151–160 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which ones?
is netanyahu good for you? Maybe he underestimates a little. https://www.politico.eu/article/israels-netanyahu-says-he-wi... Also lancet says numbers are accurate. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... what is your evidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
False analogy. A company is not a country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think companies listen to and take on board feedback from exit interviews?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and trillions in trade to China. US could cut trade ties with China. This seems to apply to many conflicts, e.g. Sudan. The US could intervene. Now you might say "US tried something similar and that was not exactly a good experience", but the US certainly can intervene. Or, in Lebanon the US, and all countries in the UN security council promised to intervene (and disarm Hezbollah), but just don't do it.
Not intervening is different than actively supporting. We have given ~ a hundred billion and are about to give tens of billions more in no strings attached military aid. We used our UN Veto dozens of times to prevent calling for a ceasefire Should we intervene for the Uyghurs? Maybe! But this one seems way more obvious
I mean, sorry, but the black flags and open hostility towards Jews shows what at least a large percentage of the movement is really about. Especially in Europe.
The rest of the movement is the same as leftist movements, imho. It's also not about supporting Palestinians it's about fighting the power, ie. attempting to have political impact by "campaigning" for something SO immoral, unacceptable and unrealistic that there is bound to be a fight. It's about the fight, NOT about a solution. And by campaigning I don't mean campaigning in the sense of political campaigning, or even the vitriol spouting semi-threatening Trump is doing, but being so in the way, sabotaging people's lives, that normal people pretty much have to react with violence (because that's the point of blocking, for example, the Golden Gate bridge: to threaten people's livelihoods, and get a strong reaction that way).
It's not about saving tax dollars ... Yes, there's 1% fringe rightists in there. But seriously? It's not about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear... In your worldview selling AI to a mass murdering apartheid state is not political, but talking about it is?
[flagged]
Who should, if not the company who makes the product? Nobody? Courts after harm has occurred?
We have these exact controls in place for military hardware. If your company builds missiles, you better believe it's your responsibility not to sell to enemies of the state.
(Edit: I'd like to avoid the parent's particular example, as it's still an extremely polarizing issue. I hope we can still discuss cooperate responsibility in general.)
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.
This is very logical, albeit sounding rude. I think the parent commenter should not be downvoted for this. If you cant come to terms with what your employer is doing, it's in the right of the either party to terminate the contract. Morality is a subjective argument and non-sequiter here anyway.
Though morality can be subjective, culturally we have coalesced on many shared moral values (a subset of which have been codified into law, for example, it is both immoral and illegal to kill someone in most peace time circumstances). And since "morality" encompasses a broad set of expected behaviors that manifests in practically every facet of our lives, it's unfortunately relevant at pretty much all times. Morality is quite necessary for high functioning societies.
Since companies like Google dilute responsibility and behave collectively as sociopaths in the pursuit of money, I'm quite glad we have people willing to self-sacrifice to keep them from behaving a-socially (or, arguably, evilly). Yes, it's probably safer and "logical" for most people to avoid sticking their necks out for what the believe in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Id be very happy if corporations stopped participating in any kind of politics altogether, including human rights discourse.
I dunno, stuff like the IBM Nazi thing or the helmet tracking used on slaves in Qatar is kinda... kinda gives bad vibes, I guess.
But businesses thought they can score some easy brownie points by supporting "good" politics (in any case the kind they thought makes them look better). Well someone turns around and does the other kind of politics - something the firm thinks makes it look bad, and suddenly it doesn't like flags and activism.
To me this is the key hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are mistaken that you cannot logically support both LGBT rights and Palestine. For example, I support LBGTQ+ rights and would not want people who opposed them in America to be treated the way Palestinians are.
OK, I see. I suppose my next question would be why we are somehow stoic on the Uyghur issue. But I would guess that the reason is that the US sends support to Israel while actively cutting ties (or going to war economically) with China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arab states declaring war on Israel is a part of history. Right, but certain other things happened in that time period which are hugely important also. Meanwhile, [the Palestinians] in Israel enjoy more rights than in [some] Arab countries. The bigger point is that they have distinctly fewer rights, and are fundamentally less equal as citizens, than a certain other group of people in that country. Your post does not…
> > Meanwhile, the arabs that stayed in Israel during that war make up 20% of the population and interestingly enjoy more rights than any arab country. > The bigger point is that they have distinctly fewer rights, and are fundamentally less equal as citizens, than a certain other group of people in that country. No. The 2M Israeli arabs have the same rights as Druze and Jews do. This is a very basic verifiable fact y…