221–230 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling Israel a mass murdering apartheid state is political. Not everyone agrees with that statement, in fact many strongly disagree. So you can't just assume your conclusion and be aghast that other people don't immediately agree with you.
Not that I'm advocating for either side, but how do you know they were referring to Israel unless you agree?
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…
FWIW in the German speaking countries it's the opposite (for obvious historical reasons).
Generally, I think it's ok to demonstrate against atrocities even if the victims are not your "friends". What I do find disturbing is when progressives try to justify the Hamas terror as an act of "resistance" (one famous example being Judith Butler). That is truely fucked up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Israel seems content to keep Palestine as a ghettoized territory, leaving local administrative matters to Palestinians I don't understand this. Are you saying that without Israel in charge, Palestine is and will stay a ghetto?
What I'm referring to is that Israel is both "in charge" and "not in charge" of Gaza. They control Gaza's borders and move their troops into Gaza at will. On the other hand of course Gazans do not enjoy Israel's constitutional protections, etc.
It also doesn't "control Gaza's borders" alone, fwiw.
> On the other hand of course Gazans do not enjoy Israel's constitutional protections, etc.
Not sure what this is "on the other hand" of exactly. Palestinian's want self-determination, Gaza was an incomplete, one-sided and limited form of that, but a form of that. When you're talking about them enjoying Israeli constitutional protections, you're talking about the opposite - Israel essentially conquering Gaza and annexing it officially, turning Gazans into Israeli citizens. Not an outcome that Israel wants and also not an outcome that Gazans want.
And in the context of LGBT rights, that's an outcome that is almost guaranteed to lead to a huge erosion of LGBT rights in Israel, as it'd be adding millions of voters who currently live in a place and culture in which homosexuals are ilterally thrown off rooftops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's a much more reasonable take If I can be annoying about language a bit- insisting on calling trans women "trans identifying males" makes you sound anti-trans rights as a whole instead of trying to add nuance to a complicated subject. I agree there are complications and there's plenty of situations where one oppressed group opresses another and that those are hard to sort out on a purely "support the oppressed"…
"Trans Identifying Males" is a shibboleth used by the UK "gender critical" extremists, and it is exceedingly rare to see it used by a neutral party. Big red flag for a bad faith discussion.
Even the term "trans-identifying male" is a middle-ground compromise, to avoid calling them men and to not cede the argument by referring to them as women. In my experience, the most thoughtful and well-considered discussion on this topic has been with gender-critical feminists who have thought critically about their perspective and have it based in the material reality of sex.
Well I'm pretty sure the people protesting were aware this could be the outcome. So in that regard, I think it's very admirable for them to put their convictions over money. From the outside, I agree with their opinion. But then again, money screams and people talk. I feel like a lot of people in tech tend to be very much "not interested" when it comes to politics, even though tech and particularly these big companie…
The Darfur Genocide is still happening, is on a much larger scale than Gaza and despite media coverage, the people who are very worked up about the Israeli actions don’t seem to care. I wonder why that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your sarcasm antennas need some adjustment.
no I think its extremely infantile behaviour to use light sarcasm when discussing serious matters
Everyone is their customer. It is beyond hubris to think you get a say on that as one of 150,000 employees.
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?
Calling Israel a mass murdering apartheid state is political. Not everyone agrees with that statement, in fact many strongly disagree. So you can't just assume your conclusion and be aghast that other people don't immediately agree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. Have the courage of your convictions to refuse to work for a company you find immoral. I assume these people would have refused to work for an arms manufacturer or an oil company, but maybe they could try to change one of those from the inside.
Arms manufacturers do not actually start wars. While I understand why some people may find that line of work not aligning with your morals, there isn't you can really change within the company