61–70 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's egotistical and selfish to speak for and expect such a large company to change for their minority opinions. You can't control Google but you can control yourself.
You're essentially discounting all major civil right movements as selfish, since all included an attempt to change the behavior of large institutions and companies to accommodate what began as a minority opinion.
Good. You're there to work. It also feels uniquely selfish. "I love the money but I still want to protest!" If you feel so strongly then quit but that would require sacrifice.
If your goal is to change the companies behavior, then protesting and getting fired and getting a WaPo story is more effective than resigning in protest.
I bet they are equally ineffective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope I'm not considered a troll for asking this question; I will ask on my main account and hopefully people will check my comment history to understand I am not intending to be belligerent or intentionally dumb. But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict. I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were…
>... the political divide has fallen such that LGBTQ+ people are almost forced to ally with Palestine. Short answer: they are often one and the same people - leftist activists who have opinions on more than one subject.
I could interpret this three ways:
1) "Leftist Activists"; are a mixed group with some supporting pro-LGBTQ rights and others supporting Palestine.
2) "Leftist Activists"; are a homogenous group, including LGBTQ people, of which they support Palestine (and thus, support a regime that would wish them harm)
3) "Leftist Activists"; are a homogenous group, including LGBTQ people, who will always attempt to ally to the downtrodden, even in cases where the downtrodden would wish them to not exist.
Are any of these correct or is there another interpretation I missed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the article. Many of the employees fired were not even on the premises that day. This is 100% pure political reprisals, which is illegal in California.
> Many of the employees fired were not even on the premises that day If they facilitated its planning they aren’t being fired for their beliefs, but for their actions.
Good. You're there to work. It also feels uniquely selfish. "I love the money but I still want to protest!" If you feel so strongly then quit but that would require sacrifice.
Doesn't it seem like there's quite a gulf between compliant silence and quitting?
I don't know much about these protests so I can't say whether I agree with them or not, but the general idea that there's a black and white choice here doesn't make sense.
Also, doesn't it seem likely that many of these people understood that they could be terminated or face other discipline for their participation in these protests? That is, many may have understood they were putting their jobs on the line, right? That's no small sacrifice.
Sure, if all it takes is raising a rainbow flag on top of the building and some words of the CEO they are all for it. But as soon as Google's bottom line is involved they behave pretty predictable.
I hope I'm not considered a troll for asking this question; I will ask on my main account and hopefully people will check my comment history to understand I am not intending to be belligerent or intentionally dumb. But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict. I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were…
It is about helping those who are a persecuted minority even if one of the groups wants to kill everybody in the other group.
I would think that the news articles have far more impact than booting the Israeli government off GCP. Getting kicked off GCP certainly hasn't done anything to stop Russia's genocidal war.
If we're going to do ad hoc sanctions, at least learn the lessons about what are good and bad sanctions. Doing partial sanctions has shown to be worthless.
Sure, if all it takes is raising a rainbow flag on top of the building and some words of the CEO they are all for it. But as soon as Google's bottom line is involved they behave pretty predictable.
I hope I'm not considered a troll for asking this question; I will ask on my main account and hopefully people will check my comment history to understand I am not intending to be belligerent or intentionally dumb. But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict. I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were…
In a lot of ways, the struggles are similar to BLM - there is a great injustice being done by a powerful force funded by the US government. Or again with opposing the US's global war on terror. The people in those groups aren't forced to be on the palenstinians side, but it is logically consistent with the other two.
James Damore was fired from Google[0] when he went out of his way to ensure his politics were to be kept private. What on earth did these people think would happen if they didn't attempt to keep their politics private? [0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/7/16111052/google-james-damo...
They either knew they were going to get fired or thought since they are in the majority position at Google they wouldn't have a punishment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you not aware of the Nakba or Israel using banned weapons on civilians for decades? I'm not saying hamas' actions are justified but there is no side in this conflict that can confidently claim moral superiority.
[flagged]
Starting a war and losing it should have consequences.
They tried to genocide the Jews in 1948 and lost.
If there are no consequences for what they did - they'll just keep doing it until they'll be successful. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Hamas said about Oct 7 - that they'll repeat it again and again.