Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#201

Post by josteink »

azffz wrote: post #128
tdb7893 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's identity like that, especially one held by some of their colleagues, should cross a line and they shouldn't be able to hide behind "conservative values".

That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not publicly state it openly at work in the first place.

So only leftist politics are allowed to be discussed openly?

That sounds like a rather discriminating and polarising policy.

And are we allowed to discuss that (clearly leftist) policy?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#203

Post by leetcrew »

lostgame wrote: post #31
scarface74 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel the need to talk about sex at work or guns?

This actually made me laugh - I couldn't agree more. Since when is sexuality an open topic at work?

I'm guessing you've never worked in a restaurant...

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#204

Post by t0astbread »

big_chungus wrote: post #129
dev_dull wrote: post #36

I expect them to loosely categorize politics, while still encouraging open corporate discussion of LGBTQ, racial, and other such issues. People may have different opinions about that.

"I expect them to block most things, but still allow things I care about but which the "other side" doesn't regard as serious issues." Fixed that for you. No one is the sole arbiter of what is "important", so I've usually found just not discussing to be the best solution at work.

But you can't tell people not to talk about anything anymore at work.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#206

Post by duxup »

oppositelock wrote: post #187

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

Help me out here.

Do you mean "internal political" as "Oh man Jimmy is in charge of gmail now!" (just a made up example of internal politics there) or "Can you belive what the POTUS did!?!?!"?

If the latter, I'm a bit surprised ... I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at work. That is absolutely a NO GO zone for me at work.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#207

Post by mancerayder »

tdb7893 wrote: post #115
SkyBelow wrote: post #64

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much…

I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's identity like that, especially one held by some of their colleagues, should cross a line and they shouldn't be able to hide behind "conservative values".

Not disagreeing with the idea that people shouldn't express hatred.

However I'm very nervous at some of the Orwellian redefinitions of words like hatred, racism, sexism, white supremacy and so forth.

Sometimes when you scratch under the surface of an accusation, you get a string. If you tug the string, it turns into a complex worldview, and it turns out the thing is a straw man used against political opponents. One red flag for this is when someone starts by saying, "So, you're really saying..." or, "The logical conclusion of your argument is..."

I was told recently that Louis CK's joke (recent underground taping that ended up on YouTube) was transphobic. I then listened to the joke and didn't come to that conclusion. Who's correct?

I read on HN someone coming out supporting law enforcement in the US. Someone responded that that made them racist, due to the history and the logic of institutional racism.

Be careful when you hear accusations.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#208

Post by major505 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #103
zarkov99 wrote: post #11

No shit. I guess Google can no longer assume that there is a single correct world view that all good and smart people hold. Who knew.

This is so hilariously wrong that I don't even know where to start. Google's culture was predicated on hiring intelligent, emotionally-continent adults. Free discussion of politics wasn't banned during my time there because everyone was capable of understanding precisely the opposite of what you're describing: that differing views on the world exist and are attributable to more than just whether someone is a good or…

Basically: One person: smart. A lot of people: dumbass idiots.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#209

Post by wutbrodo »

webwielder2 wrote: post #59

It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?

I think we pigeonhole "things that most people are too stupid and childish to discuss without losing their minds" as politics. There're a million critically important things that government does that people don't tie their identities to that we don't really count as "political discussions".

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#210

Post by dharmach »

Kalium wrote: post #135
SkyBelow wrote: post #64

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much…

Tolerance isn't considered a virtue because it's easy. Tolerance is a virtue because it's difficult . It requires us to put up with people who may adhere to worldviews we find utterly alien or hold views we find abhorrent. It's easy to come up with an example and find yourself thinking "It's unreasonable to tolerate that!". Instead, consider asking yourself why people a century ago might tolerate views you think of a…

Being difficult shouldn't make something a virtue.
Post reply on HN