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

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

#321

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

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #240

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".

Did they call it trans hate? Or did they object to unisex restrooms and/or pronoun usage rules? I usually see “hate” used very loosely here, when the reality is much more nuanced, and mischaracterizing it as trans hate (or hate in general, for whatever the issue might be) is contributing to the problem.

Is it merely a viewpoint to disagree politely upon that people should be called using pronouns they identify as? For example, if I repeatedly called a cis woman a man, and insisted she was a male, should this be objected to any differently than if I repeatedly called a trans woman a man and insisted she was a male?

I understand the former (calling a cis woman a man and insisting on referring to her as he pronouns) to be incredibly rude. But the idea of calling a trans woman a woman is a political move?

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

#322

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

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #47

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.

Maybe they just can't no longer assume that they can get away with it and prevent leaks about their practices from becoming public.

> prevent leaks about their practices from becoming public

Google is a company that provides gyms, cooking classes, non-work discussion forums, extensive cafeteria service, massages and so on and so on to make sure employees are living within the company as much as possible.

But discussions on such random forums don't reflect company practice just as the gyms don't exist to make every employee a professional marathon runner in Team Google.

Since the forums became quite the distraction, there are more rules about them now. I'd fully expect gyms to be limited or shut down if they had adverse effects on the workplace, too.

(Disclosure: I work at Google, but the above is my very own, personal, slightly cynical take on the company)

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

#323

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

duxup wrote: post #289

lreeves wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I'm in Canada and the things Trump does and says are still present in conversations nearly every day. I'm not sure what you mean but generally in my life... I actually don't have a lot of "political" conversations every day. More often than not, none at all.

[flagged]

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

#324

Post by jimbokun » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

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.

So can we please not jump from "this person disagree with me or thinks something about my life choices are immoral" to "this person denies my whole existence"?

Yes, there are some people who fall into the latter category. But there are others somewhere in between, and it might be useful to exchange world views and increase mutual understanding, and maybe even change some minds.

I think it's ridiculous so many political discussions these days jumps to an existential fear of your side's complete eradication, and a mindset that any action is justified to avoid that outcome.

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

#325

Post by CompanionCuuube » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

SignalsFromBob wrote: post #307

nostrademons wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been at Google in 5 years but I worked with a lot of Chinese coworkers from all three of mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong when I was there (as well as ABCs of those descents). Honestly, I never saw a Chinese employee get into a political argument. Mostly they were just happy to be in the U.S. and draw a Google-level salary. ABCs (including myself) would, but usually about American politics, not Chinese…

ABCs? I don't understand. What does that mean?

American Born Chinese

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

#326

Post by Kalium » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #303

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…

I'm genuinely struggling to understand here, because on one hand you talk about tolerance being a difficult thing where we should tolerate the viewpoints of others. On the other hand you're expressing that saying somethign hateful might have political and social consequences. But I was under the impression that, in your view, saying hateful things and recieving a social consequence as a result of your hate is a sign…

Political and social consequences as distinct from legal or physical ones. Voters don't always like their candidates being hateful. I tend to drop racist friends.

I still think racists deserve emergency medical care and effective fire departments, though.

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

#327

Post by Shivetya » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 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.?

hyperbole doesn't make an argument so try it elsewhere.

the simple matter is those subjects are not likely the issue at hand but instead of politically sensitive issues. worse when one side is more than willing to declare opposition to any position as racist or bigoted because their own presumptuous moral superiority there is no room for intelligent discourse

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

#328

Post by turk73 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #292

nabla9 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say that but the person you replied to is right. Suppose China steps in and murders another 10-20,000 people. What then? Do we just look the other way and keep doing business there?

Suppose China gets really ballsy and invades Taiwan, or even Australia. What then? You still going to virtue signal about leftist bullshit or will you help defend the free world?

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

#329

Post by refurb » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

t0astbread wrote: post #308

Judging from the comments there are basically two stereotypes of people in this discussion: 1) The people who "just want to do their work". While they might care about the ramifications of what they're doing they don't think about it actively while working on it 2) The people who care A LOT about their ethics and try to respect them in whatever they do I guess both sides are important and the way Google phrased these…

You're mischaracterizing the first group.

If it's relevant to the work you're doing, then politics is fine. If's not, keep it to yourself.

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

#330

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:25 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.?

Those are indeed important. Fundamentally so. This is also why sociopaths and scoundrels will try to wrap themselves in those flags to further their own ends.

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Also, many of the taboo topics are very efficient in calling forth human group instincts and group-think behaviors. This makes the aggregate less intelligent and more prone to being led to concerted action. That is also precisely why scoundrels and sociopaths seek to be the ones out in front, waving the banners.

This is not to say that all such leaders are sociopaths. Just that everyone should be aware that there are incentives which attract them. This is also why, in traditional culture, leaders can be held to high standards.