Comment by Ansil849
5 years ago
> We have people on the ground in Ukraine being bombarded now non stop. I cannot with good conscience continue to support the Russian regime in any way, shape or form.
What about the American regime currently bombing Somalia?
Or the Saudi regime currently bombing Yemen?
Or the Israeli regime currently bombing Syria?
Or the ... regime currently bombing ...? You get the point, surely.
Why the selective enforcement against just this one particular regime?
They also fail to acknowledge the thousands deaths on both sides since 2014 until today, since the coup and introduction of Maidan snipers to kill the innocent. To name a concrete example, you can freely consult the magnitude of the casualties related to the Donbas-related conflict alone (some 13,000-14,000 lives since April 2014). Part of the staff is Ukrainian...they ought to know.
Why today? Perhaps the answer lies in the field of sociology or psychology.
As pointed out by others before me, this mainly pushes affected customers to transfer domains to Russia-based providers, increasing their profits (a little) and sphere of control (a little more).
...But it makes them feel better?
Namecheap employs 834 Ukrainians, about 73% of their total workforce. The families of their employees are probably dying. Ukraine and Russia are in a state of war.
It's irrelevant what previously occurred by other governments.
> It's irrelevant what previously occurred by other governments.
All of the bombardments I mentioned happened on the same exact days as the bombardments in Ukraine. And how you can dismiss the killing of people in other countries as 'irrelevant' is astonishing.
That statement and answer was specific to:
> Why the selective enforcement against just this one particular regime?
Providing the plausible reason why there was selective enforcement for that one particular regime, and thus the irrelevancy of what previously occurred by other governments.
Your next, perhaps still valid question, is why they aren't continuing to apply this policy to your other cited circumstances.
Did they hire them because salary is much less expansive than in the US?
I don't know the answer to that question, but does that no longer make them human and the leader of the organization of which they are employed should not be emphatic to their situation?
The people you list aren't white enough for westerners to care. That's what it is, that's all there is to it.