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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by t0astbread »

refurb wrote: post #329
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 .

I would've categorized those people as type #2. People who constantly talk about totally irrelevant topics (no matter if political or not) I would've just regarded as "chatty".

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

#342

Post by Bostonian »

jonbronson wrote: post #86
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.?

Precisely. These aren't "merely" politics. These are the issues that shape peoples lives, for now and for future generations. One of the greatest cons of all time was the casting of Climate Change as a "political" issue. It's our lives we're talking about. Our very existence.

To what extent the earth is warming is a scientific question, but what if anything should be done about it is certainly a political issue.

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

#343

Post by jimbokun »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #254
josteink wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Pretty much every political position is considered "hate speech" by people on one side of an issue or the other. The term has been over used so much it's losing much of its meaning.

> I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view.

Views: giving a speech arguing abortion should be illegal

Actions: blowing up an abortion clinic

I find it very troubling so many participants in this discussion having difficulty distinguishing between speech and action, and why they should not be treated as the same thing.

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

#344

Post by SolaceQuantum »

jimbokun wrote: post #343
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty much every political position is considered "hate speech" by people on one side of an issue or the other. The term has been over used so much it's losing much of its meaning. > I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view. Views: giving a speech arguing abortion should be illegal Actions: blowing up an abortion clinic I find it very troubling so many…

So, if my view is that trans women should be called men, and I call a trans woman at my work a man, is this speech or an action? This is where I'm having difficulty distinguishing speech and action.

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

#345

Post by alfromspace »

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.

Edgy, autistic, or all of the above?

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

#346

Post by manfredo »

gwbas1c wrote: post #239
nailer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The memo made some very poignant points, but then the author expressed some strange opinions that I would never attempt to defend. (Even worse, there was no reason to put some of these opinions in the memo.) But what's more scary is Google's official response to the diversity memo. (For context, Google instituted certain hiring policies to increase diversity, which the "diversity memo" questioned.) If you have the ti…

I read the memo before reading the media coverage. I was very surprised at how controversial it was. It's claims were pretty modest: it did not claim that women were any less capable than men at technology, and it repeatedly stated that innate differences likely do not account for all of the disparity between men and women in tech. All it argued was that just because a disparity exists we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating discrimination rather than reducing it.

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

#347

Post by d1zzy »

stcredzero wrote: post #298
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 arguab…

I agree, rules that govern large organizations didn't grow out of "mean bosses doing mean stupid things" but out of need for such a large organization to work well together. But, while that is true, it doesn't necessarily mean people will like the new Google, everyone's got their own personal taste in how the work culture should be and regardless of having very rational reasons why the culture is changing in some way, people that enjoyed the previous culture are likely to not enjoy as much the new one, resulting in increased difficulties hiring and keeping them.

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

#348

Post by magashna »

t0astbread wrote: post #272
magashna wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you demanded the "privilege" of discussing politics at work, I'd promptly not hire/fire you.

The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. * edit: changed "competition" to "opposition"

Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.

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

#349

Post by lawnchair_larry »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #321
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t care to get into it or take a position on the matter, I am just pointing out that it’s possible to have disagreements about where the boundaries are without it being the case that there is an element of hate involved.

It’s possible for someone to disagree that a man is a woman without hating them for thinking they are a woman. It’s also possible for them to be sensitive about how they express that without unnecessarily harassing or harming the other person. And it goes both ways. The degree to which others, particularly those with incompatible views, are willing to modify their own life in order to accommodate yours, is going to vary greatly. Figuring out where to compromise is the difficult part.

Do you think it’s disrespectful for someone to eat a big juicy steak at work while sitting right next to a vegan animal rights activist who sincerely feels anguish at the thought of us factory farming and slaughtering animals for food?

I think that issue is a lot simpler than some of these other issues, and yet I doubt that polite society can even agree on that.

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

#350

Post by papito »

skybrian wrote: post #315
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 gene…

That sort of "plumbing" exists in lots, if not most places. Google is not different in that sense, except for the size.
Post reply on HN