371–380 of 894 posts
I am seeing several kneejerk "Microsoft bad" reactions here, which HNers don't do for many other companies. I encourage many of you to read what is written. They listened to their internal staff and stakeholders and public pressure, and did terminated the contract instead of ignoring it or doubling down. That is a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like interrupting a CEO's speech at a big conference is pretty well understood to be a social indicator of a high level of insubordination. I suspect the protestor knew that too. The consequences were appropriate, even if I might share some of the protestor's concerns.
> insubordination Are we talking about the military or some company?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you kill my dad, steal his house and turn me out into the street; you get convicted and sent to jail and your son gets to keep the house.
That what Jordan did to the Jews in Jerusalem, and then handed the house to Palestinians who decided they want to make it their capital.
The arrival of Zionist European Jews was a phenomonen of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Zionist Jews that came from Europe brought with them a supremecist ideology that, in their eyes, justified all forms of violence committed against the Muslim, Christian, and yes, Jewish Palestians that opposed their colonization.
I don't know what you're making or misrepresenting in your statememt about Jordan and Jerusalem, but Jews have always lived in Jerusalem since the Muslims first took control of it 1400 years ago when Umar ibn El-Khattab brought back in Jews who had been expelled by the Christian rulers prior to that.
Jews have always prospered under actual religious Muslim rule, whether in Palestine, Spain, Morocco, Iran, or otherwise. Zionism is what drove a rift between Muslims and Jews in past two centuries, as prior to this there never was one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people seem to think rioting and vandalism are acceptable behaviors. It's important that people engaging in such activity are dealt with swiftly and justly. Such behavior further encourages violence and destruction as acceptable behaviors in society, which they are not.
Rioting and vandalism are unacceptable...until they aren't and are instead necessary. Is everyone so quick to forget that the rights we have today in the US were won through violence after all other methods failed? The 40 hour work week we enjoy today was also won through blood. Now, in this case between employees and Microsoft I'd agree, no, vandalism wasn't necessary at all. But when it comes to defending our right…
I think think that violence or vandalism in this case was unwarranted, but there are some other in this thread who believe otherwise.
I guess that I'd say that, probably, vandals/criminals should always be punished, because they're doing clearly illegal things... and it's up to the protestors to judge whether the cause they're supporting is really worth going to jail for. If sufficient numbers of people feel that, you have a revolution.
(And also, a separate issue, whether the violence is actually going to benefit their cause. It probably won't.)
I certainly don't think that we should be in a position where courts are are judging certain crimes as forgivable because of their cause, while supporters of other causes get the full weight of the law for similar actions. I think the vandals on Jan 6th should get the same punishment as, for instance, similar vandals during BLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have been deliberately displaced by Israeli's apartheid government giving Jewish people around the world a "right to return" to Israel. Except unlike the Palestinians, they were never from Israel in the first place so the term "right to return" as used by Israel is nothing but colonialist propaganda. Undoing colonialism isn't colonialism.
[flagged]
Arab Jews were living peacefully side by side in Palestine before the European Zionist colonizers started coming in the 19th and 20th centuries.
No one left to surveil, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might have 1A rights as an American but it seems to me the manner in which this person protested would be grounds for termination in many jurisdictions.
1A doesn't apply to private entities anyway. 1A protects against government prosecution for your speech, and the government may make no laws "abridging the freedom of speech." But your employer? They can put whatever rules and restrictions they want on your speech, and with at-will employment, can fire you for any reason anyway, at anytime. You can say whatever you want, but you aren't free from the consequences of t…
>”Corporations cannot exist without government intervention”
>”Some privates companies and financiers are too big to fail/of strategic national importance”
>”1A does not apply to private entities (including the above)”
>”We have a free, competitive market”
I find it very difficult to resolve these seemingly contradictory statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wonder if a company like microsoft has any real concern over people tweeting negative things about it. It seems like companies are finally realizing a lot of it can just be ignored, but with microsoft specifically, what’s the risk? Who in a position to deny ms enough money that they’d care or even notice is going to decide to do it based on people protesting?
The problem here is thinking that the only form of protest anyone ever engages in is tweeting things. Some people stop supporting companies they disagree with, both individually and, if they're able, with their own company.
I just don’t think they have anything to worry about. I personally think it’s good what they’re doing here, but I guess I’m too cynical to believe they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and I don’t think the real reason is that they’re worried about bad publicity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> This war that European Jews started in 1948 when they decided to attack and invade Palestine spans 2 continents, and more if you include the various attacks elsewhere. This is extremely ignorant. Jews have lived in Israel continuously for 3000 years. The modern Zionist migration, which started in the late 19th century (far from the first such movement for the Jews, and far from the last we've seen globally for all…
The issue that people have with Israel's actions is the death of civilians, not the death of Hamas, the widely recognised terrorist. I believe it also to be true that the IDF do not want to kill civilians, and that their target is only Hamas. In which case, is it prudent to remove the IDF's ability to successfully target the correct people? Precise military intelligence is absolutely necessary for minimising civilian…
They are committing a genocide in both word and deed.