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

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

#311

Post by manfredo » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #269

manfredo wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we let literal Nazis March in Skokie. 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.

Indeed. And that is the conundrum, is it not? We absolutely cannot let evil stand when we identify evil. Otherwise, it marches in and kills many. On the other hand, if we misidentify evil, then innocent people die. I'm not saying I have a solution. But the idea that "tolerance will save us all" is hopelessly naive. The sad fact is, a large number of people are systematically intolerant.

> We absolutely cannot let evil stand when we identify evil. Otherwise, it marches in and kills many.

No, you let evil speech stand. And you call it out as evil, and make clear reasoned arguments why it is evil. That is the solution.

Only when that evil speech turns into action does the society step in.

Resorting to censorship only demonstrates weakness and an inability or unwillingness to argue against evil. This leads to people questioning whether the target of censorship really is evil at all.

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

#312

Post by refurb » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #52

refurb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If I'm working on a team that is rolling out a new Google drive feature, I really don't need to hear you talk about why drinking straws are a phallic symbol and used by the patriarchy to keep woman down. We have work to do.

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 :)

There is a time and place for political discussions.

Work isn't one of them, unless, it's directly related to the work being done.

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

#313

Post by damnyou » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

the-pigeon wrote: post #170

abeisgreat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if your work directly impacts these things as Google's often does.

For profit companies should not choose sides. Google's only discussion of politics in the workplace should be on how to make their systems be as unbiased as possible.

The problem with statements like this is that not choosing sides is exactly as political as choosing sides. There is no such thing as ignoring politics — it's an essential part of the human experience, so any organization must grapple with it.

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

#314

Post by turk73 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:22 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…

[dead]

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

#315

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

papito wrote: post #68

It's a basic "work for hire" contract between two parties. No other employer will tolerate this. If you don't like it - quit and write a blog post.

Well, no, many jobs are much more complicated than that. Honestly, a contractor relationship where you are taking orders from one person and only have to worry about what they think is refreshingly simple compared to working in a highly collaborative environment.

For example, at Google, your manager is one person whose opinions are important, but things like promotions also depend heavily on peer review and your general reputation.

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

#316

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

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…

Tolerance of someone who thinks such things is certainly possible.

Tolerance of someone who says such things in a work environment--knowing that the subject of the speech might be a coworker, boss, or direct report--is another thing entirely. Employees should not have to tolerate that, and employers should not expect them to.

To be super clear about this, making bigoted statements is a behavior in the workplace, and it is smart of businesses to set and enforce expectations for acceptable workplace behavior.

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

#317

Post by username90 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

abeisgreat wrote: post #83

gtirloni wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At work? A lot of other things.

Not if your work directly impacts these things as Google's often does.

The most political most Googlers work gets is what to call variable names. We decided to not use master/slave, so we are A-OK now!

But seriously, I know a few roles have immense influence over peoples lives, but most of us just try to efficiently plumb data we don't see between black boxes we don't understand.

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

#318

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #136

Koshkin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything is political. Math is not political.

Math is probably one of the if not the least political thing out there, but there are still politics involved. For starters, all mathematicians need funding and choosing who to fund is partially political. Deciding awards is partially political. Even the importance of taking or rejecting some axioms and if certain fields still have value for further research is political. There are even different axioms one can use t…

> Math is probably one of the if not the least political thing out there

If you can concede that some things are less political than others, then how difficult is it to assume that "No political conversations" is a shorthand for "conversations about things which are not highly political"?

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

#319

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

dragontamer wrote: post #281

Kalium wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views? Generally it's worth dividing hateful words from hateful actions. Saying something racist in hateful, and might have political or social consequences, but wise societies are aware that getting into t…

> Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views? How does ME accepting tolerance cause the OTHER guy to be tolerant as well? I don't swing the first punch during fights, but I'll absolutely punch back. That doesn't change the fact that fights hap…

> One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them.

For me, that day was a long time ago. And that was not - and is not - my defense.

That's just the facts.

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

#320

Post by UncleMeat » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #141

gwbas1c wrote: post #92

Ever since the infamous "diversity memo," (which I disagree with,) I've gotten the impression that political discussions at Google turned toxic. A well run company includes people with diverse political views points. A workplace that's hostile to anyone who leans right or leans left ultimately hurts diversity.

Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

It was not just a lit review. It drew conclusions from the synthesis of the citations and advocated for specific policy changes within Google. That was the part that pissed people off. Lots of people don't believe that the studies support the conclusions that he drew.