People need a boogeyman because the real world is far too complex to comprehend, so having puppeteering bad guys is easier to deal with than reality of people actually having genuine beliefs that you don't agree with.
There definitely is some Antisemitism, though I don't think that's the main driver, the left also chastises Sheldon Adelson, who is also jewish.
I'm trying to connect this with the words preceding it. Do you think the left chastises Adelson for anti-Semitic reasons?
He did not produce the crisis. He observed, rightly, that the pound was massively overvalued and that this was not sustainable.
He bet the bank on this fact and won.
He certainly didn't produce the crisis.
Soros would be the boogyman regardless, it comes down to the fact that he's pouring tons of money into political causes. Like the Koch brothers do on the other side. It's simple. No need to add additional theories.
i find this amusing. some of the right (those who aren't pro-israel) DO believe in social justice when it applies jews (who do in fact make up a majority of the top 1%), and the left believes in social justice when it applies to whites.
you should at least be able to discuss both sides without "racist!", "cuck!", or in this case, "antisemitism!". I don't use any social media so maybe there's something i'm not picking up on.
In particular, OSF backed the pro-Western side in Ukraine. This has resulted in a well-funded disinformation campaign against it and him by Russia.
However everything I have heard him about his didn't come from credible sources. I've honestly wondered for a long time as well.
The key thing about those sorts of things is that the lack of evidence is itself evidence of the grand conspiracy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/isra...
The "Open" in "Open Society Foundation" also has nothing to do with "Open Borders". A open society is defined by freedom of speech, equality before the law, high social mobility, more interested in trying new ideas than in defending the status quo, etc.
It's the same ideology that made him spend his first billion on fighting the communists in the 1980.
1. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/29/18037580/pittsburgh-shooter-a...
edit: added reference for downvoters.
The left’s complete failure to understand the other side is why they were so shocked that Trump got elected. And it looks like we are in for a repeat in 2020, since they’ve learned nothing.
Those right-leaning voters are not pro-Israel because they like jews, they believe that if jews return to Israel it will bring about the apocalypse and they will be saved [1]
Also I don't think 2020 will be anything but a massive rebuttal to Trump and Republicans...
https://www.nbcnews.com/card/almost-six-10-americans-believe...
If you can point me to a left-wing agitator violently attacking Jewish people over the actions of Sheldon Adelson I'd love to see it.
Otherwise this is just intellectually-lazy "Both-sides"ism.
He also gave a very poor and ill-advised interview, where he once stated that (despite being Jewish) he helped Nazi's confiscate properties from Jews in a sixty minutes interview.
He stated that he didn't help later in the interview, but the damage was done.
Can you all please just leave? Is there some acceptable amount of collateral damage for you to maintain your lifestyle?
I’ll personally help you reconnect to your purpose and go out and live a life you’ve dreamed of.
Go start a company better than Facebook and hire all the people.
Do consider leaving if you think it is warranted (personally, I do), but do not rush. Write a short note to yourself on what you want to do and why, then think hard about this at least once a week, but keep going for a month. If in a month this still seems like the way to go, leave (and if not, stay; there is no shame it that).
That way you also build up resolve to stick to your guns if you get a last minute appeal to stay -- this is a lot easier if you thought about your decision for a long time and decided that what you are doing is right for you. My 2c.
If you work at Facebook, I'm reasonably certain you (including family) won't starve. By delaying you will also risk losing the courage of conviction. Because anger dulls over time.
Delaying also diminishes the effect of leaving, because the causality is no longer obvious. Imagine the power a mass exodus would have! With the significance the workforce has in this sector, it would instantly become the most significant motivation to behave ethically beyond the minimum required by law.
Hold on a sec... what do you mean by this?
How is using WhatsApp or Instagram not essentially the same thing as continuing to use Facebook?
Just to add: I also don't use Whatsapp.
I refuse to touch any property, which is connected in any way with this evil, slimy carbuncle of a company. No matter if I'm slightly inconvenienced in the process.
It sounds so easy, but unfortunately it's not feasible in a lot of cases. As an example, my entire social group organizes just about everything through Facebook events.
Monthly music quiz, including signup and updates about subjects and prizes, Christmas/Easter/others lunchs, pre-concert meetups, festival line-up "study group", and all the other various get-togethers. All discussion about these subjects happens in FB groups.
FB Messenger is the IM platform here in Denmark. WhatsApp is a very distant second.
Quitting FB cold turkey would cut me off from a lot of social interaction. Not with my closest friends of course, but with everyone else. And all of my closest friends use FB Messenger exclusively. I've tried getting people to adopt Signal or Slack or just something other than FB, but so far haven't had any success. There's too much friction, and FB has the userbase and appropriate lineup of features.
If all the `ethically conscious' engineers leave FB (which will not happen), what FB will do is that it just recruit engineers who are less aware of the wrongdoing of FB, who are less likely to challenge a company policy that people consider unethical.
Think of Google and DoD. If those Google employees who opposed the deal all walk away, then Google will just carry on working with DoD and let engineers who don't care if their work will be used to kill people to work on it.
(Using a green account because I don't want the above rant to appear in my main account's posting history.)
If you just leave, nothing changes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentago...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/technology/google-employe...
The solution for Facebook employees is not to leave, it's to organize. If Facebook employees were organized they'd have power, and then they could use that power to force management to stop running the company in ways that make them ashamed to tell people they work there.
Which, alas, may not be the best and the brightest.
The argument about others just replacing you is, of course, best known from chess, where it's called the "German Defense" and consists of everyone pretending they are just pawns.
Practically, there is also the almost tautological fact that whatever replacement can be found is second-best (if that). With these tech giants essentially hiring everyone that meets requirements, 20% of tech workers taking a stand will effectively mean a reduction of their workforce by the same amount, unless they are willing to lower standards.
If employers publicized such questions now, it could discount the future value of having worked at fb.
If you were to evaluate each of the big companies, most of them have done some really shady stuff to get a leg up.
(Many of the websites out there I’ve created are legacy or not longer maintained by me.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
If you read it carefully you can see each one of them never truly felt they are at any blame till their last breadth. If as humanity some of us could be put in charge of putting fellow humans through gas chambers and treat it as "just another job", then I doubt some engineer at Facebook coding all day would have a guilty conscience.
Edit: I stand corrected - only FEW of these felt like they were at any fault at all.
That's not accurate, even based on the link that you provided. That page explicitly states that 5 of the 24 in that table "expressed repentance" in the notes.
EDIT: you certainly can look down on people for whatever, i just don't think it's justified in this case.
The guy manufactured the 1997 asian financial crisis.
It's also true that both are engaged in various forms of activism.
What their goals are seem to be different, though, and as far as I can tell, though, it's more frequently true that the Kochs are actually doing the things "the Left" calls out than it is that George Soros is actually doing the things that "the Right" calls out. So it's possible there are important differences between the two that "the same damn people" papers over.
The right is far less concerned with the actions of the Koch brothers who are massive polluters due to their work around oil.
That said, it's disingenuous to insist all criticism of Soros is from anti-Semites. While many people on the right do believe lots of absurd conspiracy theories about Soros, I believe only a small percentage of those people are anti-Semites or intend any anti-Semitic undertones in their criticism. Mention of Soros is definitely an anti-Semitic dog whistle for alt-right/far-right people, but it's not for a lot of other people who are right-adjacent. The majority of conservatives who complain about Soros probably aren't anti-Semites; I bet you'd find massive overlap with support for Israel, for example.
It is certainly possible that some of the conspiracy theories originate from anti-Semitic sources, but as they trickle down to the general public, you'll see that most conservatives basically just consider Soros the left-wing version of the Koch brothers - a billionaire who's funding everything they dislike. Which isn't wrong, to an extent.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-...
As an example of the disconnect there, consider the influx of individuals trying to claim refugee status in Israel and Israel's reactions [1], against what Israeli media openly declares "infiltrators". Israel's actions here have drawn the ire of groups directly supported by Soros' organizations. The point is that just because a Jewish man happens to be one of the most well known names associated with globalism hardly means that globalism is now suddenly a secret word for Jew. It doesn't even make any sense.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_from_Afric...
Typical republican conservatives tend to be the opposite of antisemitic. They are very pro Israel, for instance. They are the people who might applaud Trump for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
There's a twinge of antisemitism that creeps in on the fringes of the left too, also stemming from Israel (and its conflict with the Palestinians).
I don't agree with it, but i see the hypocrisy in being able to talk about whites (who make up the majority of the top 10%), but not the jews (who make up a majority of the top 1%).
I'm in the camp that recognizes success, but seeks to be associated with it and emulate it rather than "dog-whistle" as you say (I work at a jewish company)
https://www.wired.com/story/how-peter-thiels-secretive-data-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17054740/palantir-predict...
Let's start with Palantir?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Controve...
I won't deny that he seems to be a very skilled investor though.
That being said, I have no sympathy for billionaires who act in an activist way (be that right or left leaning)
> Color of Change is a not-for-profit civil rights organization. It receives some money from Soros
It's remarkably bold to suggest that every "conspiracy theory" about Soros is nonsense in response to an article that explicitly says that the claims his critics made about him were true.
He is definitely not a fan of the way social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market, but that doesn't mean you can ignore criticism of said social media companies.
But the narrative that Facebook's PR firm is pushing is that you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings. It's a dog whistle.
https://www.nemil.com/tdf/part1-employees.html
Management will laud what employees do, show them selective facts that justify their views, and hire/promote those who behave similarly to them. Employees in isolated teams with training in a single function may not realize the broad, unintended effects of their company's work. They'll assume the best of their friends and coworkers, without inquiring into the larger effects they're having.
Not sure why the surprise. Pretty obvious that FB (and all other entities) will use it's power only to advance its own interests.
> People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me" Dumb fucks.
- Mark Zuckerberg
"Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, lobbying a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic.
In Washington, allies of Facebook, including Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, intervened on its behalf. And Ms. Sandberg wooed or cajoled hostile lawmakers, while trying to dispel Facebook’s reputation as a bastion of Bay Area liberalism."
In other words, they hired someone to make racist claims, and then hired someone to call anyone who criticized facebook racists. Then they got engaged with political groups on both sides, to play into stereotypes.
This is literally the tactics that Putin used in the last election. I wonder who he got it from
Also, describing him as a philanthropist and not mentioning his shady businesses like causing "Black Wednesday" or what he did to Thailand is... curious.
And the fact he's Jewish doesn't make looking into his actions racist.
because some people criticize george soros for antisemitic reasons, automatically all criticism of george soros is antisemitic?
then again this opinion is from ADL which states that anti zionism is automatically anti semitism (effectively calling huge numbers of hassidic jews anti semitic)
oops, i criticized. must be a nazi.
