3 ms·
I think what aaomidi was saying was that their Israeli coworkers conflated mourning murdered Palestinian civilians with supporting terrorists.
by octopoc 2y ago
I think what aaomidi was saying was that their Israeli coworkers conflated mourning murdered Palestinian civilians with supporting terrorists.
- racional 2y agoRight, 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 2y agoTheir nationality is relevant because they are Israeli and Israel and Gaza are at war.
- racional 2y agoProfoundly 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 2y agoEh I get it. TBH I think this is a generational divide and we’ll have to agree to disagree.
- aaomidi 2y agoIt was relevant because it might explain Google's hesitancy to react to it.
- racional 2y agoYes, 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.