No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
blogs.harvard.edu
No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#2I think people in the Valley are so far removed from anyone who's politically misaligned that they are desperate for something to lash out against. I remember reading an article about people protesting Palantir on the grounds that they might someday receive a contract for a theoretical deportation database that Trump might someday want to build.
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#3Upvoted for the implication that gender can't be considered a protected class if gender is fluid. Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#4Upvoted for the implication that gender can't be considered a protected class if gender is fluid. Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
That's like suggesting because gay people exist you can choose your sexuality. That's not how it works. Just because some people don't conform to norms or binaries doesn't mean that you can just arbitrarily pick something.
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#5Upvoted for the implication that gender can't be considered a protected class if gender is fluid. Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
nope. religion, age, and veteran status are all protected classes and not static.
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#6Upvoted for the implication that gender can't be considered a protected class if gender is fluid. Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
> Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
No. I can change my religious affiliation, my choice to engage in collective labor activism, and choice to engage in political activities. The first two are federally protected and the all three are state protected in California in employment.
Immutability, or even not being a matter of personal choice, have nothing to do with labor protections. In fact, labor protections are often about freedom from coercion on matters of choice.
(Not, of course, that the usual concept of fluid gender is that it is a matter of choice or subject to personal control.)
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#7Okay, I'm saying this as a republican, but the calling of people visiting a campus as "immigration" is stupid on its face.
I see the reductionist attempt to equate the two, and sure they have in common the fact that it involves people moving their bodies to a new location, but that's where it ends.
Not a single person I know, not even the most liberal, border-erasing people would advocate for the complete eradication of property rights, nor for the removal of a property owner's choice of who to allow on said property.
As a conservative, I was sickened by the filing, because if even half of it was true and not taken out of context, it indicates that Google does have an institutional bias against certain ideas being tolerated.
I'm not saying people should be allowed to harass others, but some of these reactions would constitute harassment.
FWIW, I think this is really an issue of many people at polarized edges of an ideology aren't able to have a constructive discussion without it devolving into shows of force to silence the other.
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#8Upvoted for the implication that gender can't be considered a protected class if gender is fluid. Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
[deleted]
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#9Upvoted for the implication that gender can't be considered a protected class if gender is fluid. Isn't the whole point of protected classes based on being something you can't change about yourself?
nope. religion, age, and veteran status are all protected classes and not static.
Age and veteran status are pretty much static? Like sex and gender.
On the contrary, opinions like religion and politic affiliation are the exact opposite (and that you find those conflated in things like CoC troubles me).
Re: No free lunch (at Google) for thought criminals
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
nope. religion, age, and veteran status are all protected classes and not static.
Age and veteran status are pretty much static? Like sex and gender. On the contrary, opinions like religion and politic affiliation are the exact opposite (and that you find those conflated in things like CoC troubles me).
> Age and veteran status are pretty much static?
No, age and veteran status change over time. It's true that in the direction they are legally protected, they are mostly one-way gates into protected status (you can become a veteran or a person over 40, but you don't normally exit either status; it's theoretically possible with veterans status, but extremely rare.)
Physical and mental disability, citizenship status, are also protected and non-static.
In California law, marital status, medical conditions, HIV/AIDS status, and status as a domestic violence or stalking victim are also non-static and protected.