

these are technical engineers  most of who have been workin for microsoft for years. And should cetainly have a say in how there r&d os used

That's not how it works.  You don't get to tell your employer how your work is used.  You either accept it or quit.  If you want a say in how your work is used, you start up your own company and work for yourself.

22 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you are working for a company and develope technology using that companies resources while being paid by said company then the company owns the technology and not you.

Exactly.

21 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Though some might actually be pacifist

Being pacifist yourself is all fine and well, but being anti-military is not the same thing (and opposing improvements in technology that can aid the military is being anti-military in my opinion).  Even if they're not willing to fight themselves, someone else still needs to stand on the wall as the watchman.  Technology like this will help keep those watchmen safe.

21 hours ago, Donut417 said:

But the fact is the US is one of the most war like nations in the world. We will always be in a state of war with someone.

Not true, though I can understand how you'd believe that given the propaganda in the media.  While we do too often get into battles that we shouldn't, many of the ones we are involved in revolve around protecting other countries and people from harm.  Not to mention that we're the only country in the world (possibly in history) that will defeat a nation and then spend our own money helping them rebuild.

21 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Many of these companies know that military contracts are a good way to make money, because we spend the most on defense out of like the next 12 nations combined.

That's because we also provide defense for many countries in Europe and other places around the world.

14 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Biological weapons, on the other hand, largely don't have a purpose in research, other than the prevention of their use as a chemical weapon or their use as chemical weapons.

Or in developing counter-agents to chemical weapons.

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

Just because "someone else will do it" doesn't mean refusing is meaningless or not the right thing to do.

How is it "the right thing to do"?  Serious question.

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I am sick of these conservative, cultist, Jingoists (masquerading as Nationalists, which wouldn't be much better) if they actually were Nationalists) thinking they can force their narrow minded, hateful views on everyone

I love how you conflate "conservative" with "cultist", and "narrow minded" and "hateful" (and what the heck is a "jingoist"?).  Really lets your bias shine through, eh?

[Billy Pilgrim]

6 hours ago, abazigal said:

The US enjoys the peace that they do precisely because they have a strong army who is able to ward off would-be threats

Not really disagreeing here, but I think that the threat of an army, so as long as a country can get a large enough army, reserves etc. within a short period of time I think they can have a much smaller army.

 

Nuclear weapons also help. e.g. North Korea.

[MrFixitBlankFace]

There's nothing wrong with the hard-working military to purchase technology from a reliable company to improve their performance.

[Billy Pilgrim]

54 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You don't get to tell your employer how your work is used.  You either accept it or quit.

You should, however be able to say what you think about it. After all, on the the military is fighting for is free speech.

 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

The response should be "If you cannot work for a company that is proudly American, and contracts to the US Military and Governmental agencies, quit."

 

I am sick of these progressive cultists thinking they can force their Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist views on everyone. Even their corporate employer. Stop humoring these people, put them in the unemployment line!

If that's the case, surely you'll be in favor of Microsoft selling that technology to China, right? It's capitalism! Oh wait, then they wouldn't be "proudly American"... McCarthy intensifies

 

Call it what it is: unscrupulous corporatism encouraged by bloodthirsty militarists and paranoid reactionaries. Saying it's "proudly American" when you'd describe the same thing done for another country as "anti-'murican" is either the Everest of hypocrisy or the Marianas Trench of denial.

6 hours ago, abazigal said:

The US enjoys the peace that they do precisely because they have a strong army who is able to ward off would-be threats, the very reason why these critics are able to wax lyrical in the comfort of their own homes and offices.

Except the US has constantly been invading countries that never posed anything resembling a direct threat to them. Despite the decades of almost constant war, US soil has never been militarily attacked. The US has plenty of means to defend themselves as is, in fact a tenth of what they have would be more than enough. The EU has enjoyed peace for just as long despite a FAR lower military budget across all states.

 

So no, the US army is not in fact the only thing separating US citizens from the collapse of civilization and enslavement. Let's stop using that lie to defend crimes against humanity.

6 hours ago, abazigal said:

If you want to be able to enjoy the peace and stability that you currently do, the only way is for your country to be strong enough to stand up to any foe no matter how strong.

What foe is strong enough to withstand nuclear annihilation? Because the US was capable of that since the '50s. What more do you want?

 

Of course, if the target is invading nations and taking control of their resources there is much more incentive to kill them without destroying everything......

6 hours ago, abazigal said:

They want to prove a point? They are free to resign and walk out the door. 

Yes, the only acceptable action when you aren't happy with your working conditions is to resign without so much as attempting to solve the problem. The coffee machines don't work? Leave it broken and resign. The boss is a jerk? Tell no one and resign. The company is using your work to help violate human rights? Just let them and resign.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

You should, however be able to say what you think about it. After all, on the the military is fighting for is free speech.

 

Never said otherwise.  However, there is a vast difference between voicing your disagreement, and saying "we demand a say in how our work is used".

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The EU has enjoyed peace for just as long despite a FAR lower military budget across all states.

Yes, because - as I already stated - the US actually covers the defense cost of many nations in the EU.  Hence why our military spending is so much higher.

[Master Disaster]

59 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Yes, because - as I already stated - the US actually covers the defense cost of many nations in the EU.  Hence why our military spending is so much higher.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I mean I'm no expert but I do live in Europe and I've never heard of a US subsidised military in any EU country before. I've personally travelled to almost every country in the EU at some point.

 

Can you actually provide sources for this? I feel like you're talking about the Eastern Bloc and the Crimean region of Europe? Yeah almost none of that is part of the EU and FTR the EU provides more to those areas than NATO does plus the US does have an interest in not allowing Putin to invade other nations.

[Andreas Lilja]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I mean I'm no expert but I do live in Europe and I've never heard of a US subsidised military in any EU country before. I've personally travelled to almost every country in the EU at some point.

 

Can you actually provide sources for this?

NATO has minimum requirements, 2% of GDP on defense. 

 

http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/

 

 

[Chett_Manly]

3 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I am sick of these conservative, cultist, Jingoists (masquerading as Nationalists, which wouldn't be much better) if they actually were Nationalists) thinking they can force their narrow minded, hateful views on everyone, including the ones who have forgotten our government is supposed to be of the people, for the people instead an elitist few (who remind me of the Pigs in Animal House) who want (and, lately, get) their way. Stop humoring these people; put them in the unemployment line.

 

We are supposed to be individuals with human rights, not corporate slaves.

Yeah except you don't see the conservative employees at Microsoft trying to force the company to do business based around their politics. They aren't publicly attacking the company to try and force it into doing as they wish. And there are no people more narrow minded and hateful than progressives. Which is why I call them cultists, its in or out with these people. 

 

And no one there is a corporate slave, they can leave at any time and work elsewhere. 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

NATO has minimum requirements, 2% of GDP on defense. 

 

http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/

 

 

OK, but you're talking about commitments made to NATO here, it's not like Trump is paying for Greece's tanks or Italy's planes directly. Saying the US is finding Europe's military is akin to saying the US is also funding Russian affairs because they're also committed to paying into the UN security council.

 

It's by proxy at best.

[Billy Pilgrim]

3 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

Yeah except you don't see the conservative employees at Microsoft trying to force the company to do business based around their politics. They aren't publicly attacking the company to try and force it into doing as they wish. And there are no people more narrow minded and hateful than progressives. Which is why I call them cultists, its in or out with these people. 

 

And no one there is a corporate slave, they can leave at any time and work elsewhere. 

I don't think it said anywhere that they were progressives, though I may be missing something.

[Andreas Lilja]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Yes, because - as I already stated - the US actually covers the defense cost of many nations in the EU.  Hence why our military spending is so much higher.

Mostly due to very successful lobbying. Not the first time congressmen or senators earmark funds for what the army doesn't even want.

 

Abrams tanks come to mind. DOD clearly says it doesn't want more or better ones, yet you get a 50-million earmark renewed each year, for decades.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Raskolnikov said:

Mostly due to very successful lobbying. Not the first time congressmen or senators earmark funds for what the army doesn't even want.

 

Abrams tanks come to mind. DOD clearly says it doesn't want more or better ones, yet you get a 50-million earmark renewed each year.

 

I would probably explain this by saying those funds are being earmarked for secret projects rather than what the public are told.

 

That scene from Independence Day hit the nail on the head, you honestly believe the Whitehouse spends $100,000 on wallpaper or $25,000 on a hammer?

 

Gotta explain the deficit somehow.

[Chett_Manly]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

If that's the case, surely you'll be in favor of Microsoft selling that technology to China, right? It's capitalism! Oh wait, then they wouldn't be "proudly American"... McCarthy intensifies

 

Call it what it is: unscrupulous corporatism encouraged by bloodthirsty militarists and paranoid reactionaries. Saying it's "proudly American" when you'd describe the same thing done for another country as "anti-'murican" is either the Everest of hypocrisy or the Marianas Trench of denial.

An American company selling military technology to a hostile foreign power would be anti American. I would not hold it against a Chinese company for selling military technology to the Chinese government, because they are a Chinese company; and if I had a problem with that I wouldn't work for them to begin with!

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

though I can understand how you'd believe that given the propaganda in the media

Its not propaganda. We have really no reason to be in any conflict with any nation at this time. This is not about rebuilding countries its about money.  President Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. Defense firms want war, because war brings them money, its business. Big business controls our government. Then more money is spent rebuilding these countries, which end up being more of these businesses that make money due to war. In the end the Rich just want more and they do give two fucks who has to die to get more. 

[Billy Pilgrim]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

President Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex.

Eisenhower has some interesting things to say about war in general and especially interesting for a General.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Deleted by poster.

[Chett_Manly]

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Jobs are not always that easy to find. Please return to the real world.

Actually right now the market is great for developers, but even if it wasn't, if they care that much about their political point they should quit and look for work elsewhere, then expect the company to bend to their will, and especially not publicly attack their employer.

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

We have really no reason to be in any conflict with any nation at this time.

Except for treaties that we need to honor and a bunch of backwards savages with 20th and 21st century tech trying to kill us.

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

An American company selling military technology to a hostile foreign power would be anti American. I would not hold it against a Chinese company for selling military technology to the Chinese government, because they are a Chinese company; and if I had a problem with that I wouldn't work for them to begin with!

I'll introduce you to the idea that anyone selling weapons to any country is anti human.

[Sharp_3yE]

First off, Military does more then "kill people" they also save lives and help build things. Secondly, maybe used for training but otherwise these HoloLens's won't be used for specifically on the ground military use. Third, if it helps train our military better then I say good, keep our men and women safe. Fourth, you can't stop the military from buying something. Either you partner with them or they will buy it straight up. Fifth, like others said Microsoft has partnered with military multiple times. You agreed to work for MS and should know very well that they have partnered with military.