141–150 of 183 posts
200 engineers organizing a protest. 2000 engineers are afraid to organize a protest against false accusations. Inverted democracy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to b…
You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible; I'm genuinely confused as to your position here. Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?
Google for "golden parachute" and "termination clause", e.g. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/golden-parachute-2276017. Yes, when you're valuable enough, you can actually require as part of your employment agreement that your employer pay you massive amounts of money for being terminated, even if it's for cause. Had they tried not to pay out the golden parachute, it would have been an open and shut case ending in a loss for them. (And, believe me, they wouldn't have been even remotely tempted to try because every executive there also has their own personal golden parachute.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? If you can sweep controversy under the rug until such time that it's convenient then good luck ever getting change to occur for the better. > by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it ano…
> The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? Spoken like someone who was raised in a culture where airing grievances led to getting what you wanted most of the time. I mean, it's not illogical. There's a reason why the activist archetype is so respected in our society. It gets results! But the outlook that fuels activists to push things things until t…
The notion that this is a “stable and mostly fair society” is not self-evidently true. And I suspect that if the question were surveyed, the results would differ dramatically across identity groups.
And then, after the walk out, they will return to their desks and continue working for the company. If you want a walk out to matter, you leave... and don't come back for free food in the employee cafeteria right after.
Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a mani…
If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shou…
Unless Google employees are addressing one of the elephants in their house, can any internal criticism of the company be seen as more than showmanship?
Andy Rubin is safe to target. He's already gone, and accused of something uncontroversial to hate.
Show me a walkout over Dragonfly and I'll show you a news story.
Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a mani…
If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shou…
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this sentence, because it so succinctly expresses something I find absolutely immoral. The gamble without a downside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was his actual (not "alleged") behavior? If you don't know, maybe google doesn't know either, in which case why would they "call it out"?
Was in the news, an internal Google investigation found it to be credible that Rubin coerced an employee to perform oral sex on him.
We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion.
Is this shared public consensus always right? No, and it doesn't have to be. We just have to have a process that everyone has enough faith in. Do the particular parties always need to agree with that public consensus? No, they and their friends, family, etc. may still proclaim the innocence of a convict and there's nothing wrong with that.
The problem is when the public is called to be a huge jury on all kinds of issues; informed by whatever evidence makes it in the news (with no standards of admission). That leads to different people coming to different judgements, and those judgements build up into different sets of facts.
There's a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". That is a noble idea: that we can share facts and disagree, and that allows us to ultimately compromise and work together. But it depends on a shared consensus of what the facts are.
For better or worse (I believe better), when evidence is inconclusive, the shared public consensus is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. One-sided "credibility" is not conclusive and doesn't belong in the set of shared public facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shou…
> The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks... True. In effect, we have a civil war every 4 years. During these civil wars there is zero personal risk to the participants. And even still, the largest bloc of us chooses not to participate.