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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by manfredo »

arrrg wrote: post #220
Kalium wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tolerance of someone who wants to deny your whole existence is not something anyone should ever tolerate. That‘s not a virtue, that‘s madness and potentially suicidal.

We let literal Nazis March in Skokie, the world did not end. Tolerance except for those one thinks are immoral beyond reason is gives just as much license for, say, an anti-abortion activists who genuinely sees abortion as murder to remove people who support abortion.

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

#252

Post by defen »

SkyBelow wrote: post #157
nailer wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. Do you think that's a good example of the kind of things Google staff debate about?

I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic, while at the same time not being something people here would actually debate, so as to not sidetrack the point.

The problem with your selection is that it's interpreted as the most outlandishly fringe extreme religious/conservative viewpoint, and thus it has a political angle. I would have gone with something like the government being run by lizardmen aliens (which some people in the world claim to believe).

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

#254

Post by SolaceQuantum »

josteink wrote: post #233
dragontamer wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolerance for tolerance's sake isn't useful though. The hypothetical Nazi / Hitler example shows up: if Hitler existed today, are we supposed to tolerate his views? Tolerance breaks down because morality kicks in: a good moral person tries to wipe out evil when they see evil. The problem is that we can't agree on what is, and isn't evil. Which is a problem when people increasingly believe the "other side" to be evil.…

> are we supposed to tolerate his views? His views are his own. He should be free to express them. What we wouldn’t have to tolerate was his actions , because they clearly harmed others.

Does action include hateful speech? Not being facetious just genuinely wanting to know. I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view.

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

#255

Post by AimForTheBushes »

azffz wrote: post #149
sp332 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@Pinboard (yes the pinboard.com guy) has been keeping track of political donations from big tech companies. https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1141838179936243714

What are the chances he has only been tracking donations made to right-wing groups? :') Edit: very high, it seems https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC

I don't know why you're being down voted, that's all that is showing up.

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

#256

Post by TheGRS »

cameronbrown wrote: post #84
arcticbull wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the oppressed party in your example feels the polar opposite and don't want to hear your whining about how feminism doesn't matter in modern society because it's good enough as is. And I think that's the point :)

I assume you're being sarcastic/exaggerating, but even so. This is just a perfect example of how polarised politics is today. Society just needs to calm down and evaluate itself instead of bickering over nonsense.

Yes, every meaningful change in society has come to light because everyone calmed down enough.

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

#257

Post by wtveb »

vore wrote: post #241
wtveb wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some people their sexual tastes are their only source of identity and personality, so they go all the way to make sure they're unique.

This is needlessly malicious. People have made the same argument for non-trans gay people and it's no less gross if you make it for trans gay people.

I have a solution for them: they should not express openly their sexuality. I don't care about their sexuality. Nobody cares about my or their sexuality. And if they make up a complicated sexuality and make it their identity, they should prepare to get mocked for it.

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

#258

Post by nostrademons »

dharmach wrote: post #210
Kalium wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tolerance didn't become a virtue solely because it was difficult. It became a virtue because it was difficult and the alternative was war - total, global war that could've annihilated the human race a lot more quickly than global warming.

We've largely forgotten what war was like - it's become something that we send disenfranchised young soldiers from poorer economic backgrounds to so corporations can make more money. I suspect that if people were actually faced with a direct choice between tolerance and war and could make the choice rationally, they'd choose tolerance every time. But of course, usually once wars happen it's because people are no longer acting rationally. And right now few people really believe that the alternative to tolerance is war, they just believe that the people they can't tolerate will willingly give up the beliefs they find repugnant.

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

#259

Post by lreeves »

duxup wrote: post #206
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.

I understand your perspective but I'm honestly very surprised given your example. I'm in Canada and the things Trump does and says are still present in conversations nearly every day.

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

#260

Post by skybrian »

ashwinaj wrote: post #133

Finally common sense prevails! Get to work on time, eat your free lunch, work, go home. To those of you who disagree; if you want to "make a difference" take a cue from Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther king Jr. etc. Mahama Gandhi didn't work for the East India company while simultaneously fighting for freedom. If you are serious about it put your money where your mouth is and stop being empty vessels.

This insistence on purity seems kind of naive and unsympathetic. I assume real history is more complicated. Do you really think there weren't blacks fighting for civil rights while working for racists?
Post reply on HN