441–442 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I hear people describe non-physical confrontation as "violence", my only thought is that they have no idea what real violence is. The tech echo-chamber is fostering unrealistic opinions about life and liberty.
Turns out we needed broken bones to realize why words never hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it. It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for. Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?
I don't think people are having trouble understanding it. I would rather say some of us have a broader view of it. It's the same old discussion about whether something is right just because it's legal or allowed. Just because a company has a right -- and an incentive -- to do something, doesn't mean that's a morally or ethically right thing to do. In my opinion, what Whittaker is doing is, in a way, analogous to civi…
It's actually not about legality. I didn't even suggest that.
>Just because a company has a right -- and an incentive -- to do something, doesn't mean that's a morally or ethically right thing to do.
As I said, it is expected to do it. Because companies have their own interests. The interests of the shareholders in Google's case. And Google is expected to act to protect them.
This includes getting rid of employees that act to sabotage the company, in this case by publicly badmouthing it.