7 ms·

Many Googlers are not comfortable with that. Lots of them are immigrants who understandably don't want to be associated with US-endorsed genocide.

UrineSqueegee 2y ago
[flagged]
- sadboi31 2y ago
  yeah you're right, it's a nakba. something far worse. once the sanctions come down the american public will get learned on their history.
  - UrineSqueegee 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    The Nakba was a Nakba because the countries surrounding Israel lost the war after they attacked Israel. Indeed they probably had genocidal ambitions.
    - racional 2y ago
      The Nakba was (and still is) a Nakba because ... The colonizers sought to impose an objectively unfair partition plan (granting them far more valuable territory and resources in proportion to their population at the time), with the muscular support of their European friends. The Palestinians rejected this "proposal" outright of course, exactly as any self-respecting people would. Exactly as the Algerians rejected France's proposed "partition" of their historic homeland, and the Vietnamese (by and large) rejected America's proposed carve-out of theirs, etc (just to pick a few notable exactly from approximately the same time frame). And yes, they made some poor choices of friends (as they readily acknowledge), and woefully miscalculated their own strengths and capabilities and so on. And then there are other factors you're carefully not mentioning, such as the expulsions and massacres already underway in Jaffa, Deir-Yassin and elsewhere before this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack". But there's no reason to keep punishing the current population for these decisions, and exploiting this history (and the continuing indifference of both their so-called friends in the Arab world and the international community at large) for the sake of current and future land gains. Which is basically what the continuing (having of course never really ended) Nakba (that certain very notable public figures are proudly and openly hoping to officially upgrade to Nakba 2.0, in their own words -- do we need to name any names here?) is really about. And whatever is happening in the ground today (and however much blame can justly attributed to both sides) -- there's nothing to be gained from nullifying history, or reducing it to such trite oversimplifications as in the parent comment.
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
        Even before the existence of Israel there was an active arabic nationalism and Jews were discriminated against. Israel is not a colonial power. The British split the land between Muslims and Jews. The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. The land Israel was founded wasn't prosperous at all, on the contrary. Many years of cultivation made it the place it is today. I don't know what partition you reference as unfair here. And that is true to today. If you look at the education of kids, you know who really has genocidal ambitions in this region and it isn't Israel. > this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack" Israel has the right to fight until the hostages are released. The real "catastrophe" is the leadership of Palestinians, its teacher keeping the hatred against Jews alive. These are the perpetrators of the current conflict. Israels part is that itself has a problem with rising extremism. In this case it is a reaction to decades of conflict and hatred. That is no excuse but the same is doubly true for those that want to expel the Jews again and take their people hostage.
        racional 2y ago
        Looks like we disagree axiomatically about certain things. But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now: The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. No, the "only problem" was a bunch of armed foreigners attempting to carve an ethnostate out of their ancestral territory. They could have been Greek, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Persian -- it wouldn't have mattered a bit. It was the usurpation of their land, their resources and their rights that took issue with, and rightly so. So no, it wasn't "because antisemitism".
        raxxorraxor 2y ago
        We do indeed disagree on premises. Arab nationalism was first founded in the 19th century and directed against Turks. Later it had other ambitions of course. And yes, the idea was the foundation of an ethnostate. Pretty much was you accuse Israel of being, while it simply is not true.
Cupertino95014 2y ago
Immigrants do not have the vote, unless they become citizens. Correct? So their political preferences aren't really material. And of course, you have no data to back up your statements.
- sundalia 2y ago
  We're talking about a company's actions, why does vote matter?
  - Cupertino95014 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      This is an antisocial and selfish way to think of your congeners. Giving credit only to the opinion of people related to you (in this case, citizenship) is like building walls in your mind. Politic and vote is a think, opinion and freethinking is a different one.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      We’re not talking about the government here though
weatherlite 2y ago
[flagged]
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  When people think about morale, they usually don’t associate it with “scoring some points on SM”. accept all or leave is not how people usually arbitrage they lives.
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    [flagged]
- runarberg 2y ago
  Immigrant here. When applying for green card, citizenship, etc. you are asked like a thousand times if you have ever participated in a genocide. The expectation is that if you say yes, they will deny the application. There is a morality issue at play here for sure, but there is also an actual personal risk people are taking by knowingly contributing to tech which is used in an ongoing genocide.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
[flagged]
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Googler opinions are all over the map. Not all immigrants are Muslim, you'll find Jewish ones also, and it isn't surprising their opinions would differ.
- advael 2y ago
  Is your implication that only muslims would oppose the IDF's genocide? A lot of Israeli citizens are against it, too, and only a US veto prevented the UN from condemning it
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    > Is your implication that only muslims would oppose the IDF's genocide? No, mostly Muslims see the use of your own people as human shields as very distasteful, and are more likely to blame Hamas for high Palestinian casualties than the IDF. In fact, bringing up IDF's supposed atrocities without also addressing Hamas's willingness to "fight to the last Gazan" seems very disingenuous. What did Gazans think would happen after October 7th? And the response seems to have been "We must support Hamas even more", I don't know, eventually they need to address that, or they are going to lose the support and sympathy of everyone outside of the Muslim world.
    - advael 2y ago
      This reeks of propaganda - I don't accept the nonsensical premise that a terrorist group is somehow forcing a vastly superior military force to kill this indiscriminately, and I especially don't buy that civilians somehow invite their own deaths by not supporting the regime that is actively killing them right now. I think most people, regardless of religion, nationality, creed, or ethnicity, find the way the IDF is going about this appalling Also, as a minor side-note, you manage to contradict yourself even in this short reply, first claiming that muslims by and large don't support Gaza, but then concluding by claiming that somehow the Gazans being bombed in their homes are behaving so egregiously that they'll soon lose the support of everyone "outside of the Muslim world". I'm not surprised you can't keep your argument straight, as its logic is incoherent in the first place, barely making sense even in this ridiculous framing of the conflict

UrineSqueegee 2y ago

[flagged]

sadboi31 2y ago
yeah you're right, it's a nakba. something far worse. once the sanctions come down the american public will get learned on their history.
- UrineSqueegee 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  The Nakba was a Nakba because the countries surrounding Israel lost the war after they attacked Israel. Indeed they probably had genocidal ambitions.
  - racional 2y ago
    The Nakba was (and still is) a Nakba because ... The colonizers sought to impose an objectively unfair partition plan (granting them far more valuable territory and resources in proportion to their population at the time), with the muscular support of their European friends. The Palestinians rejected this "proposal" outright of course, exactly as any self-respecting people would. Exactly as the Algerians rejected France's proposed "partition" of their historic homeland, and the Vietnamese (by and large) rejected America's proposed carve-out of theirs, etc (just to pick a few notable exactly from approximately the same time frame). And yes, they made some poor choices of friends (as they readily acknowledge), and woefully miscalculated their own strengths and capabilities and so on. And then there are other factors you're carefully not mentioning, such as the expulsions and massacres already underway in Jaffa, Deir-Yassin and elsewhere before this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack". But there's no reason to keep punishing the current population for these decisions, and exploiting this history (and the continuing indifference of both their so-called friends in the Arab world and the international community at large) for the sake of current and future land gains. Which is basically what the continuing (having of course never really ended) Nakba (that certain very notable public figures are proudly and openly hoping to officially upgrade to Nakba 2.0, in their own words -- do we need to name any names here?) is really about. And whatever is happening in the ground today (and however much blame can justly attributed to both sides) -- there's nothing to be gained from nullifying history, or reducing it to such trite oversimplifications as in the parent comment.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Even before the existence of Israel there was an active arabic nationalism and Jews were discriminated against. Israel is not a colonial power. The British split the land between Muslims and Jews. The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. The land Israel was founded wasn't prosperous at all, on the contrary. Many years of cultivation made it the place it is today. I don't know what partition you reference as unfair here. And that is true to today. If you look at the education of kids, you know who really has genocidal ambitions in this region and it isn't Israel. > this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack" Israel has the right to fight until the hostages are released. The real "catastrophe" is the leadership of Palestinians, its teacher keeping the hatred against Jews alive. These are the perpetrators of the current conflict. Israels part is that itself has a problem with rising extremism. In this case it is a reaction to decades of conflict and hatred. That is no excuse but the same is doubly true for those that want to expel the Jews again and take their people hostage.
      - racional 2y ago
        Looks like we disagree axiomatically about certain things. But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now: The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. No, the "only problem" was a bunch of armed foreigners attempting to carve an ethnostate out of their ancestral territory. They could have been Greek, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Persian -- it wouldn't have mattered a bit. It was the usurpation of their land, their resources and their rights that took issue with, and rightly so. So no, it wasn't "because antisemitism".
        raxxorraxor 2y ago
        We do indeed disagree on premises. Arab nationalism was first founded in the 19th century and directed against Turks. Later it had other ambitions of course. And yes, the idea was the foundation of an ethnostate. Pretty much was you accuse Israel of being, while it simply is not true.

Cupertino95014 2y ago

Immigrants do not have the vote, unless they become citizens. Correct? So their political preferences aren't really material. And of course, you have no data to back up your statements.

sundalia 2y ago
We're talking about a company's actions, why does vote matter?
- Cupertino95014 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    This is an antisocial and selfish way to think of your congeners. Giving credit only to the opinion of people related to you (in this case, citizenship) is like building walls in your mind. Politic and vote is a think, opinion and freethinking is a different one.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    We’re not talking about the government here though

weatherlite 2y ago

[flagged]

aziaziazi 2y ago
When people think about morale, they usually don’t associate it with “scoring some points on SM”. accept all or leave is not how people usually arbitrage they lives.
- weatherlite 2y ago
  [flagged]
runarberg 2y ago
Immigrant here. When applying for green card, citizenship, etc. you are asked like a thousand times if you have ever participated in a genocide. The expectation is that if you say yes, they will deny the application. There is a morality issue at play here for sure, but there is also an actual personal risk people are taking by knowingly contributing to tech which is used in an ongoing genocide.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

[flagged]

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

Googler opinions are all over the map. Not all immigrants are Muslim, you'll find Jewish ones also, and it isn't surprising their opinions would differ.

advael 2y ago
Is your implication that only muslims would oppose the IDF's genocide? A lot of Israeli citizens are against it, too, and only a US veto prevented the UN from condemning it
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > Is your implication that only muslims would oppose the IDF's genocide? No, mostly Muslims see the use of your own people as human shields as very distasteful, and are more likely to blame Hamas for high Palestinian casualties than the IDF. In fact, bringing up IDF's supposed atrocities without also addressing Hamas's willingness to "fight to the last Gazan" seems very disingenuous. What did Gazans think would happen after October 7th? And the response seems to have been "We must support Hamas even more", I don't know, eventually they need to address that, or they are going to lose the support and sympathy of everyone outside of the Muslim world.
  - advael 2y ago
    This reeks of propaganda - I don't accept the nonsensical premise that a terrorist group is somehow forcing a vastly superior military force to kill this indiscriminately, and I especially don't buy that civilians somehow invite their own deaths by not supporting the regime that is actively killing them right now. I think most people, regardless of religion, nationality, creed, or ethnicity, find the way the IDF is going about this appalling Also, as a minor side-note, you manage to contradict yourself even in this short reply, first claiming that muslims by and large don't support Gaza, but then concluding by claiming that somehow the Gazans being bombed in their homes are behaving so egregiously that they'll soon lose the support of everyone "outside of the Muslim world". I'm not surprised you can't keep your argument straight, as its logic is incoherent in the first place, barely making sense even in this ridiculous framing of the conflict