Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

I think humility of knowing how little any single individual knows, and how much "details" matter, would be much better attitude for everyone to take, rather than thinking the truth is easy, even for seemingly basic stuff.

Talking politics at work is only ok if it's left wing. Mocking Trump and his voters, calling people racist and morons, that gets you an applause. Showing understanding for the opposite site gets you in trouble. That's chapter one of "surviving in the workplace in 2018".

> Google invented infantilism of their workers. They invented basic colors, office slides, and office ball pits. They make new employees wear propeller hats.

In 1999/2000 I was riding office slides at excite@home[1], and jumping in ball-pits at idealab when Google wasn't at all noteworthy except that their fans were exhausting directly into mine from their adjacent cages at globalcenter.

> They want a naive "ender's game" work force while their business of monitoring the web browsing and location of hundreds of millions of people is actually very serious.

Interesting choice of comparison, as Ender's Game is frequently criticized being an apologia for Hitler[2][3] or a Handmaid's tale for conservatives. Fanboy thugs of Card's "Handmaid's tale for conservatives". and fanboy thugs of Orson Scott Card were encouraged to attack the writers who posed this argument[4]. Card himself is a rather outspoken conservative and homophobe[5], [6] whose work is primarily about encouraging mormon ideals/moral absolutism and has essentially called for an anti-gay genocide[7].

Ender's brother and sister over the world by putting on online personaes, Locke and Demosthenes of both the right and left soas to control popular opinion by owning both sides of the debate. In a way was sort of a guidebook to modern right-wing political strategy. In a subsequent book, Ender moves to a world colonized by Brazilians. Brazil itself was a favorite post-WW2 hiding spot for Nazis.[8]

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Who-killed-Excite-ho... [2] https://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html [3] http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm [4] http://atdt.freeshell.org/k5/story_2005_5_28_22428_7034.html (postscript section) [5] https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/arti... [6] https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/sci_fi_icon_orson_scott_car... [7] http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2013-05-09-1.html. [8] https://www.history.com/news/how-south-america-became-a-nazi...

I was wondering about the abundance of propeller hats in the audience, if it's some insider joke or what. But seriously, new employees have to wear propeller hats?!

Is this really the top rated comment? sigh, I think we can do better.

> We owe no consideration to deliberately-destructive trolls...

Oh man, here we go. Look, there are trolls and there are populists and fascists and neo-Nazis and anarchists and racists and scumbags and dickheads and all of those NAMES out there. Yeah! Fuck those NAMES! BURN!

..it fixes nothing to piss further into the pool. And then to turn around and call it fixed, or not fixable. How does that fix anything to be nasty right back and then convince yourself you can ignore them? That by ignoring them you are ignoring all this nastiness? Don't you think your nastiness validates their nastiness, even if you think anti-nastiness nastiness will make things better? That's a trap. We're all devalued when we inject even more bad karma into this crap ball.

We need to define ourselves by what we want the culture to be, not by the people who think are our political enemies.

So, how about instead: we actually define what is acceptable in our culture and where the line is. And then when people step over the line, we don't demonize them as bad people who seek to wreck all that is holy and good, we point out how they violated the acceptable cultural norms in a non-aggressive, non-offensive way. And then we consistently return to actions and words and not assumptions of motives and further othering of people. That way, instead of the dialog being about people's feelings and motivations, it's about how they violated the norms by actually doing something that is in direct violation of our acceptable norms, e.g. personal insults.

> Breitbart, OTOH, is precisely a harmful entity seeking to undermine all that is decent and good.

See. You are getting precisely nowhere with this, unless you consider polarization to be somewhere. I mean, seriously. What the heck do you expect? This is no dialog. They're just all bad people who hate, hate, hate. So you hate them back. Cycle.