If Palestine were using Google Cloud for AI applications like identifying and murdering Israelis, then Pichai would also be justified in telling staffers to sit down, stfu, and get back to work?
I just want to make sure we’re not engaged in identity politics here.
As someone who’s worked in the corporate world for 30+ years, politics is not tolerated.
If you’re an employee who regularly talks politics, you’ll find yourself not invited to projects, and slowly pushed to the side, as your peer reviews will show communication issues.
If you’re a contractor, you won’t be renewed at contract time.
I’ve seen both of these happen many times.
The workplace is for work, for getting things done. Frankly, most of us don’t have time for this idle chit-chat bs, we’re too busy trying to complete the endless stream of work that needs doing. And what room I have for chat, the last thing I want to talk about is politics - it’s always divisive, and teams need the opposite if that - to build better relationships.
Today I’ll actually leave a room if anyone talks politics. I want no part of that nonsense.
Here’s the heart of the issue: If you lack the sense to know when and where to discuss something like this, what other social skill/communication issues do you have? You’re clearly not someone to be trusted.
In a well run company it isn’t. The ceo I work for doesn’t talk politics. Everyone assumes he’s a democrat but I would libertarian based on a few slips.
For the most part he avoids politics. Either way you are making half the people mad and potential alienating half your customers.
See, this whole conversation is why Marx’s theory of alienation is a thing. It assumes that the employees are at work purely for the sake of working, as if employees consent to how other’s use the product of their work by virtue of their employment. But the relationship between what a worker does and what a company does with it is important. For those of that aren’t genocide supporters and can’t square the circle by abstracting our work from those that use it for murdering other people, talking about it challenges the underlying justification for permitting it in the first place. Like yeah, Google is invested in information technology and all that, but why does that necessarily mean they must have a relationship with Israel to more effectively target Palestinians using Google Cloud for artificial applications? Not being allowed to talk about that is quintessential alienation in the Marxian sense.
Google is invested in information technology and all that, but why does that necessarily mean they must have a relationship with Israel to more effectively target Palestinians using Google Cloud for artificial applications?
If you don’t like it leave. It’s that simple.
In a Marxist country, you’d be put in prison for disagreeing. In a country like ours, you can go create your own company to compete with Google if you don’t like what they do
Well, they did leave…by force. But that still leaves Google supplementing genocide and them out of job. Ideally, they’d still have a job, and Google would uphold the human right to life. But Pichai sidesteps that contention altogether by decree: “Don’t talk about it!”
In a Marxist country, you’d be put in prison for disagreeing.
In a capitalist country where life is cheap, you’ll lose your livelihood refusing to contribute to murder on an industrial scale. So, trade-offs, I guess.
But that still leaves Google supplementing genocide and them out of job
America doesn’t see it as genocide. Neither does Google. Sometimes it’s a tough pill to swallow but not everyone agrees it’s a genocide. I don’t. The only people I see being genocide are the Jews which is why Gaza is being invaded.
Ideally they’d do their job. They’re not a charity. Pichai did the right thing. Their customer is buying their products. The employees can work or be fired. That’s their options.
Well, I guess it’s better that Google enable mass murder than employees oppose it, according to your logic.
What’s funny is that after the atrocities of WWII, there were all these books written about “How could they do that?!” Well, if they thought like you, it’s pretty clear: it was always warranted. The only thing that really mattered was whether people did their jobs.
Since the murders took place in Palestine, wouldn’t it fall under Palestinian law? In that case, Israel is defying the law by invoking the death penalty without the consent of the President.
Otherwise any country can attack any country as long as they say “this murder isn’t illegal under my own laws so it’s ok”.
Either way, it doesn’t matter since your previous comment invokes the US Government, so you set your own goalpost on that one there bud.
Once again, you involved the us government for some strange reason.
The two parties are at war. Civilians deaths will happen. It’s not murder unless Israel didn’t follow the rules of warfare which the United States has said they did.
Take one lesson from this. War sucks and we should avoid it.
You’re the one that responded by saying the US Government doesn’t agree with me. I responded in kind with what US Law defines as mass murder.
Then you shifted the goalposts by claiming that since this doesn’t fall under US Law, it’s not illegal.
So I asked under which law this applies. Since you have not yet directly addressed this question, then I’m going with the legal definition supplied until you supply another.
Rules of warfare are not replacement for law.
I agree that war sucks and we should avoid it. That’s why it’s so important to call it what it is - murder. Even if our government’s leadership won’t.
Depends on which set of rules you invoke. Some are laws but most are simply treaties nations have agreed to follow. That isn’t the same as law.
Either way, any killing en masse is mass murder. The only variables are exact number of victims, the murderer, and individual leader’s public stances. I attempted to follow your goalpost by providing the US definition but since you’re not yet clearly defining which law this particular instance of mass murder applies to, I’m going to continue to call it what it is.
I can get behind both ideas. I think it really depends on the culture, and team morale. Lets be real, sometimes you just want some water cooler talk instead of going to another meeting. And sometimes, that one guy talks so much, you hesitate inviting him to any meetings because you know he’ll make it twice as long as it should be. As goes the old saying goes, it’s all about balance.
I’m of the mind that you can talk about minor things, like sports and the weather and whatnot, but if you start bragging about your teams latest win to your coworkers excessively, well, take it down a few notches. Don’t make others uncomfortable.
And don’t talk politics. At best, you’ll make enemies of idiots, at worst, you’ll outed as the idiot.
This is why the older generation is bitter, they spent their whole lives working while the stuff that mattered passed them by. They don’t get it’s life, don’t miss your life chasing money. 🙃
Add comment