Comment by devwastaken
7 years ago
Those two lines of logic don't go together. If in your opinion it's a big mistake to believe they're rational, you are saying they're not being rational. There's no neutrality there.
You can assume that there is unknown information being acted upon. Unless there's proof otherwise that the protest is lying you infact can and should assume it's authenticity. Or at the least not be involved without clear knowledge.
>Unless there's proof otherwise that the protest is lying you infact can and should assume it's authenticity.
Thank God that's not the way justice system works.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
One could reasonably assume that the protestors are innocent until proven guilty.
> you infact can and should assume it's authenticity.
Why should you?
Because you treat others as you expect to be treated, and respect your fellow human kind. We do this because if we have an issue we want to raise to everyone there will be people to help empower that.
Given that the individuals protesting are employees about their workplace there is information we may not know, and given the history of mega corps violating rights it would be unreasonable to automatically trust the company over the workers putting themselves out there.
If you have reason or evidence against, then by all means don't support the protest, but you should look at this from their perspective and at workers rights in general.