Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by Reedx » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #224

A small group of people always ruin these things for everyone else. ie, the people who can't handle politics and think the worlds constantly on fire so they think they're justified in ignoring social grace and time/place taboos. The internet news machines have generated many thousands of these people. I feel like they are becoming more popular and giving even less of a shit that other people don't want to be forced t…

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority

"It suffices for an intransigent minority – a certain type of intransigent minorities – to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority." [1]

That effect and illusion has really been amplified with Twitter and how the news media uses a handful of those loud voices as though they're the dominant or established opinion.

Combine that with the fact that the most intolerant don't budge, while the majority is flexible.

1) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

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

#292

Post by robterrell » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #275

maxaf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.

There are times in history and political issues where politics must spread to everywhere, including workplace. Everything must be disrupted until things get fixed. There could be general strikes etc. Like what is happening in HK for example. Where the limit goes varies. Personally I hate children and don't have them, so concentration camps for children are not the breaking point for me. For many others it may be.

...wow. Just wow.

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

#293

Post by wolco » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #246

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…

> Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an example with. It's not so extreme... I've actually experience this! I'm gay and worked with an orthodox jew in New York for many years. We got close enough to have honest conversations about how scripture literally says gay men should be put to death. For a long time he would talk his way around it. Eventually all he could say was, "it do…

Sounds like a typical story of how one changes. First it's everyone, then everyone but Mark, than everyone but people who remind me of Mark. than it's no one but Ben.

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

#294

Post by mieseratte » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

ProAm wrote: post #178

dekhn wrote: post #161

I feel like Google should have started their orientation with a link to jwz's rba gruntle (not linking because HN people hate what his referral headers redirect does). The lawyer in that article is now an SVP of Legal at Google.

> what his referral headers redirect does What's it do, first time Ive heard of that

Display some kind of sketchy image (I think it was a hairy ballsack?) and a mild rant hating on the HN crowd.

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

#295

Post by arrrg » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #262

arrrg wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue with refusing to tolerate intolerance tends to be the difficulty in defining intolerance. There are strong incentives to define intolerance as today's political foes, and weak incentives to resist this urge. For my own part, I exist in a political context where I know that lots of people want to deny my whole existence. And so long as society is willing to keep them to nothing worse than the occasional unki…

I know that this didn’t work out in the past and the result were not hurt feelings, the result were millions of murdered people. I know that tolerating intolerance is not solely to blame for that, it probably didn’t even play a major role, but it did play a role. And that‘s why I want to avoid making that deadly mistake in the future.

Yeah, deciding when it is ok is then a hard problem but I’m willing to accept that.

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

#296

Post by Kalium » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #258

dharmach wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's become something that we send disenfranchised young soldiers from poorer economic backgrounds to

I know this is an article of faith in some political circles. Promising poor kids money for killing Those Other People is the only way military service makes sense.

Just FYI, this isn't actually true. US military recruits are more likely to be from the three middle quintiles than the first or fifth. Data here: https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

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

#297

Post by munk-a » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

rollinDyno wrote: post #219

maxaf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.

To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger social mission.

That's an interesting point - especially when it comes to the urgency a lot of people feel when considering climate change.

I feel like part of the partisan leak into the workplace might be due to the lack of responsible governance that most Americans are feeling right now - since the entities responsible for fixing the big problems are out to lunch everyone is feeling a need to try and help solve those problems themselves.

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

#298

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

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…

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.

It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion.

Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguably an intellectually friendly environment, where more people than average understand how to talk in ways that get closer to truth, the inadvertent experiment conducted by Google over the past 15 years or so should hold a lot of weight.

It only makes sense that they're cutting down on something that has turned toxic. It's a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable.

It sounds like the overall cost-benefit tradeoff supports Google corporate's decision. (There were externalities beyond the discussions themselves.)

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

#299

Post by ars » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

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 mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?

Talk, when you have no ability to act, is just arguing and helps no one.

What's more worth talk about? Things you can actually act upon.

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

#300

Post by madrox » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

Where I grew up, the saying went "there are three things you don't talk about in polite company: money, religion, and politics." Where I used to work, I found out someone I worked with a lot didn't support gay marriage. I had a really hard time working with them after that.

Maybe this is the inevitable outcome of trying to make work a social hub. It's great to say that we should be able to discuss anything with anyone, but the reality is that we're not all perfectly mature people and we can't handle it.