> Google says that each worker it fired actively disrupted its offices, while the workers dispute the claims, saying some of those fired did not even enter the company’s office on the day of coordinated demonstrations against the company.
Isn't this a pretty critical point that the Washington Post should have looked into a bit more?
They probably got the list of people to fire from some list of people who replied on some internal message board.
Far easier to prove involvement when there is a written record, rather than evidence of you entering a building (you might have other reasons to be there).
I guess you could "disrupt" the productivity of an "office" without physically being there, but ultimately at-will employment probably gives Google a lot of leeway here.
What's there to investigate? "Actively disrupted" is impossible to define. Google may consider it a disruption if you are organizing a protest, even if not participating in it, or if the protest hasn't happened yet. An employee may feel like their peaceful sit-in didn't disrupt anything. Ultimately Google is the one making the decision.
You can disrupt an office without entering the office. Just stand outside and block the entrance, yell at people trying to enter the office, or bang pots and pans and create a disturbance.
(I have no idea what happened at Google. The article is behind a paywall for me.)
I hope I'm not considered a troll for asking this question; I will ask on my main account and hopefully people will check my comment history to understand I am not intending to be belligerent or intentionally dumb.
But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict.
I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were murdering not only Jews and Christians but also homosexuals[0].
I'm not sure of the Israeli stance to be perfectly honest, but it's surprising to me that the only time I had ever heard of LGBTQ+ rights with relation to the Palestinian people it has been with a strikingly deadly tone, yet it seems that in the US the political divide has fallen such that LGBTQ+ people are almost forced to ally with Palestine.
I'm genuinely curious how this happened.
caveat: I'm not interested in emotional responses, if you feel emotional reading this then please just ignore the comment completely, I am not inviting a flame war, this is genuine ignorance and curiousity.
It's about oppressed vs oppressor narratives. LGBTQ people tend to sympathize with the oppressed because most of them have memories of being oppressed themselves. Ive actually asked a few about this and they tend to agree that Hamas and palestinains in general would not form a government they would support, but theyre not willing to overlook how oppressed the palestinians have been for the past 80 years.
I have a hypothesis that a lot of the people on the "left" who will stridently defend gay rights (which I'm for, being a gay man myself) are in fact the same sort of bullies that in a previous generation would have bashed gay people. That is, being on "the right side" of a debate doesn't mean one is necessarily more enlightened nor empathetic.
Next, remember that not only are there reasonable people on the right that hate/fear the import of hegemonizing cultures into their own societies, but also plenty of bullies on the right who will hate somebody for having the wrong shade of skin.
Put the two together, and you get the meme where this guy has to pick one button out of two, one of them is labelled "gay" and the other one is "Islam".
That's how we end up in the situation where "queers for Palestine" get attacked at a pro-Hamas rally.
In general, the pro-palistinian side is favored by the progressive left, the same group who are also pro-gay/pro-trans etc.
In a lot of ways, the struggles are similar to BLM - there is a great injustice being done by a powerful force funded by the US government. Or again with opposing the US's global war on terror. The people in those groups aren't forced to be on the palenstinians side, but it is logically consistent with the other two.
I think LGBT people might be against mass slaughter of civilians via bombing campaigns of areas heavily populated by civilians. I don't the the various conservative views held by those civilians matters too much in terms of them being slaughtered.
I think this is especially the case when their tax dollars are used for this bombing.
> But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict.
FWIW in the German speaking countries it's the opposite (for obvious historical reasons).
Generally, I think it's ok to demonstrate against atrocities even if the victims are not your "friends". What I do find disturbing is when progressives try to justify the Hamas terror as an act of "resistance" (one famous example being Judith Butler). That is truely fucked up.
Israel seems content to keep Palestine as a ghettoized territory, leaving local administrative matters to Palestinians. How will an Israeli victory, no matter how complete, lead to LGBT Palestinians gaining more rights?
anti-Semitic progressives see Jews as White and the Arabs there as people of color.
Look for people talking about Europeans, Settler's (i.e) every Jew in Mandatory Palestine is a settler. People that ignore that the war that gained them the land was a final solution attempt and the only embarrassment (nabka) is the failure to succeed at taht
There's the idea, that TBH I don't fully subscribe, that solidarity is not transactional. But what I do subscribe is that little kids don't bear the blame of what people do against LGBTQ+ communities.
> I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were murdering not only Jews and Christians but also homosexuals[0].
Just because there are anti-lgbt elements in Palestinian society and politics LGBT people wont be pro-genocide and side with Israel.
The proposition defies description no sane person who is not a psychoapath will say "Oh, are they anti-LGBT and they may kill LGBT people? I guess its okay for Israel to murder their children then..."
> I'm not interested in emotional responses
The murder of children cant be reacted to with any other response than an emotional one.
See also YouTube happily selling millions of dollars in advertising every year to the Orbán regime and pals. If you don't have AdBlock or premium in Hungary you get five minutes of brainwashing before every video.
These are the same regime saying that the fact that gay people exist is propaganda and a threat to children. If Google actually gave a fuck they could start with that.
Any semblance of being progressive is horseshit if you're happy to do business with fascists overseas.
> The advertisements thus formally promote the Hungarian government’s anti-migrant measures. At the same time, they also stress the dangers of migration and the violence of migrants. These advertisements also appeared in countries when allies of the Orbán government, also campaigning with anti-migrant slogans, were competing in parliamentary or local elections. [...]
> Google distinguishes between two types of advertising: political and non-political. The former is subject to stricter transparency rules. [...] Google confirmed that the relevant Hungarian government ads do not violate the terms of use and, as they do not promote political parties or politicians, are not political ads.
James Damore was fired from Google[0] when he went out of his way to ensure his politics were to be kept private. What on earth did these people think would happen if they didn't attempt to keep their politics private?
They're probably quite surprised that they're getting fired. Opposing colonialism was safe politics at Google until Israel started colonizing/raping/genociding Gaza.
I think it's best to keep all politics, "right" and "wrong" (however you define it) out of business.
But businesses thought they can score some easy brownie points by supporting "good" politics (in any case the kind they thought makes them look better). Well someone turns around and does the other kind of politics - something the firm thinks makes it look bad, and suddenly it doesn't like flags and activism.
Google did nothing about Israeli co-workers at Google sending me messages such as "Do you support Hamas?" They targeted me because I +1ed a memegen post mourning civilians who have died in Gaza.
I'll even explicitly say this: They were on the search experience team.
Multiple of them were also managers. (Both Engineer Managers and Hiring Managers)
Read the article. Many of the employees fired were not even on the premises that day. This is 100% pure political reprisals, which is illegal in California.
Joining a union is essentially saying you're ready to throw down for any worker, even a stranger, and you know without having to ask that they've made the same promise to you. Metal as hell, everyone should do it.
Children are being murdered in live video in front of the eyes of the entire world. This is not an exaggeration. Those who propagate it are posting videos on the Israeli internet and these are being propagated to the 80% of the world that you call the global south. Them not reaching your eyes because the complicit media in the West keeps them out of sight does not mean that the rest of the world is not able to access them.
All the companies who collaborate with Israel in their activities are being vilified in the rest of the world at this moment. And rightfully so. If IBM selling machinery to the Nazi government during Ww2 so that they could run their concentration camps was a bad thing to do, this is the same. The standing of all these corporations is being affected just like how the standing of the US went to hell with their complicity and the Biden admn. is trying to put out the fire with its hollow pr declarations.
That is the rational, business-angle approach to this. From the human angle, anyone who condones a corporation that helps a vicious extremist government to murder children would be classified as a sociopath. Not 'rational'.
Everyone who abets and aids this and everyone who defends them is complicit with what is happening in Gaza.
...
I know that a lot of you, the tech and business colleagues who are regulars of this forum, will take these statements as 'emotional', 'non-rational', and 'unrealistic' and you will think that the resulting diplomatic and business fallout wont be that bad.
That is not how it seems from the global south. Israel appears as an unrepentant genocidal rogue state and from the US to Europe who aid and abet them are seen as hypocritical fcks. If even Joseph Borrell, the Eu parliamentarian who likes to openly classify Europe as 'a garden' and the rest of the world as 'jungle', started saying that the West is appearing as a hypocrite with its Gaza policy and losing its diplomatic standing and clout in the eyes of the rest of the world, there is no debating what's happening.
Long story short, you are all appearing as hypocritical f
cks, including Google who went all the way to lay off those who protested its complicity in what 80% of the world considers a genocide. This wont go away.
(amazing - someone from the global south is telling these people what the people who live there think and what the public opinion is turning towards, and they are downvoting the messenger as a response as if it will make their problem go away)
Folks saying politics should get removed are effectively saying they're fine with the status quo. Its intellectually dishonest for people to not recognize this in themselves with that opinion. Everything we do is inherently political as we are operating in this political landscape.
LGBTQ+ being welcomed in tech in the earlier days is partially what's responsible for the LGBTQ+ being somewhat welcomed in society in general today.
Status quo for companies back then would've been to never support anything LGBT related until 2015. That's something that a lot of people right now would say would be absurd.
IBM has been rightfully criticized in its role in the Genocide of Nazi Germany. "Never again" means understanding what circumstances in society led to the decisions being made back then. "Never again" can't be actuated if speaking against authority is discouraged.
Readit News
Isn't this a pretty critical point that the Washington Post should have looked into a bit more?
Far easier to prove involvement when there is a written record, rather than evidence of you entering a building (you might have other reasons to be there).
(I have no idea what happened at Google. The article is behind a paywall for me.)
But as soon as Google's bottom line is involved they behave pretty predictable.
Deleted Comment
But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict.
I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were murdering not only Jews and Christians but also homosexuals[0].
I'm not sure of the Israeli stance to be perfectly honest, but it's surprising to me that the only time I had ever heard of LGBTQ+ rights with relation to the Palestinian people it has been with a strikingly deadly tone, yet it seems that in the US the political divide has fallen such that LGBTQ+ people are almost forced to ally with Palestine.
I'm genuinely curious how this happened.
caveat: I'm not interested in emotional responses, if you feel emotional reading this then please just ignore the comment completely, I am not inviting a flame war, this is genuine ignorance and curiousity.
[0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-5-2003-1346_...
EDIT: Added a citation for my apparently outlandish statement.
Next, remember that not only are there reasonable people on the right that hate/fear the import of hegemonizing cultures into their own societies, but also plenty of bullies on the right who will hate somebody for having the wrong shade of skin.
Put the two together, and you get the meme where this guy has to pick one button out of two, one of them is labelled "gay" and the other one is "Islam".
That's how we end up in the situation where "queers for Palestine" get attacked at a pro-Hamas rally.
In a lot of ways, the struggles are similar to BLM - there is a great injustice being done by a powerful force funded by the US government. Or again with opposing the US's global war on terror. The people in those groups aren't forced to be on the palenstinians side, but it is logically consistent with the other two.
I think this is especially the case when their tax dollars are used for this bombing.
There are vanishingly few people from Gaza living in the west, which makes them the minority.
You see similar support between the LGBT community and communities of disabilities.
FWIW in the German speaking countries it's the opposite (for obvious historical reasons).
Generally, I think it's ok to demonstrate against atrocities even if the victims are not your "friends". What I do find disturbing is when progressives try to justify the Hamas terror as an act of "resistance" (one famous example being Judith Butler). That is truely fucked up.
Short answer: they are often one and the same people - leftist activists who have opinions on more than one subject.
Israel seems content to keep Palestine as a ghettoized territory, leaving local administrative matters to Palestinians. How will an Israeli victory, no matter how complete, lead to LGBT Palestinians gaining more rights?
Look for people talking about Europeans, Settler's (i.e) every Jew in Mandatory Palestine is a settler. People that ignore that the war that gained them the land was a final solution attempt and the only embarrassment (nabka) is the failure to succeed at taht
Deleted Comment
It is about helping those who are a persecuted minority even if one of the groups wants to kill everybody in the other group.
Source? This is the first I’m hearing of this.
Just because there are anti-lgbt elements in Palestinian society and politics LGBT people wont be pro-genocide and side with Israel.
The proposition defies description no sane person who is not a psychoapath will say "Oh, are they anti-LGBT and they may kill LGBT people? I guess its okay for Israel to murder their children then..."
> I'm not interested in emotional responses
The murder of children cant be reacted to with any other response than an emotional one.
Dead Comment
These are the same regime saying that the fact that gay people exist is propaganda and a threat to children. If Google actually gave a fuck they could start with that.
Any semblance of being progressive is horseshit if you're happy to do business with fascists overseas.
> The advertisements thus formally promote the Hungarian government’s anti-migrant measures. At the same time, they also stress the dangers of migration and the violence of migrants. These advertisements also appeared in countries when allies of the Orbán government, also campaigning with anti-migrant slogans, were competing in parliamentary or local elections. [...]
> Google distinguishes between two types of advertising: political and non-political. The former is subject to stricter transparency rules. [...] Google confirmed that the relevant Hungarian government ads do not violate the terms of use and, as they do not promote political parties or politicians, are not political ads.
[0] https://vsquare.org/orban-central-europe-online-ads-election...
Dead Comment
[0]https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/7/16111052/google-james-damo...
But businesses thought they can score some easy brownie points by supporting "good" politics (in any case the kind they thought makes them look better). Well someone turns around and does the other kind of politics - something the firm thinks makes it look bad, and suddenly it doesn't like flags and activism.
To me this is the key hypocrisy.
I'll even explicitly say this: They were on the search experience team.
Multiple of them were also managers. (Both Engineer Managers and Hiring Managers)
Either way, let's hear more reports from other Googlers, please.
Why not? It certainly seems relevant to me.
{Credit: T Arnold}
74 children a day. Murdered. Mostly precision airstrikes.
Google helps the same people committing this.
Children are being murdered in live video in front of the eyes of the entire world. This is not an exaggeration. Those who propagate it are posting videos on the Israeli internet and these are being propagated to the 80% of the world that you call the global south. Them not reaching your eyes because the complicit media in the West keeps them out of sight does not mean that the rest of the world is not able to access them.
All the companies who collaborate with Israel in their activities are being vilified in the rest of the world at this moment. And rightfully so. If IBM selling machinery to the Nazi government during Ww2 so that they could run their concentration camps was a bad thing to do, this is the same. The standing of all these corporations is being affected just like how the standing of the US went to hell with their complicity and the Biden admn. is trying to put out the fire with its hollow pr declarations.
That is the rational, business-angle approach to this. From the human angle, anyone who condones a corporation that helps a vicious extremist government to murder children would be classified as a sociopath. Not 'rational'.
Everyone who abets and aids this and everyone who defends them is complicit with what is happening in Gaza.
...
I know that a lot of you, the tech and business colleagues who are regulars of this forum, will take these statements as 'emotional', 'non-rational', and 'unrealistic' and you will think that the resulting diplomatic and business fallout wont be that bad.
That is not how it seems from the global south. Israel appears as an unrepentant genocidal rogue state and from the US to Europe who aid and abet them are seen as hypocritical fcks. If even Joseph Borrell, the Eu parliamentarian who likes to openly classify Europe as 'a garden' and the rest of the world as 'jungle', started saying that the West is appearing as a hypocrite with its Gaza policy and losing its diplomatic standing and clout in the eyes of the rest of the world, there is no debating what's happening.
Long story short, you are all appearing as hypocritical f
cks, including Google who went all the way to lay off those who protested its complicity in what 80% of the world considers a genocide. This wont go away.(amazing - someone from the global south is telling these people what the people who live there think and what the public opinion is turning towards, and they are downvoting the messenger as a response as if it will make their problem go away)
Politics essentially botched their Gemini AI release. The politics are beyond harming the company.
The "best" they can do is mirror status quo and avoid confrontation.
This is sometimes wrongly referred to as "neutrality".
LGBTQ+ being welcomed in tech in the earlier days is partially what's responsible for the LGBTQ+ being somewhat welcomed in society in general today.
Status quo for companies back then would've been to never support anything LGBT related until 2015. That's something that a lot of people right now would say would be absurd.
IBM has been rightfully criticized in its role in the Genocide of Nazi Germany. "Never again" means understanding what circumstances in society led to the decisions being made back then. "Never again" can't be actuated if speaking against authority is discouraged.