91–100 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Both side in that war are behaving badly and nobody should take either side. I look forward to the day when allying with any theocracy is recognized as an ethical mistake.
I take the side of those loosong their homes, families and lives in Gaza deapite doing nothing at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why we need tech unions. We should be able to take an ethical stance without getting fired.
Of course, one person's ethical stance is another person's inane diversion. Imagine someone started disrupting a PR event by calling Biden a pedophile or whatever the outrage du jour is. Do they deserve protections?
If the person thinks the cause is worthy of being fired of that's completely their choice, but that doesn't mean the rule itself is immoral.
Bet you will find that clause, a clause often with no title but commonly referred to as the "moral clause" (or behavior code or morality clause or even "bad boy clause") that is embedded (often claimed by so-call-victims as "hidden") somewhere in the middle of your lengthy employment contract.
At any rate, you cannot say you weren't warned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rightfully so. Name me the big tech company who wouldn't fire such an employee instantly. Just because something is done by most companies doesn't make it okay. Are mass layoffs "rightful" in any sense of that word?
>Are mass layoffs "rightful" in any sense of that word? I don't see those as inherently right or wrong.
Well, then Google did him a favor by firing him. Saved him from hypocrisy, since he could have quit long before that.
I find this viewpoint astonishing personally, but that might have to do with my upbringing and cultural background.
>“This behavior is not okay, _regardless of the issue,_ and the employee was terminated for violating our policies.” There are some issues that are worth speaking up about. There are some issues that are worth being fired over.
How is this not just racist behavior? An Israeli presenter who is based in Israel is being protested. Was there any connection beyond that to the war?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> propaganda news outlets. Most major news outlets are still wildly pro-Israel. My and most people's opinions on the subject tend to not to drive from main stream media accounts, but research and journalistic investigations into the situation there. I don't personally know anyone who has walked down the path of doing real research into the issue and not come out of it horrified with Isreal's actions and this has been…
> Google fired an employee who disrupted an Israel executive’s conference keynote this week, CNBC has learned. Rightfully so. Name me the big tech company who wouldn't fire such an employee instantly.
Why would a big tech company be hosting an event with a state committing genocide? That (and working with said regime) is the problem, not people protesting. It's not possible to be a consumer brand and support Israel. The world is too divided and it's not getting any less so.
I think the more moderate view is that Israel suffered a heinous terrorist attack perpetrated by a terrorist group in power. Israel has a right to defend their people from such attacks and a military response shouldn't be surprising given the extent of the crimes. However, the people in Gaza (non terrorists) are also human beings who should be treated that way. Not everyone supports the terrorist actions (apparently Hamas is incredibly unpopular amongst the people, but they have little discourse if they don't want to disappear) and the military response from Israel seems to have gotten to a point where children being blown up and starving to death somehow comes with the territory. Surely there is a way to reduce the casualties of innocent bystanders. Surely Israel should provide food and aid to the people after bombing all their infrastructure into the stone age.
I admit not being as informed as I should be, but just how many times are we going to have genocide before we learn to stop? Just since the Holocaust we've had genocide in Cambodia, Serbia, Rwanda, China, and now Gaza. In the more distant past it was even more common (e.g. trail of tears).