5 ms·
Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present
by Ptyx 8y ago
Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google:
"A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a manifesto suggesting a general assembly at which people should decide upon a rebellion, and it would be so carefully worded that even the censor would let it pass. At the meeting itself he would be able to create the impression that his audience had rebelled, after which they would all go quietly home – having spent a very pleasant evening."
- chewxy 8y agoKierkegaard has been dead for 200 years....
- jacquesm 8y agoAll the more impressive.
- matt4077 8y agoIf this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks. Trying to reframe this accomplishment as ineffective, weak, or lazy runs the danger of provoking exactly the sort of dramatic, self-sacrificing gestures that have been in the news recently. In the specific case, maybe quitting would be slightly less dramatic but more forceful form of protest. But it's quite obvious that exists a gray area where it's perfectly legitimate to try to change an organisation, while still being convinced of its overall benefit. Recruitment & retainment are also huge factors for Google's future prospect, making a walk-out with the implied threat of quitting, an effective tool.
- jessriedel 8y agoI don't super disagree, but note that one can argue for a mechanistic explanation of human behavior, with important implications about what we should conclude from that behavior, without implicitly endorsing different behavior or otherwise making an ethical claim.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks... True. In effect, we have a civil war every 4 years. During these civil wars there is zero personal risk to the participants. And even still, the largest bloc of us chooses not to participate.
- cyphar 8y agoDescribing the process of voting and elections as a civil war is something that I think (and no offense meant by this) only be done by an American. No other democracy would describe voting this way (with the exception of dictatorships in democracy's clothing).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- finnthehuman 8y ago>making a walk-out with the implied threat of quitting, an effective tool. Unless Google employees are addressing one of the elephants in their house, can any internal criticism of the company be seen as more than showmanship? Andy Rubin is safe to target. He's already gone, and accused of something uncontroversial to hate. Show me a walkout over Dragonfly and I'll show you a news story.
- conanbatt 8y ago> The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks I thoroughly enjoyed reading this sentence, because it so succinctly expresses something I find absolutely immoral. The gamble without a downside.
- blablabla123 8y agoThis in turn reminds me of a Dostoyevski story where a guy thinks he can make an amazing speech of 15 minutes that will convince everybody. I don't think this is how reality works