4 ms·

>Not really sure what the big deal is. Did the cult hurt this fellow? Abuse him? Discriminate against him? Mob him? No. The article really just talks about his

by rl3 4y ago

>Not really sure what the big deal is. Did the cult hurt this fellow? Abuse him? Discriminate against him? Mob him? No. The article really just talks about his own disapproval of the cult. >It wasn't his business what these people got up to, frankly. Quoting the article: "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some 1,500 members worldwide and makes frequent prophecies of an imminent apocalypse."

warkdarrior 4y ago
> Quoting the article: > "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some 1,500 members worldwide and makes frequent prophecies of an imminent apocalypse." Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them.
- rl3 4y ago
  >... or were sponsored by them. Quoting again from the article: "The wine was our most consistent feature, and the invoices I’ve seen suggest we were buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year, just from Grant Marie."
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    Yep, the credibility of the risk is in the wine suppliership, at the very least.
- cpncrunch 4y ago
  From what I can see, those allegations were from the 90s, but still nothing seems to have been substantiated. I'm not saying I condone this cult, but I don't see how it was having any effect on his work. It didn't become a problem until he himself complained to another manager. I mean: if you're going to get worked up about cults, why the fuck are we all watching Top Gun? Shouldn't we be protesting or something? Scientology is a lot worse than this lot.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Lot's of people do get worked up about scientology and I know people who won't watch Tom Cruise in a movie. Besides, "$X group also does bad things" is a shitty cop out of an excuse to avoid doing something about another group. There's probably not much Google can do about sexual assault/trafficking claims but they can do something about the hiring/firing practices along with crooked procurement practices.
    - cpncrunch 4y ago
      Does this group actually do bad things though? Is there any actual evidence? I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting people you know to get hired. If anything the author of this blog post caused his own problems when he blew this up into a big deal and made a lot of accusations based on decades old unproven allegations. Buying the wine from this group seems to be the only possible issue. If he had simply suggested that maybe they shouldn't be wine from this group and left it at that, there wouldn't have been any problem.
      - rendall 4y ago
        It's not even from their group. It's from a winery run by an ex-member
- rendall 4y ago
  > Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them. I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out.
  - rl3 4y ago
    >I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out. That manager could very well have been complicit in corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine purchases isn't exactly trivial. That said, it sounds like the guy was just trying to keep the GDS division afloat, lest it be struck down from above after being seen as problematic. Perhaps noble depending on how you look at it, but certainly protecting his own paycheck either way. Regardless, I don't see the justification in hating on someone for blowing the whistle here. In fact, one could argue it's very likely a necessary step in making it someone else's problem to deal with in the first place. Sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
    - rendall 4y ago
      > certainly protecting his own paycheck either way Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite.
      - rl3 4y ago
        >Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite. Admittedly my wording was a bit ambiguous, to clarify: I was referring to the manager's intent [by not taking action]. Granted your statement's probably true either way at this point.
        rendall 4y ago
        True that
blairbeckwith 4y ago
Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason?
- rl3 4y ago
  >Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason? Your answer lies in the distinction between cults and religion. In a nutshell, cults exert control over their members such that they compel them to behave contrary to their own interests. So the modern, practical answer to that question is: No. Your average Catholic is no threat and is very likely to be acting in their own interest, free of undue influence. The Catholic Church, having had nearly two thousand years to brutally weave itself into society world-wide—has all but abandoned the behavior described above—with the exception of its clergy and people involved at the operational level of the church. Indeed, they've outgrown the practice of using coercion at the level of the individual member, and now wield power as a small nation state with global reach. >Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason? If they're formerly or currently involved in any significant way at the operational level of the Church, then you may have an argument in the affirmative there. Albeit, a narrowly-scoped one.
  - newbie2020 4y ago
    Religion does that too
  - reissbaker 4y ago
    Catholicism has certainly compelled people to behave "contrary to their own interests" — e.g. preventing LGBT members from pursuing love, preventing unhappily-married people from divorcing, preventing women with dangerous or difficult pregnancies from seeking abortion; and that's without even referencing the many documented instances of child abuse — so I'm not sure that distinction makes a huge difference.
    - mythrwy 4y ago
      They might believe those things are in the persons interest though (I don't have an opinion either way other then... it's subjective).

by rl3 4y ago

warkdarrior 4y ago

> Quoting the article: > "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some 1,500 members worldwide and makes frequent prophecies of an imminent apocalypse." Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them.

rl3 4y ago
>... or were sponsored by them. Quoting again from the article: "The wine was our most consistent feature, and the invoices I’ve seen suggest we were buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year, just from Grant Marie."
- JetAlone 4y ago
  Yep, the credibility of the risk is in the wine suppliership, at the very least.
cpncrunch 4y ago
From what I can see, those allegations were from the 90s, but still nothing seems to have been substantiated. I'm not saying I condone this cult, but I don't see how it was having any effect on his work. It didn't become a problem until he himself complained to another manager. I mean: if you're going to get worked up about cults, why the fuck are we all watching Top Gun? Shouldn't we be protesting or something? Scientology is a lot worse than this lot.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Lot's of people do get worked up about scientology and I know people who won't watch Tom Cruise in a movie. Besides, "$X group also does bad things" is a shitty cop out of an excuse to avoid doing something about another group. There's probably not much Google can do about sexual assault/trafficking claims but they can do something about the hiring/firing practices along with crooked procurement practices.
  - cpncrunch 4y ago
    Does this group actually do bad things though? Is there any actual evidence? I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting people you know to get hired. If anything the author of this blog post caused his own problems when he blew this up into a big deal and made a lot of accusations based on decades old unproven allegations. Buying the wine from this group seems to be the only possible issue. If he had simply suggested that maybe they shouldn't be wine from this group and left it at that, there wouldn't have been any problem.
    - rendall 4y ago
      It's not even from their group. It's from a winery run by an ex-member
rendall 4y ago
> Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them. I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out.
- rl3 4y ago
  >I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out. That manager could very well have been complicit in corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine purchases isn't exactly trivial. That said, it sounds like the guy was just trying to keep the GDS division afloat, lest it be struck down from above after being seen as problematic. Perhaps noble depending on how you look at it, but certainly protecting his own paycheck either way. Regardless, I don't see the justification in hating on someone for blowing the whistle here. In fact, one could argue it's very likely a necessary step in making it someone else's problem to deal with in the first place. Sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > certainly protecting his own paycheck either way Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite.
    - rl3 4y ago
      >Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite. Admittedly my wording was a bit ambiguous, to clarify: I was referring to the manager's intent [by not taking action]. Granted your statement's probably true either way at this point.
      - rendall 4y ago
        True that

blairbeckwith 4y ago

Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason?

rl3 4y ago
>Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason? Your answer lies in the distinction between cults and religion. In a nutshell, cults exert control over their members such that they compel them to behave contrary to their own interests. So the modern, practical answer to that question is: No. Your average Catholic is no threat and is very likely to be acting in their own interest, free of undue influence. The Catholic Church, having had nearly two thousand years to brutally weave itself into society world-wide—has all but abandoned the behavior described above—with the exception of its clergy and people involved at the operational level of the church. Indeed, they've outgrown the practice of using coercion at the level of the individual member, and now wield power as a small nation state with global reach. >Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason? If they're formerly or currently involved in any significant way at the operational level of the Church, then you may have an argument in the affirmative there. Albeit, a narrowly-scoped one.
- newbie2020 4y ago
  Religion does that too
- reissbaker 4y ago
  Catholicism has certainly compelled people to behave "contrary to their own interests" — e.g. preventing LGBT members from pursuing love, preventing unhappily-married people from divorcing, preventing women with dangerous or difficult pregnancies from seeking abortion; and that's without even referencing the many documented instances of child abuse — so I'm not sure that distinction makes a huge difference.
  - mythrwy 4y ago
    They might believe those things are in the persons interest though (I don't have an opinion either way other then... it's subjective).