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

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

#501

Post by username90 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #408

dgudkov wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in theory, a debate is a thoughtful discussion where opponents are respectful to opinions of each other and have the common goal of finding the truth. In reality, political debating at workplace quickly becomes just ugly. And for companies like Google it's also costly, because media adore leaked scandals in big corporations.

> In reality, political debating at workplace quickly becomes just ugly. I don't think it really has to. I debate politics with people at work enough. I won't get into specifics too much but it's not uncommon to meet someone who has a controversial opinion. You talk with someone, find out why they believe what they believe, and then question a few things (mostly asking why they believe they believe - what lead them t…

Do you discuss politics at work in an online forum where 100 000 persons can pitch in? It is very different from discussing politics in person, things gets way more toxic online since there are more people who can take offence so arguments often escalate.

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

#502

Post by manfredo » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:17 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.

No, being a tolerant person means tolerating people even when you find their views wrong, immoral, or heinous. There's nothing impressive about tolerating the views you like and not tolerating the views you don't.

When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed.

This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism.

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

#503

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

devy wrote: post #482

einhverfr wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU, freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion is considered a fundamental right, and is mentioned as such in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Private conversations about politics thus is entirely outside the scope of what the company is allowed to care about. Public comments, for example on global email lists, would be a different topic.

Debating politics all you want outside of work.

Yeah, it is what my colleagues and I often do over lunch break. Since it is a break, it is outside of work, right?

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

#504

Post by derefr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #387

oppositelock wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely the latter - people trying to convince others that their views on war, or abortion, or taxes, or political party are the correct ones. These are also people who are intelligent, educated, and quite arrogant, so the fireworks were pretty spectacular.

I gotta admit I'd take a peek too to watch the fireworks. But also a bit shocked how many people feel that participating is a good idea.

I'd maybe participate if it was some kind of... workplace-internal 4chan. An anonymous forum, but only available through an Enterprise SSO gateway.

Otherwise, yeah, that seems crazy.

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

#505

Post by Consultant32452 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

new2628 wrote: post #376

apple4ever wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great points. There are plenty of areas to discuss politics, and at work doesn't have to be one of them. I've studiously avoided talking to anybody at work about politics, as it usually only serves to anger people if you don't agree. I've had a successful career of doing that.

That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life, hardly any topic remains apolitical. Like that quote "you may not be interested in war, but ..."

I don't think this is true anymore. Even war doesn't impact my life. We've been at war almost 20 years now and the only difference it's made in my life is airport trips are more annoying. And even if war did impact my life more directly, I don't see how discussing it at work would be helpful in any way.

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

#506

Post by rch » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

cco wrote: post #489

nostrademons wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like they became one. The other interesting takeaway for me is how long-term equilibria can leave holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors . When Google was young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them hire people who were…

You live long enough to become a terrible company, bought by one, or go bankrupt.

Surely counterexamples exist...

W. L. Gore and Associates?

Rocky Mountain Institute?

Renaissance Technologies?

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

#507

Post by leetcrew » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #481

leetcrew wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you've never worked in a restaurant...

I hope you wouldn’t compare the level of professionalism expected at a restaurant to what you should expect in an office setting.

of course not. I'm just making the point that a lot of folks might go their entire lives without working in such a stuffy environment as the modern office. and yet, life goes on.

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

#508

Post by nullc » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for different candidates?

If discussions are leading to credible allegations that a company was promoting candidates using their marketing resources in violation of campaign finance laws, it would be easy to understand why they might want to get those discussions offline.

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

#509

Post by jachee » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #333

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.

Be careful that you do not want to deny their whole existence in return. The example given was a gay person who encounters someone (a Muslim, say) who thinks they should be sentenced to death. But if the gay person decides in response that Islam should be eradicated, that's (at a minimum) cultural genocide. Note well: I am not an apologist for Islam. I consider their theology to be wrong. But in opposing them, don't…

There's a significant difference between an ideology and an identity.

Eliminating the former is not genocide, eliminating the latter is.

Why—whenever the question of hate comes up—is HN so quick to rise to the defense of the hateful?

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

#510

Post by fauigerzigerk » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

rollinDyno wrote: post #332

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…

I hear you, but have you considered that the world's actually on fire? Perhaps you wouldn't notice because you don't live in the Amazon. I don't mean that seriously, but it does serve a point. How can you tell if people are just ranting "because of the internet" and not because they are suffering and think your political inaction is contributing to their pains? Because of your comment I will try to be more cautious a…

There's a difference between ranting on a subject and creating this "You're either Wonkru or you are the enemy of Wonkru. Choose!" kind of atmosphere on a permanent basis.

The former can be eye opening and it can provide the necessary emotional push to get something rolling. The latter is meant to shut others down and suppress opinions - it's a playground for sociopaths thriving on ad hominem aggression.