[jimmy1]

> but I don't understand your defeatism.

> I publicly resigned from Google

Because for every one that resigned, there are most likely hundreds that stay.

I do admire your courage and willing to take a stand. In the face of an oppressive government like China I hope I would have the courage to do the same.

[PavlovsCat]

I for one refrain from what I consider evil for my own sake, not for the sake of whoever might perpetrate it instead of me. And I also think it's a misconception that being complicit with evil is safer than resisting it -- the instant gratification may be higher, but that is still invisibly small vs. the long tail of not giving in. I'd be too afraid to throw away what little innocence I may have, for nothing substantial in return. I'm not being idealistic at all, I simply cling to the solid ground I am on, and it's actually kinda easy to defend that against people who are on sand and their weapons made of smoke. Only I could make myself lose what I "have", just like I can't "give" it to anyone else. For me that's not the brave choice, it's the safer one.

[idrios]

Possibly, but American culture can actually be very good at taking collective action. In fact it can be so effective that often the way for special interest groups to push an agenda is to sway public opinion about a topic.

[DyslexicAtheist]

public opinion is an illusion in a world shaped by minority interest groups. It doesn't matter if it's neocons pulling the strings or the neoliberals in power. The outcomes are devastatingly destructive policies to line the pockets of the 1% at the expense of nature and the rest of us.

If we remember Occupy Wallstreet and look at how many people have been placed on lists, or how many protesters got hurt, in comparison with what the movement achieved, then it's proof that leaflet-campaigns achieve nothing. The bankers are still not held accountable a decade later and continue to collect fat bonuses all around the world. Peaceful protests aren't the solution. Anyone who reads history knows peaceful discourse has never triggered change when it mattered.

Peaceful protests are just a lot of noise. Ranting on facebook or twitter unfortunately solves nothing. Real action is painful and people (often millions) die. That's the only time when change happened in the past. Denying this is wishful thinking (at best) and akin to white-washing history (at worst).

"War on the planet" is happening as we speak. Yet all people do is talk while we're getting boiled like proverbial frogs. We rather engage in wishful thinking that tech / science (our new substitute religions) will solve these problems (what else to tell kids in their 20ies today?). The reality on how change can happen is bleaker. A whole spectrum of options are available - but none of them are peaceful. It essentially involves getting rid of at least 2/3 of the global population to give the planet a chance of recovery from humanities crimes against the planet.

With the compounded damage from climate change and global dimming, even if the human population is reduced to 10K surviving individuals, it's still no guarantee that the planet survives in that case.

So leaflet campaigns and peaceful discourse are laughable considering that all humans do in the face of these terrors is to engage in identity politics and fight for individual "rights" instead of talking about responsibilities.

EDIT: clarity/typos

[aaronbrethorst]

I don’t recall OWS as having any concrete goals or demands. Seems hard to achieve a goal without having defined one.

[DyslexicAtheist]

they did make demands[1][2] many of them such as reducing corporate power, forgive student loans, ...

But the fact that these weren't only ignored but didn't even result in a meaningful discussion is exactly my point.

[1] 10 Demands Being Made By The Wall Street Protesters https://www.businessinsider.com/finally-specific-demands-fro...

[2] PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of 'demands' https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/oct/3/...

[def_true_false]

> Ranting on facebook or twitter unfortunately solves nothing.

As opposed to ranting on HN?

[DyslexicAtheist]

same difference. and for the record I don't exclude myself.

[MRD85]

And tons that will be willing to replace them.

[PavlovsCat]

Anyone who says "but others will do it instead" to excuse something they're doing is those other people. And someone doing something evil that I chose to not do doesn't actually replace me -- I'm still me, and I'm still glad to have made that choice.

[defen]

Indeed. People are morally responsible for what they actually do; not for their presumed actions in someone else's alternate reality.

[thisisweirdok]

I don't think anyone's using that excuse to justify working for Google, I think they're just saying that a small number of people quitting Google isn't nearly enough to stop them.

Google employs at least 20k engineers. I'd be shocked if 100 quit over this news.

Google could be murdering kittens to cool servers with their blood and you could probably find enough competent engineers to keep 10 Google's fully staffed. The vast majority of people do not give two shits.

[PavlovsCat]

An infinite number of people working for Google cannot stop me from not working for them. Which makes no difference to them and all the difference to me.

Everybody dies anyway, nobody is remembered, or gets to keep anything; we can build what we want, end result is the same. The only brief moment of reality is our experience of the universe and the kind of life we lead, and if what you claim true for "the vast majority of people" was true, IMO that would just mean the vast majority are deeply sick and probably frightened shitless of death. That'd no doubt be very important for them, but how would it matter for me? Should I jump into their pool, to drown alongside them and make them feel better?

[netsec_burn]

Wonderfully put.

[PavlovsCat]

I'll take credit for stealing well from good people, but no more :)

https://pastebin.com/gPgy648A

[thisisweirdok]

I agree with you. I wouldn't work there. All I'm saying is that people aren't making as big a deal of a deal as they should be if they want it to change.

I'm also saying that people who are saying this will hurt Google or make it hard for them to hire new people are flat-out wrong.

[kortilla]

You’re missing the point. It’s not about whether or not you can pat yourself on the back on your deathbed for not working for google. The point is that if we want to make a meaningful difference to stop google, it takes more action than inaction.

All it takes is for a few good people to do nothing...

[PavlovsCat]

It absolutely starts with not being complicit though, and not diminishing a moral decision as being valuable in and of itself.