5 ms·

“They took over office spaces, defaced our property, and physically impeded the work of other Googlers,” Sit-ins specifically shouldn’t be defacing anything. N

“They took over office spaces, defaced our property, and physically impeded the work of other Googlers,” Sit-ins specifically shouldn’t be defacing anything. Not only should they not have brought their political opinions up at work, but it also sounds like they lost control of their protest.

stemlord 3y ago
>Not only should they not have brought their political opinions up at work Hard disagree. Not saying for a fact that I personally would have the balls to defacto give up my high paying job over it, but I won't pretend that that isn't a pathetic point of view when it is a genocide in progress that is being fought over here. At least have the wherewithal to recognize their courage and value as human beings when remarking over it pseudoanonymously on the internet, no?
- nolongerthere 3y ago
  Calling this war a genocide, removes all meaning from the word. If this war in which 14,000 enemy combatants have been killed out of 32,000 total casualties (and 2.1million population) then you could literally call any battle or war a genocide. Heck, by this measure, the cartels are genociding the US (>100k deaths annually from drug ODs). Cars are genociding everyone (>40k deaths in the US alone). Words have meaning and taking a word with an existing meaning and attempting to use that meaning for your own emotional argument doesn’t do you any good. It just makes people ignore you.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    This is an off topic tangent that gets brought up way to often in these discussion. We have a pretty clear definition under international law what constitutes a genocide. It has nothing to do with numbers or proportion but rather intent and conduct, for example the Bosnian genocide was ruled as such because of the killing of 8372 victims, while the Cambodian genocide failed to meet the criteria despite 2-3 million dead. Many international organizations and governments—including the world highest court—has stated that it is plausible that Israel is committing a genocide. This is not an emotional argument, but rather a legal argument made at the highest court as well as by experts in the field. If we want to be accurate with our words, we should indeed use the word genocide in this context.
    - robertoandred 3y ago
      And it’s plausible that a dark lightbulb is due to it being burnt out, but it’s not necessarily so. Perhaps the switch is off, or the breaker is thrown, or a mouse has chewed through the wires. If we want to be accurate with our words, let’s not use claims that haven’t been proven outside of TikTok.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        It will take years to prove the genocide under international law. In the meantime plausible genocide (or genocide for short) are the most accurate terms. It is the term international organizations and many government do indeed use, as do many media organizations. So should we. The Cambodian genocide was never proven to be a genocide under international law. It was proven under a special national tribunal in Cambodia to be one. But it failed to meet the strict criteria under international law. We still call it a genocide, and we should do so. The crimes of the Khmer Rouge were that of genocide and should be described as such. The same goes for the crimes of Israel.
        nolongerthere 3y ago
        This is a beyond simplistic view of how any of this works. The reason Khmer Rouge wasn't ruled to have committed a genocide is purely political. It had nothing to do with their actual actions and everything to do with who supported them and those interests being defended. Israel being accused of genocide is similarly a political ploy by those who hate Jews and the ruling of genocide is a foregone conclusion because it serves those who hate Jews (aka most of Europe, the ME, and Africa). You wishing for genocide doesn't make it so, instead of making baseless hate filled claims why not back them up with actual facts? Where's the intent? Where's the conduct? Promising to kill all of Hamas isn't genocide just like promising to kill all of the nazis wasn't genocide, just like promising to kill all of ISIS isn't genocide. If you take all the actual actions that Israel has taken as well as all the words spoken by the people actually in power, you don't have genocide, instead you have a war started by a genocidal death cult, and peace-loving people attempting to defend themselves while preserving as much life as possible, even as those very people make every attempt to kill more Jews.
  - megous 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - megous 3y ago
    . You've discredited your argument the moment you started comapring premedidated state action by Israel to car accidents.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  There is no genocide in progress and at work I would be severely disturbed if coworkers are subjected to severe misjudgments.
water-data-dude 3y ago
I’d want to get corroboration that they actually defaced something before I made a judgment. Someone in a separate comment speculated that “defaced our property” might be referring to their writing a list of demands on Thomas Kurian’s whiteboard - and I could believe it! It could be something hilariously minor, or it could be something legitimately concerning, they’re vague enough that it’s impossible to tell. At the very least I’d want more details before I accept that it isn’t just corporate spin. Disclaimer: I think Google is the Big Bad and I strongly dislike them.

stemlord 3y ago

>Not only should they not have brought their political opinions up at work Hard disagree. Not saying for a fact that I personally would have the balls to defacto give up my high paying job over it, but I won't pretend that that isn't a pathetic point of view when it is a genocide in progress that is being fought over here. At least have the wherewithal to recognize their courage and value as human beings when remarking over it pseudoanonymously on the internet, no?

nolongerthere 3y ago
Calling this war a genocide, removes all meaning from the word. If this war in which 14,000 enemy combatants have been killed out of 32,000 total casualties (and 2.1million population) then you could literally call any battle or war a genocide. Heck, by this measure, the cartels are genociding the US (>100k deaths annually from drug ODs). Cars are genociding everyone (>40k deaths in the US alone). Words have meaning and taking a word with an existing meaning and attempting to use that meaning for your own emotional argument doesn’t do you any good. It just makes people ignore you.
- runarberg 3y ago
  This is an off topic tangent that gets brought up way to often in these discussion. We have a pretty clear definition under international law what constitutes a genocide. It has nothing to do with numbers or proportion but rather intent and conduct, for example the Bosnian genocide was ruled as such because of the killing of 8372 victims, while the Cambodian genocide failed to meet the criteria despite 2-3 million dead. Many international organizations and governments—including the world highest court—has stated that it is plausible that Israel is committing a genocide. This is not an emotional argument, but rather a legal argument made at the highest court as well as by experts in the field. If we want to be accurate with our words, we should indeed use the word genocide in this context.
  - robertoandred 3y ago
    And it’s plausible that a dark lightbulb is due to it being burnt out, but it’s not necessarily so. Perhaps the switch is off, or the breaker is thrown, or a mouse has chewed through the wires. If we want to be accurate with our words, let’s not use claims that haven’t been proven outside of TikTok.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      It will take years to prove the genocide under international law. In the meantime plausible genocide (or genocide for short) are the most accurate terms. It is the term international organizations and many government do indeed use, as do many media organizations. So should we. The Cambodian genocide was never proven to be a genocide under international law. It was proven under a special national tribunal in Cambodia to be one. But it failed to meet the strict criteria under international law. We still call it a genocide, and we should do so. The crimes of the Khmer Rouge were that of genocide and should be described as such. The same goes for the crimes of Israel.
      - nolongerthere 3y ago
        This is a beyond simplistic view of how any of this works. The reason Khmer Rouge wasn't ruled to have committed a genocide is purely political. It had nothing to do with their actual actions and everything to do with who supported them and those interests being defended. Israel being accused of genocide is similarly a political ploy by those who hate Jews and the ruling of genocide is a foregone conclusion because it serves those who hate Jews (aka most of Europe, the ME, and Africa). You wishing for genocide doesn't make it so, instead of making baseless hate filled claims why not back them up with actual facts? Where's the intent? Where's the conduct? Promising to kill all of Hamas isn't genocide just like promising to kill all of the nazis wasn't genocide, just like promising to kill all of ISIS isn't genocide. If you take all the actual actions that Israel has taken as well as all the words spoken by the people actually in power, you don't have genocide, instead you have a war started by a genocidal death cult, and peace-loving people attempting to defend themselves while preserving as much life as possible, even as those very people make every attempt to kill more Jews.
- megous 3y ago
  [flagged]
- megous 3y ago
  . You've discredited your argument the moment you started comapring premedidated state action by Israel to car accidents.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
There is no genocide in progress and at work I would be severely disturbed if coworkers are subjected to severe misjudgments.

water-data-dude 3y ago

I’d want to get corroboration that they actually defaced something before I made a judgment. Someone in a separate comment speculated that “defaced our property” might be referring to their writing a list of demands on Thomas Kurian’s whiteboard - and I could believe it! It could be something hilariously minor, or it could be something legitimately concerning, they’re vague enough that it’s impossible to tell. At the very least I’d want more details before I accept that it isn’t just corporate spin. Disclaimer: I think Google is the Big Bad and I strongly dislike them.