Quote:
Originally Posted by ebarker
Microsoft has two choices regarding that regional.
a) They can support it and be accused of trying to take over the world.
b) They can not support it and be accused of not supporting their community and education and not having 'social responsibility'.
Either way in the eyes of people that don't like Microsoft, they lose.
Trying to take over FIRST isn't one of them. FIRST is their 'social responsibility' charity effort.
I agree with the previous poster that this topic is best left alone given the emotionally charged environment surrounding it.
|
EB,
You present a false dichotomy. There are third, fourth and more options.
You also appear to view this discussion through a take-over-the-world lens.
I prefer to view it through a what-does-the-past-teach-us-to-expect-from-the-future lens; and a diversity-is-good lens.
I also don't think that I described or implied anything that Microsoft-the-corporation might offer, encourage, or strive to accomplish; that would be at odds with their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders; or would be inconsistent with the business models/patterns the company has consistently relied upon to produce their successes.
I further don't think that, simply because a topic is emotionally charged, we should remove it from the discussions occuring here. Isn't teaching, by example, how to objectively dissect an emotionally charged subject, and how to then use clear, cogent, well-formed arguments to discuss/debate it, with respect for differing opinions; something mentors (and everyone involved) should do?
Honing one's ability to successfuly navigate a discussion of an emotionally charged topic would seem to be as important to one's career as just about any other social skill we attempt to teach/nurture in those FIRST inspires. Are we unable to teach that part of being a well-rounded scientist/technologist well?
Finally, I'm no expert on corporate law, but I believe that almost all US, for-profit companies, large and small, are obligated by US law to obey the instructions of their shareholders. Those instructions are generally to maximize the return on the shareholders' investment in the company. Sometimes that leads to support of organizations like FIRST; and I am happy when it does. However, for the reason in the next paragraph, I also think that it usually leads to attempting to take over "the world".
How many shareholders (who are investing to increase their capital or income) do you know who would not want to see their current investment result in them owning a slice of everything worth owning in the entire world?
In the US' predominantly-capitalistic, economy, it is not a business sin to want to control the world. It is a duty. In my opinion this is what makes debating whether or not "Company XYZ wants to control the world." a waste of time. The answer is rarely in doubt.
So, lets not avoid that discussion. Instead let's finish it and make it irrelevant. It will then be interesting/enlightening to look around and see what is left to discuss. At that point we might find we have a clearer view of the important topics from which the phantom debate (about taking over the world) distracted us.
Blake