Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Jun 2011 22:50 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
IBM "Today International Business Machines celebrated a relative rarity in the tech business - its one hundredth anniversary. By contrast Google is a mere 12 years old, Apple is 35, Microsoft is 36, and Hewlett-Packard is 72 years old." One of the most important companies in the computer industry. Congratulations, IBM, on to the next century! And we get to use our IBM logo for once. Yay!
Thread beginning with comment 477433
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Balance the view
by spanglywires on Thu 16th Jun 2011 23:00 UTC
Member since:
RE: Balance the view
by Drumhellar on Thu 16th Jun 2011 23:29 in reply to "Balance the view"
Drumhellar Member since:

I think that's the first time I've seen a discussion Godwin'd on the first post.

From the wiki article:

"Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."[37] IBM quoted this claim in a March 2002 press release "Addendum to IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit".[34]"

So, IBM sold Germany computers so they could conduct a census, prior to war breaking out, and prior to anybody knowing about the death camps. Saying they had a part in the holocaust is like saying a shoe company had a part because Nazi soldiers wore boots while rounding up civilians.

I think thrusting blame on any organization that is only indirectly and tenuously related such atrocities is petty. It devalues the victims, and devalues the lessons that need to be learned from such events.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Balance the view
by spanglywires on Thu 16th Jun 2011 23:45 in reply to "RE: Balance the view"
spanglywires Member since:

'Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons'

The very uncontested situation that IBM colloborated knowingly or possibly (but less likely unknowingly) through a 90% owned subsiduary leaves at very least a serious question mark on corporate responsibility and management ethos.

As for the boot analogy, no, I wouldn't sell boots to to a genocidal dictator, its called a moral decision. Much as I won't buy products tested on animals, I avoid IBM hardware and software wherever I have the purchasing decision. That is a moral stance I have taken because I value the victims.

If you choose to sell your boots to genocidal dictators, that is your moral stance - I judge you not. After all, the B in IBM stands for business.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Balance the view
by Neolander on Fri 17th Jun 2011 06:20 in reply to "Balance the view"
Neolander Member since:

*Achievement unlocked* : Instant Godwin

Reply Parent Score: 7