8 ms·
Seems this has more to do with Palestine and Google's involvement with Israel to provide cloud computing.
by gritspants 4mo ago
Seems this has more to do with Palestine and Google's involvement with Israel to provide cloud computing.
- smallerize 4mo agoIf only there weren't so many reasons.
- themafia 4mo agoIf only Google kept "don't be evil."
- ergocoder 4mo ago[flagged]
- nujabe 4mo agolol you clearly think the Palestine side are worse, stop being disingenuous and just say it with your chest. Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars, and that’s good enough reason to protest.
- ergocoder 4mo ago> you clearly think the Palestine side are worse You only think that in order to fit your narrative... even I already stated the contrary. > that’s good enough reason to protest. Clearly, this protest isn't about that. The protest is about criticizing Israel's actions. It's you who should stop being disingenuous
- filoleg 4mo ago> Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars I mean, yeah, I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Specifically, the side that I consider to be fundamentally in the right in the conflict. Whichever side I am talking about is not relevant to the point. What's relevant to the actual point I am trying to make, is that I don't think that one side being better armed and funded serves as a reasonable indicator of which side is right/wrong in a given conflict.
- nujabe 4mo ago> I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither. And this isn’t 2012, majority of Americans today do not see Israeli’s, who steal, spy on and try to get Americans killed through wars they start as the “good guys”.
- ergocoder 4mo ago> Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither. I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true. Trump was basically like: I'm gonna fuck up Palestine. They'd better watch it. He was always clear about this. And then he won every single swing state and even won popular vote. Not that I agree with Trump. I merely state what I've observed.
- nujabe 4mo ago> I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections. Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history, and with less than 50% of the popular vote is hardly a decisive mandate to give Israel a blank check. [1] [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/us/politics/trump-election-landslide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/us/politics/trump-electio...
- ergocoder 4mo ago> Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history This dude said he would help commit genocide and became the first republican to win popular votes in 20 years. > The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections. If a president promises to commit a genocide, I don't think any kind of policies would get voters (who are against genocide) to vote for him. It's certainly not #1 priority but it is a deal breaker.
- fhn 4mo agoyour current employer funds the Israelis
- DaSHacka 4mo ago...hence the protesting?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- spwa4 4mo ago[flagged]
- conception 4mo agoBoth governments may be but there isn’t a power balance between the two in any appreciable way nor in a civilian casualty balance, especially concerning children casualties.
- spwa4 4mo agoI think you mean one of the two governments works tirelessly to minimize casualties, especially children. The other of the two governments works tirelessly to maximize casualties, especially children. Both sides, of course, occasionally fuck it up too.
- sosomoxie 4mo agoYou see this reflected in the huge number of children killed by Israel and minimal child casualties killed by Hamas. Israel is committing genocide while Hamas is resisting occupation and the stats make that crystal clear.
- ergocoder 4mo agoCorrect. Israel is committing genocide. > Hamas is resisting occupation This is definitely not true. The fact that you downplay what Palestine has been doing is wild.
- sosomoxie 4mo agoOccupied people have a right to armed resistance.
- ergocoder 4mo agoPalestine aims to annihilate Israel ... cue "from the river to the sea". They both want to kill each other. It's only that one side is winning. Not sure why you need to mislead. It has been clear for 50 years at least.
- shigawire 4mo agoStanford students are criticizing Google for enabling Israel. If Google was providing support for Hamas they could protest that too.
- x3n0ph3n3 4mo agoWe both know they wouldn't, though.
- ergocoder 4mo agoI've never seen any protest by students that protested against Palestine. In fact, at University of Washington, a protest was organized to support Palestine after the Oct 7 massacre on Oct 8; they chose to show support Palestine after Palestine did a massacre. And there was a very little criticism on that kind of actions.
- bdangubic 4mo ago> I've never seen any protest by students that protested against Palestine. you should think long and hard why that is but answer is as always quite simple
- ergocoder 4mo agoWe all know why, and the reason doesn't fit what you want to believe. That's why you pretend to be obscure about it. Otherwise, you would have just said so out loud already.
- HeavyStorm 4mo ago[flagged]
- cyanydeez 4mo agoyes, the kid trying to fight back is equal to the adult punching down. This is the time of moral fortitude of a 12 year old.
- bodegajed 4mo agoI think Stanford students are not out of touch. Google has enough revenue to sustain itself but yet they decided to become an arms dealer. CEOs only care about the shareholder.
- crote 4mo agoYou don't become rich by having morals.
- za3faran 4mo agoLet's not victim blame here. Would you have called the Indians evil for wanting to have liberty from the british occupiers? What about the many other european colonies in Asia and Africa, were the locals "evil" for wanting to resist and get liberty?
- cyberax 4mo agoIf they did that by slaughtering civilians? Yes. Absolutely.
- za3faran 4mo agoThe same civilians that are killing them day in and day out?
- cyberax 4mo agoCan the same logic be used to justify the 9/11?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- za3faran 4mo agoTwo completely different things. Even the UN acknowledges a people's right to resist occupation. 9/11 was condemned by practically all Islamic Scholars.
- cyberax 4mo agoI'm not asking if it was condemned. I'm asking if the same logic can be used to justify 9/11. And you tacitly admitted just that.
- za3faran 4mo agoThe first thing I wrote is that they are two very different things, meaning that no, the same logic cannot be used to justify it. It's quite obvious to say the least.
- BLKNSLVR 4mo agoIn this seemingly forever argument, it seems there is some nuance in that Palestine is not Hamas and vice versa. One of the perspectives as I understand it is that Hamas is actually a threat to the existence of Palestine; the militaristic behaviour undermines Palestinian efforts at independence (and this is an avenue for exploitation by those who don't want to see an independent Palestine). It is a similar situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon. You can argue that the government of Israel isn't the will of the people of Israel (in the same way the US government isn't the will of the people of the US), but in my opinion there's more of a separation between 'Palestine' and 'Hamas' than there is between 'Israel' and 'the will of the people of Israel'. There's a lot of wrongdoing, which means there are a lot of innocents being harmed, and the harming of innocents is the greatest wrongdoing. Harm by inaction is also wrong. Harm by preventing aid and assistance is also wrong. None of this stuff is easily answered. The joys of ideology, or maybe more correctly, the joys of living amongst those who take ideology so seriously that they attempt to enforce their fantasies upon the real world. In my personal logic bubble: Protesting in support of Palestine is not protesting in support of Hamas. Declaring support for Israel is protesting against Hamas and their acts of terrorism against Israel. I can do both of these things without being hypocritical (like I said, in my personal logic bubble).
- keypusher 4mo agoHamas has been the democratically elected government of Palestine since 2006. That was the year after Israel pulled all their military out of Gaza.
- mptest 4mo ago"democratically elected" being an extremely load bearing sentiment if you know anything about what people's lives are actually like on the ground. did you know a large majority of the populace didn't even vote in 2006? since 2006? there hasn't been elections since. The median age is 18. Pulled all their military out? Oh, they still controlled their airspace, critical infra, borders tho? Sounds very self determined! Serious, bad faith or extremely reductive misrepresentation that I can't tell is borne from ignorance willful or accidental. your comment is the equivalent of acting like cuba's economy is all their own choosing, without analyzing the immense damage sanctions (and why sanctions were there in the first place) have done to the country, or accosting haiti without knowing why their struggles exist. context matters.
- keeda 4mo agoAww, does that mean we won't get to see whether he could avoid getting booed when he inevitably mentions AI?
- tmaly 4mo agoI saw someone post this was due to H1B visas. Then I drilled into the comments and saw it was a Palestine protest. It is getting hard to know what is true anymore as everyone is trying to push their own narrative.
- red-iron-pine 4mo ago"flood the zone" means a constant, loud, never-ending set of narratives all the time. people will eventually start filtering out narratives they don't want to hear, and/or just tuning out entirely. this serves those in power, as they have the ability to now shape the narrative. see also: "the russian firehose of falsehood" https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
- alisonuserland 4mo agoTo me, this seems like a rather unfortunate indicator of the death in intellectualism in this country. Granted I recall having stances and an optimistic naivete after graduating college and positions that, while still broadly liberal and left-leaning, shifted notably over the decades since. However, it pains me a bit to see how much "essentialism" stands as an argument and way of understanding the world, even to graduates of a top-tier institution. The argument that the Israel/Palestine situation is "essentially" genocide, rather than a tragic and complicated reality where the precise characterization of the situation is debated immensely and relies on ones own biases and expanding or narrowing the definition of the term. The further argument that since Google does business with Israel, they are "essentially" complicit and supporters of aforementioned genocide. Depending on one's biases, my previous statement will likely elicit some sort of reaction, especially to college grads of this generation, without me ever stating a position. This all to me is a rather unfortunate place for academia and intellectualism to have landed in the past decades. Or was it always this bad? I don't think so, I do think that always-online and recommendation engines and gameification of social media has created an acceleration of this. But it pains me to think about where this is evolving to, and how these graduates will navigate life in the extremely complicated, suboptimal, often hateful or self-interested world we live in, if this is where they get to after graduating from a top institution.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- rafterydj 4mo agoAgreed that thinking about the natural progression of today's circumstances are painful to think about, and about the death of intellectualism. However, I'd like to play devil's advocate here, and speak to your "without ever stating a position" line. I'd argue that's just careful wording hiding under the mask of intellectualism. The argument against Israel is, as you say, that it is "essentially" genocide. Speaking as one of the cohort (although slightly older than new grad) of which you're referring, every argument against Israel is to my view quite straightforward. Killing innocent people is bad, doing so for political reasons is worse, and when you do it to an entire city/nation/people you have genocide ipso facto. While it's not a very complex take, it really doesn't need to be when there is a preponderance of evidence. Contrasted with the defense of Israel's actions, and you have a vast array of whataboutisms, downplaying, justifying by means of referring to authority (in Israel), calling critics anti-Semitic, etc. In my personal experience I find the majority of pro-Israel arguments to be at heart anti-intellectual. So when you dress up a complex situation by emphasizing how above and beyond all understanding it is, to me that feels you are intentionally muddying the waters to try to obfuscate the real problem. And that, I would say, is also anti-intellectual. Just because we have generational problems with anti-intellectualism does not mean this particular circumstance belongs in that category.