331–340 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Hamas Charter, Article 7)." https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha... If Islam does not all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you support the Palestinian peoples and the cause for peace or one of the various proposed solutions for long term peace, there’s no problem. Debate and differing opinions are expected. Hamas though is a terrorist organization. Internationally recognized as such almost universally. They started this war with rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent civilians. If you do business with them you’re breaking the law. I…
> Hamas though is a terrorist organization. Internationally recognized as such almost universally. I have to correct you on the latter because these details matter. According to the Wikipedia page about it [0], it is designated as a terrorist group by Israel, USA and the 5 eyes, the European Union organization, Japan, Argentina and Paraguay. That is essentially Israel, USA and countries that are under direct American…
Sending a bunch of people to rape, burn, and mirder civilians sounds like terroism to me.
I'm all for some good old civil disobedience as far as every day choices go in the outside world. However, I also think if you're employed somewhere there are reasonable expectations as far as workplace behavior goes that would prohibit the same "protest" or "civil disobedience" type behavior. It is interesting that the protestor immediately declares that they don't wan to work for such a company. It sorta begs the q…
Old twitter post acquisition would have terminated those 600 employees, too?
I hope "west" society isn't demanding either obedience or cancelling your ideas. That much happens in Venezuela.
It would be morally correct to allow a little leeway for expressing a shared opinion, then call for order, and remind collaborators to follow proper channels to "continue discussion". And, of course, not shutting down nor ignore such continued discussion.
TLDR: Google is evil all the way down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, immediate termination is ok for just yelling a few words, none of them being an f word against the CEO? I think they could just reprimand him and not fire him. This company is becoming a fear- and power-fueled autocracy of the board. Which won't bring any good to them.
Depending on the words, yes. Obviously, they disagree on what is the best way for the company to behave. In this case, the management of the company, by definition, has the priority, and if the differences are large enough, ending the employment relationship looks like the right way to go. Working at google is not some kind of right that belongs to everyone, it's a relationship between two sides, and each side can en…
>"Staging a protest on a keynote sounds like a good reason to end it."
Google had shutdown the private forum without a proper discussion. Remind employees they can work in other areas?
Going tangent: What if they were denouncing racism? Would it still be correct to fire them immediately? What about alleged genocide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, immediate termination is ok for just yelling a few words, none of them being an f word against the CEO? I think they could just reprimand him and not fire him. This company is becoming a fear- and power-fueled autocracy of the board. Which won't bring any good to them.
You shouldn't be yelling at your boss's boss's boss in a large company forum. That's rank insubordination, and easily punishable with firing. Hell it could be punished with much worse than insubordination in other kinds of organizations; imagine a private yelling at a general when the entire corps is being reviewed. Companies are indeed hierarchical, and sometimes it feels like people forget that. You can indeed be f…
I say with no uncertainty that an army is different from any other institution. They even have their own judiciary (martial court).
Comparing Google to an army is... wrong in not only one sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the expectations here are reasonable. I wouldn't want another employee interrupting my meeting like that either. As for the rest of your "salve owner" commentary I think that's an absurd comparison.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Surely you recognized there is a context to the "no interrupting meetings" guideline. The protester felt that meeting was playing part in the support and facilitation genocide, I think that's adequate grounds to interrupt a meeting. And what do you find absurd about the "slave owner" comparison? I'm not arguing that modern day employment is slavery or anything of the sort, just poin…
This is getting your post more downvotes than your opinion is. It hurts your opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hamas though is a terrorist organization. Internationally recognized as such almost universally. I have to correct you on the latter because these details matter. According to the Wikipedia page about it [0], it is designated as a terrorist group by Israel, USA and the 5 eyes, the European Union organization, Japan, Argentina and Paraguay. That is essentially Israel, USA and countries that are under direct American…
Egypt sentenced their president to death for cooperation with Hamas at one point… Sending a bunch of people to rape, burn, and mirder civilians sounds like terroism to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think much of what Israel has done in Gaza is justifiable, but "cannot kill civilians under any circumstances" can't possibly be the standard; if it was, the Nazis might still control most of Europe.
You twisted my words: I said "not entitled". Accidental civilian killings are not acceptable but yes of course they happen. Deliberate killing of civilians are war crimes. We must hold the IDF to the same standard as we hold Hamas. Neither is allowed kill civilians, neither is allowed starve a population, neither is allowed detain civilians (whether as "hostages" or "administrative detainees"), neither is allowed to…
I'm all for some good old civil disobedience as far as every day choices go in the outside world. However, I also think if you're employed somewhere there are reasonable expectations as far as workplace behavior goes that would prohibit the same "protest" or "civil disobedience" type behavior. It is interesting that the protestor immediately declares that they don't wan to work for such a company. It sorta begs the q…
So, immediate termination is ok for just yelling a few words, none of them being an f word against the CEO? I think they could just reprimand him and not fire him. This company is becoming a fear- and power-fueled autocracy of the board. Which won't bring any good to them.
Context matters. If someone just called the CEO an f-word in public, that’s one thing, and imo it doesn’t necessarily deserve getting fired on its own.
But interrupting a major conference during a keynote, and then saying those things? Yeah, that would land you into trouble, almost no matter what you said.
I fully and honestly believe that even if the employee took the pro-Israel stance with their “interrupt the keynote” protest, they would have been fired just the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you expect to achieve asking a question like that? If you try to use an LLM as your moral guide in figuring out whether women deserve human rights, you just may be too dumb to be allowed to connect to the internet (though I'm not sure how it relates to possibility of employment with Google). But I don't think any living human being is actually this dumb and still can figure out how to submit a question to…
This question is just a simple and straightforward way to get at the agent's viewpoint bias; there are a million other ways that you might think are legitimate questions. Just in general, the goal of understanding the biases of a source of information is clearly a worthwhile one; at least in the human case, a person's bias will color everything they think and say about a topic.
However, when we are talking about focusing specifically on prompts clearly designed to mine outrage and generate maximum heat with minimum light - I don't think research is the primary goal here.