This isn't fucking around. This is being a productive member of society. America requires participation. It requires discussion.
No one -democrat or republican or whatever else- should lose their job over their opinions. No one should be forced to keep their head down and shut up for fear of backlash.
IF your participation & discussion do not cost your employer meaningful time, grief, or resources, then they are probably fine with you doing whatever.
Otherwise - do not be surprised if your boss concludes that your lofty pursuit of high ideals really needs to be freed from the grubby shackles of association with his morally ambiguous enterprise.
If your employer isn't listening to ethical or moral concerns internally speaking out in a "major meeting" becomes one of the only options (short of striking or leaking to the press).
This is genocide we're talking about. When IBM participated in the Holocaust, would stopping that be more important, or would the priority be the sanctity of IBM's business meetings?
Dude, if you don’t think that “keeping your head down and doing as you are told” is not just a “part” but a key part of how mega-companies like Microsoft (and Apple, Meta, Google, …) work, I don’t know what to tell you.
US companies (in almost all states) have the power to hire and fire for any non-protected reason on a whim, without notice unlike most other western countries. There is little-to-no social support if you lose your job in the USA, and the market for finding another diminishes when you say “oh yeah, I publicly embarrassed my last company”. That is a recipe for living in a state of fear. That is the reality of the USA, today, whether it makes pleasant reading or not.
I guess I was disagreeing with "this isn't fucking around". Because it absolutely is, as you say, in today's USA. FWIW I have no problem with the USA moving towards more protection for its workforce, I'd encourage it, even. I doubt it'll happen any time soon though.
And even should that incredibly unlikely thing come to pass, I can't see public embarrassment of high-up muckety-mucks by worker drones working well, ever, really. "Bringing the name of the company into disrepute" etc. etc. would be all they'd need. Fired for cause, end of story.
There are ways to safely say you disagree with your company's policies, but causing a fuss with worldwide coverage at a major company event seems ... shortsighted at best. You'd be better off asking a very pointed question at one of the "Town Hall" meetings that big companies have, when executives are actually able to be challenged by the worker drones, in front of the whole company, but only the whole company. I'd see that as far more likely to actually succeed in doing something than making a public spectacle. Just MHO.
Anyone can do whatever they choose. I try not to "should". There is a potential distribution of consequences for acting in protest. The degrees to which each individual cares, knows enough to care, etc are diverse, and that diversity is important. I prefer an alternative story than "neoliberal/surveillance capitalism ftw!" and that leads to conflict, which I'm learning to navigate.
There is work you can do to help end Apple's complicity (though Microsoft is directly participating in the genocide) - you can find the folks working on Apple here: https://applesagainstapartheid.com/
They withdrew from Gaza, but sealed off its borders, deliberately kept it just above starvation, and kill a few hundred civilians every few years by bombing, invading, or just shooting unarmed protesters near the border fence.
What convinces me that this can be called a genocide, besides the incredibly high death toll and the utter and almost complete destruction Israel has wreaked on Gaza, are the many explicitly genocidal statements by Israeli leaders, generals, soldiers, news broadcasters, cultural figures, etc. The way Israelis talk about Palestinians is so blatantly genocidal that it's impossible to interpret the mass killing they've carried out as anything other than deliberate.
Israel wouldn't be the only country that did protects its borders because of obvious security interests. The wall they build massively reduced incidents of attacks and the almost permanent rocket fire.
Do you think these incidents did and do not happen?
This isn't "protect[ing] its borders." Israel sealed off Gaza, which isn't even Israeli territory.
Israel won't have security as long as it continues to oppress the Palestinians. I have no sympathy for their arguments about their own security as long as they continue to steal Palestinian land and kill tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Isreal didn't steal land in Gaze, they withdrew. Again, if Gaza didn't attack Israel, it would look a lot different today. That makes the genocide accusation even more off base. Perhaps you noticed that you repositioned the argument.
Also, the same can be said about Israelis. If Palestine stopped firing rockets at them, there would be less incidents. Although in that case it would probably be true.
If you want to have factual indications for the ambitions for war or genocide, look at the school curriculum in both countries.
Israel is stealing more and more Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and has no intention of ever giving up or withdrawing from those territories.
Its plan is to either confine the Palestinians into little South-Africa-style Bantustans (sorry, "Emirates," to use the preferred phrase in Israel), or to expel them altogether.
Gaza itself has been sealed off and bombed and invaded over and over again. It's a giant ghetto.
You don't need to look at the school curricula. Just look at what Israelis at all levels are saying, from the soldiers on the ground up all the way up to the Prime Minister and President. The amount of genocidal rhetoric is shocking, especially coming from a country that makes the Holocaust such a central part of its raison d'être.
Maybe you've missed this, but Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and has laid utter waste to Gaza. But genocide also requires intent, and Israelis have loudly broadcast that intent to the world.
> They are taught to hate Jews from the start.
No, they aren't. They learn to hate Israelis through bitter experience. If you live under a foreign military occupation, with constant humiliation by foreign soldiers on your territory, with foreign settlers stealing more and more of your land, and with that foreign military killing tens of thousands of your countrymen, nobody has to teach you to hate that foreign country. It's actually amazing that UNRWA has managed to set up such a politically neutral education system under these circumstances.
Palestinians don't hate Jews. If you're Jewish, you can go to the West Bank. People will be friendly to you if you're sympathetic to their situation. What they don't like is Israel, the country that controls their lives and oppresses them day in and day out.
[flagged]
This isn't fucking around. This is being a productive member of society. America requires participation. It requires discussion.
No one -democrat or republican or whatever else- should lose their job over their opinions. No one should be forced to keep their head down and shut up for fear of backlash.
IF your participation & discussion do not cost your employer meaningful time, grief, or resources, then they are probably fine with you doing whatever.
Otherwise - do not be surprised if your boss concludes that your lofty pursuit of high ideals really needs to be freed from the grubby shackles of association with his morally ambiguous enterprise.
Having opinions is one thing; disrupting a major meeting with an unrelated complaint about your employer (and generating national news) is another.
If your employer isn't listening to ethical or moral concerns internally speaking out in a "major meeting" becomes one of the only options (short of striking or leaking to the press).
This is genocide we're talking about. When IBM participated in the Holocaust, would stopping that be more important, or would the priority be the sanctity of IBM's business meetings?
Dude, if you don’t think that “keeping your head down and doing as you are told” is not just a “part” but a key part of how mega-companies like Microsoft (and Apple, Meta, Google, …) work, I don’t know what to tell you.
US companies (in almost all states) have the power to hire and fire for any non-protected reason on a whim, without notice unlike most other western countries. There is little-to-no social support if you lose your job in the USA, and the market for finding another diminishes when you say “oh yeah, I publicly embarrassed my last company”. That is a recipe for living in a state of fear. That is the reality of the USA, today, whether it makes pleasant reading or not.
You are describing how things are. The post you replied to describes how things should be. Are you sure the two of you even disagree?
I guess I was disagreeing with "this isn't fucking around". Because it absolutely is, as you say, in today's USA. FWIW I have no problem with the USA moving towards more protection for its workforce, I'd encourage it, even. I doubt it'll happen any time soon though.
And even should that incredibly unlikely thing come to pass, I can't see public embarrassment of high-up muckety-mucks by worker drones working well, ever, really. "Bringing the name of the company into disrepute" etc. etc. would be all they'd need. Fired for cause, end of story.
There are ways to safely say you disagree with your company's policies, but causing a fuss with worldwide coverage at a major company event seems ... shortsighted at best. You'd be better off asking a very pointed question at one of the "Town Hall" meetings that big companies have, when executives are actually able to be challenged by the worker drones, in front of the whole company, but only the whole company. I'd see that as far more likely to actually succeed in doing something than making a public spectacle. Just MHO.
Anyone can do whatever they choose. I try not to "should". There is a potential distribution of consequences for acting in protest. The degrees to which each individual cares, knows enough to care, etc are diverse, and that diversity is important. I prefer an alternative story than "neoliberal/surveillance capitalism ftw!" and that leads to conflict, which I'm learning to navigate.
There is work you can do to help end Apple's complicity (though Microsoft is directly participating in the genocide) - you can find the folks working on Apple here: https://applesagainstapartheid.com/
[flagged]
I dunno, looks pretty bad
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/18/a-visual-guide...
No, you probably do indeed not know. Israel did not start this war. They also once withdrew from Gaza.
These facts are all very counterindicative of Israels ambition for genocide. Fairly contrary to what the defacto government of Gaza espouses.
They withdrew from Gaza, but sealed off its borders, deliberately kept it just above starvation, and kill a few hundred civilians every few years by bombing, invading, or just shooting unarmed protesters near the border fence.
What convinces me that this can be called a genocide, besides the incredibly high death toll and the utter and almost complete destruction Israel has wreaked on Gaza, are the many explicitly genocidal statements by Israeli leaders, generals, soldiers, news broadcasters, cultural figures, etc. The way Israelis talk about Palestinians is so blatantly genocidal that it's impossible to interpret the mass killing they've carried out as anything other than deliberate.
Israel wouldn't be the only country that did protects its borders because of obvious security interests. The wall they build massively reduced incidents of attacks and the almost permanent rocket fire.
Do you think these incidents did and do not happen?
This isn't "protect[ing] its borders." Israel sealed off Gaza, which isn't even Israeli territory.
Israel won't have security as long as it continues to oppress the Palestinians. I have no sympathy for their arguments about their own security as long as they continue to steal Palestinian land and kill tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Isreal didn't steal land in Gaze, they withdrew. Again, if Gaza didn't attack Israel, it would look a lot different today. That makes the genocide accusation even more off base. Perhaps you noticed that you repositioned the argument.
Also, the same can be said about Israelis. If Palestine stopped firing rockets at them, there would be less incidents. Although in that case it would probably be true.
If you want to have factual indications for the ambitions for war or genocide, look at the school curriculum in both countries.
Israel is stealing more and more Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and has no intention of ever giving up or withdrawing from those territories.
Its plan is to either confine the Palestinians into little South-Africa-style Bantustans (sorry, "Emirates," to use the preferred phrase in Israel), or to expel them altogether.
Gaza itself has been sealed off and bombed and invaded over and over again. It's a giant ghetto.
You don't need to look at the school curricula. Just look at what Israelis at all levels are saying, from the soldiers on the ground up all the way up to the Prime Minister and President. The amount of genocidal rhetoric is shocking, especially coming from a country that makes the Holocaust such a central part of its raison d'être.
[flagged]
> You cannot commit genocide through rhetoric
Maybe you've missed this, but Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and has laid utter waste to Gaza. But genocide also requires intent, and Israelis have loudly broadcast that intent to the world.
> They are taught to hate Jews from the start.
No, they aren't. They learn to hate Israelis through bitter experience. If you live under a foreign military occupation, with constant humiliation by foreign soldiers on your territory, with foreign settlers stealing more and more of your land, and with that foreign military killing tens of thousands of your countrymen, nobody has to teach you to hate that foreign country. It's actually amazing that UNRWA has managed to set up such a politically neutral education system under these circumstances.
Palestinians don't hate Jews. If you're Jewish, you can go to the West Bank. People will be friendly to you if you're sympathetic to their situation. What they don't like is Israel, the country that controls their lives and oppresses them day in and day out.
[flagged]
A country that holds millions of people under permanent military occupation is the aggressor.
> you just have to read it up as it is written down.
I'm trying to parse this. The grammar is English, but it appears to have no meaning
So basically you believe the attacks on Israel and that they still hold hostages is justified?
So basically you believe that Israel's decades-long military rule over millions of Palestinians is justified?
[flagged]
That is a pretty clear "Yes" from you and I think that precludes [note use of the correct verb] further discussion.