4 ms·

> It shouldn't matter that the people doing this are Israeli, though. Why not? It certainly seems relevant to me.

by octopoc 3y ago

racional 3y ago
"The content of their character, not the color of their skin (or passport)" per the famous saying.
- octopoc 3y ago
  I think what aaomidi was saying was that their Israeli coworkers conflated mourning murdered Palestinian civilians with supporting terrorists.
  - racional 3y ago
    Right, and that was understood already. The point I'm making is that (apart from that information) they were drawing unnecessary attention to the coworkers' nationality.
    - octopoc 3y ago
      Their nationality is relevant because they are Israeli and Israel and Gaza are at war.
      - racional 3y ago
        Profoundly disagree. Perhaps in rhetorical or philosophical contexts it may be relevant. But concerning questions of what constitutes acceptable workplace conduct, it is way off the page (and in my view, completely out of line).
        octopoc 3y ago
        Eh I get it. TBH I think this is a generational divide and we’ll have to agree to disagree.
        aaomidi 2y ago
        It was relevant because it might explain Google's hesitancy to react to it.
        racional 2y ago
        Yes, it can certainly be relevant on that and other contextual grounds. It's also where things drift into realm of speculation, away from what we know from the facts at hand. All I've been saying (which I thought was obvious) was: when considering whether the actions of these people (who sent the "Do you support Hamas?" emails) -- as individuals -- constitute a form of intimidation (and it seems obvious that they do; and from what you said, apparently sanctioned by their higher-ups, no less) -- One has to keep their personal attributes out of the discussion. That's just how the legal and ethical standards for these things work. Again, thanks for the disclosure. It definitely sounds quite creepy. Especially considering the apparent lack of action taken by the higher-ups.

> It shouldn't matter that the people doing this are Israeli, though. Why not? It certainly seems relevant to me.

racional 3y ago

"The content of their character, not the color of their skin (or passport)" per the famous saying.

octopoc 3y ago
I think what aaomidi was saying was that their Israeli coworkers conflated mourning murdered Palestinian civilians with supporting terrorists.
- racional 3y ago
  Right, and that was understood already. The point I'm making is that (apart from that information) they were drawing unnecessary attention to the coworkers' nationality.
  - octopoc 3y ago
    Their nationality is relevant because they are Israeli and Israel and Gaza are at war.
    - racional 3y ago
      Profoundly disagree. Perhaps in rhetorical or philosophical contexts it may be relevant. But concerning questions of what constitutes acceptable workplace conduct, it is way off the page (and in my view, completely out of line).
      - octopoc 3y ago
        Eh I get it. TBH I think this is a generational divide and we’ll have to agree to disagree.
        aaomidi 2y ago
        It was relevant because it might explain Google's hesitancy to react to it.
        racional 2y ago
        Yes, it can certainly be relevant on that and other contextual grounds. It's also where things drift into realm of speculation, away from what we know from the facts at hand. All I've been saying (which I thought was obvious) was: when considering whether the actions of these people (who sent the "Do you support Hamas?" emails) -- as individuals -- constitute a form of intimidation (and it seems obvious that they do; and from what you said, apparently sanctioned by their higher-ups, no less) -- One has to keep their personal attributes out of the discussion. That's just how the legal and ethical standards for these things work. Again, thanks for the disclosure. It definitely sounds quite creepy. Especially considering the apparent lack of action taken by the higher-ups.