851–860 of 872 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't solicit opinions on the matter, don't be dishonest.
Yes they did. The post was on an internal board which, if I understand right, was in response to a question by Google management about their diversity practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes. It's not a written definition. It's a living and changing definition created by the people who work there and how YOU make them feel. You need to use your people skills in order to extract the definition from your co-workers. Agreed, but that's my very complaint! As they say, the pendulum has swung too far! (In my opinion, of course.) > Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society! D…
> Agreed, but that's my very complaint! As they say, the pendulum has swung too far! (In my opinion, of course.) I'm glad we're finally getting to some sort of consensus that this is firmly in the realm of human relationships and has little to do with facts and more to do with opinions. Your co-workers' opinions of you are very important. Like it or not, fair or not, that is never going away. Fortunately you have som…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. I'm from India, living in the US, for quite some time I thoroughly enjoyed the FoS and FoE concepts exercised in the public (IMO, India is nowhere close to such freedom), but the levels of political correctness among peers seems to be a little too suffocating, which is exactly the thing I miss from my Indian experience. It's like the moment you try to have a conversation about some serious topic, yo…
From speaking with Indian colleagues I got the impression that talking about politics is the most common water cooler topic, is that true everywhere? In the end I got bored hearing about Modi all the time.
If you hear only Modi idolization, it can be boring. But if it is critiques of his policies (good/bad) you may feel it's a paradigm shift in progress in the worlds largest democracy.
Nothing wrong in you finding it boring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you completely misunderstand me. A bit my fault cause I usually plan out how I argue and I honestly did not expect this type of questioning. I'll reiterate my first comment in that I know the guy's libertarian (I think, definitely not alt right)? I mean shit, this whole argument has nothing to do with whether I want to listen to his arguments. It was an explanation of how silly things like this happen in the…
I'll point out how you started this thread: > I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right. Through all this, I still don't understand what you think he did to "present" himself as alt-right? I really hate when people put labels on others just to be able to dismiss them and calling someone alt-right should be backed up with a little bit of evidence.
The books except the one about presidents (which seems to be just history) and the Iraq war piece (which was in the tail end of being career-ending if you criticized), the organization he co-founded, and the speeches he's done that aren't about Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This perspective seems like to highly downplay the issues of working on a team at a software company. Independent of the ideological and political battles that this manifesto controversy is but one example of, there have been more and more reports of issues at tech companies about "brilliant assholes" who are able to do the technical work yet create toxic environments for others to work with. Are you saying all of th…
> Are you saying all of those projects at Google are owned by individuals who don't spend time interacting with others on the codebase No. That's not a reasonable interpretation of anything I said. All the programs I mentioned are written by groups of people. Despite that if you measure each hour in their day and classify it as "in front of a machine" vs "in front of people" you will find nearly all are in the first…
Sure, you can say time spent in front of a machine is the value center, and time spent interacting with others (in interminable meetings, at stand-ups, etc.) are cost centers. But it's generally accepted around here that neglecting cost centers is a strategic miscalculation, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees. Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? > be afraid to express. They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of co…
> In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. It's open, but you'll be fired. > Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017, then yes I consider it unreasonable. All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in…
If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment then people will not talk about it and the 30% or so who agree with that memo will continue agreeing with it in private and maybe talk about it in echo chambers like redpill on reddit but will not talk about it publicly.
So, they will not be able to see the other side point of view, they will not be able to evolve their thinking.
The problem is that this phenomena is not limited to Google, it's also in campuses and it means that while Americans have "free speech", they need to self-censor if they do not want to compromise their careers. And I don't believe that people who are hiding their opinion can be convinced and can change their mind. This, I believe is why Trump ended up winning (which to me is a catastrophe for all of the things I care about).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be clear, a private company in the US cannot stop you from discussing anything at work but reserves the right to fire you at will, including for discussions it deems unproductive. There is zero difference in practice. If I'm fired and can't come to work anymore, the discussion has been stopped, no? Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something.
You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum. It's just a private place of business. You can do what you want but employment is at will. By all means, you should be free to discuss whatever you like, but a company is perfectly free to fire you so you have more time to continue your discussions elsewhere
I am? I never claimed any such thing.
My question is clear, no? Is there any practical difference between employers (supposedly) not being able to restrict your speech at work, but being able to fire you for whatever they want?
Great perspective. As a Northern European having dealt with American company ownership I don't think the main problem in Google's case was political correctness but rather a general American problem with how free speech is defined in the US. Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms. This shows up clearly with respect to s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll point out how you started this thread: > I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right. Through all this, I still don't understand what you think he did to "present" himself as alt-right? I really hate when people put labels on others just to be able to dismiss them and calling someone alt-right should be backed up with a little bit of evidence.
I hinted it earlier, but if you insist: The books except the one about presidents (which seems to be just history) and the Iraq war piece (which was in the tail end of being career-ending if you criticized), the organization he co-founded, and the speeches he's done that aren't about Israel.