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

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

#361

Post by pharke » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:39 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.?

Those topics are also the most likely to devolve into hostile confrontations because they are emotionally loaded and highly complex. No one person is going to be able to devise a solution to the major problems in those domains, let alone be able to hold that solution in their head and effectively argue it. This is why we have vastly complicated social and political structures for dealing with these things. It all has to be broken down into the simplest possible parts and handled in a case by case manner by whole institutions of people in order for us to even have a hope of approximating a correct solution.

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

#362

Post by d1zzy » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:40 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…

> 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.

That is likely correct but it doesn't change the fact that as an organization grows the chance to have such people in their midst grows and it's enough to have a few of these that culture shift will be required to deal with it.

That is, you can't really fire someone for "starting threads about politics at work"[1] until you come up with a rule that bars such discussions.

[1] Which of course will be portrayed by those fired as "silencing " but having published rules enforced equally usually should provide sufficient protection in court against such claims.

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

#363

Post by SolaceQuantum » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #349

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unn…

Yes, and at certain points how you refer to a person is political because they are trans, what do you do then? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a male? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a woman (if you believe referring to trans women being seen as women is a hateful thing)?

Similarly, what happens if you believe espousing homosexuality as normal is hateful? What is the sensitive, non-harmful manner to ask your co worker to never bring up his husband, ever, in the workplace?

I'm not asking meanly, I genuinely don't understand.

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

#364

Post by manfredo » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

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"

It does not silence anyone, it just means that their speech needs to take place outside the workplace.

In my experience, most people who complain that curbing political discussion in the workplace amounts to silencing them have views that are well in line with the status quo at the company.

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

#365

Post by sequoia » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:40 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.?

What's more important to talk about than your immortal soul? The problem is when I think those not saved by Jesus will burn for eternity and you think religious people are the bane of advanced civilization, and there's no way to reconcile these views, this is a problem. It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord.

Does this mean you and I cannot work together towards shared goals? I don't believe it does! We can each hold very strong and opposing views on some things, but if we both agree that e.g. we want our rivers to be cleaner, why shouldn't we work together on a river cleanup?

Forcing divisive discussions in every context makes collaboration on those goals you do share difficult or impossible. There are very good reasons to compartmentalize political/religious feelings (and the two don't seem that different these days).

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

#366

Post by gwbas1c » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #346

gwbas1c wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, now go re-read Google's official response.

Note that they did not respond to "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"

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

#367

Post by rollinDyno » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #288

rollinDyno wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone here is talking about what _should_ happen. Yes, the workplace _should_ be serene and work _should_ proceed in harmony. But there are other things that aren't proceeding the way people think _should_ be happening, which they deem to be far more important. Which is why you're seeing more people willing to disrupt the workplace, which they consider a minor obligation relative to the bigger picture.

Yup, and Google is letting those people know that there may now be consequences for their disruption. If those people still think their disruption worthwhile, they're free to proceed.

I think this is very telling, as a symptom of a diseased democracy.

People wouldn't take their fight to these environments if democracy was working, because they'd have faith in the due processes of government. But once they start thinking things aren't working, they'll go to their next seats of power. In this case it's the workplace where they can influence their coworkers and the policy of a big tech corporation.

These people are not a majority so democracy isn't fully broken yet, but the cracks are showing.

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

#368

Post by hombre_fatal » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

kranner wrote: post #26

scarface74 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most professional settings, it’s considered a norm not to talk about sex, politics, and religion unless your business is dealing with one of those areas specifically.

But do most professional settings go to this extent to police their employees: > creating a team of moderators to monitor conversations on company chat boards

HN does this, we aren't even employees, and it's far far less serious of a site than a workplace message board. HN isn't even paying for my time like my employer is.

Seems completely reasonable for an employer to moderate internal message boards, of all entities.

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

#369

Post by munk-a » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

From the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the world is on fire? What if that never happens?

I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavoidable given the cost to freedom we'd need to pay to remove firearms - please stop trying to use a tragedy politically" while the other side says "How many times does this need to happen before you realize 12,000 Americans died from this last year and I don't want my kid to be one of them."

Here's an issue where I think half the side thinks the world is on fire and the other is content - without getting into the merits of either side I do think it's unreasonable for the anti-gun control side to continue to argue against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. This is a divide we need to resolve.

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

#370

Post by microtherion » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

um_ya wrote: post #263

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".

I draw the line at compelled speech. I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you. At some point the politeness of inclusivity pervades upon the efficiency of getting your job done. Being offended and upset is a personal problem, not a public one. Requiring colleagues to bend over backwards to accommodate your needs should be a matter of politeness, not company poli…

> I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you.

Good thing, then that the debate is about third person pronouns, which are used to talk about someone, not with them.

I have literally never seen anybody use customized second person pronouns (although of course honorifics are traditional — try refusing to address a judge in court as "your honor" because you don't want to remember their honorific).