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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by Shish2k »

devy wrote: post #428

This article makes it seem like debating politics is a good practices in workplace. It is NOT! Talking politics in workplace is not professional - different political opinions can wreck marriages, it can certainly wreck your job too! Just think about what if your boss is having a completely different political opinions than what you belief. Also any major corporations leaning one side of the political party would imm…

> This article makes it seem like debating politics is a good practices in workplace. It is NOT!

This seems very straight forward and clear cut - one question though: can you define "politics"?

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

#823

Post by olalonde »

malvosenior wrote: post #809
justforyou wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search is an intensely political issue, we're just used to ignoring that particular aspect.

Search is entirely a technical problem. There are literally no politics involved.

Sadly, a lot of people genuinely believe that everything is political. I recently expressed hope for the "no politics" guideline of HN be more strictly enforced and was told that "not talking about politics is politics". Frustrating to deal with this mindset...

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

#824

Post by FussyZeus »

mancerayder wrote: post #791
FussyZeus wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except by virtue of being neutral/centrist/apolitical, you are in fact still making a political statement in favor of the status quo. I’m not commenting on Google allowing or disallowing. I don’t really care and to be honest, if my workplace has a discussion board internally I’d probably not talk politics on it anyway. What I will say though is I think it’s interesting that google found it appropriate to allow it whe…

He didn't say he had neutral views, he said he wanted a neutral work environment. The attempt to guilt people into rolling around in the mud, or perhaps 'resistance' as you call it, is exactly the mentality that's ruining political conversation for everyone else.

But again, that presumes it's possible to detach politics from everyday life, work included. It isn't. You can pretend they aren't there, but before you just sign up for that, you might want to consider which groups of people benefit from you doing that.

I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything. If anything, I'm putting forth the call to action to recognize that being apolitical hurts almost everyone, yourself included. You may be apolitical, but your boss probably isn't. Your landlord probably isn't. Your local politicians definitely aren't. The owner of your workplace almost certainly isn't, either. And all of those people have the capacity to make their lives better, by politicking in a way that will make your life worse.

I don't care what side people want to get on. I just want them to know that whether they've chosen one or not, they are on one.

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

#826

Post by Tempest1981 »

einhverfr wrote: post #615
devy wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debating politics all you want outside of work.

Its worth noting my colleagues and I have very different political views when we talk over lunch but I find it very insightful to see different views and we are all on good terms over it all. And I think we do think about eachother's views and we do try to build common ground, so frankly I find it healthy.

I think that can work for a small group at lunch, and it's great to see. The problems begin on large faceless email/message groups, where the dynamic is less personal.

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

#827

Post by agentofoblivion »

LordFast wrote: post #466
jgunsch wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since. On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and…

Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…

I think you raise a good point about the nature of a for profit organization and it’s design being optimized for a particular thing, which is very much not a thing meant to generate good answers to tricky political questions that impact a whole lot of people/things. In reality, it’s headquarters is in a politically radical place where conservative voices have a helluva hard time speaking up because they could face career backlash by dissenting with the overwhelming majority views in those rooms, which are not representative samples of America. Google decision makers are not designed to be accurate representatives of America’s constituents.

Ideals aside, I think there’s a clear business reality that the radical left employee base is giving google a lot of headaches. Many might argue this is for the better, but that’s mostly because they have similar political sentiments. It seems like woke culture has made google a very tense place and is gobbling them up.

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

#828

Post by tunesmith »

gm678 wrote: post #680
tunesmith wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people can handle civil discussion with people of differing values, and some people can't. I wonder what the difference is, I mean beyond just painting someone who can't as a jerk. I think it has to do with learned skills of emotional self-regulation... someone with those skills is better able to hold their perspective while allowing that of another. But how does one learn that? It might have to do with safety.…

While I absolutely agree that there are people of all political beliefs who have major problems with remaining civil, I think we sometimes have an unfair standard. If someone is dealing with people who just want to spread hate and have no interest in having an open-minded discussion or ever changing their views, and that person then betrays even a hint of frustration, they are often immediately slammed for becoming i…

Yes, I do think it's far easier for someone to phrase toxic and hateful views in a civil manner, than it is for someone to hear it and respond in a civil manner.

I wonder though if there's a conflation here between dealing with the argument itself, and dealing with all the social realities of being subjected to the person making it - how threatening they appear, how connected their beliefs are to impending action, how confrontative the exchange is, etc. Like, it's totally fair to believe that the person making the argument is dangerous, and respond emotionally from that. It doesn't mean that it's the argument itself that is being responded to - the argument might instead be evidence of impending dangerous behavior, which is different. It also doesn't mean that the argument itself is dangerous - the danger might entirely come from the circumstances, like if the argument is being used as a physical threat.

Like, I don't know, imagine it's Joyce Brothers making the hateful argument, from her hospital bed with a cocktail in her hand. It might be easier to engage with the argument in that case - to determine if it's based off of incorrect facts, bad reasoning, or just hateful premises that can't be challenged.

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

#829

Post by sciurus »

justforyou wrote: post #640
malvosenior wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The discourse around the James Damore memo, as divisive as it was, felt like it still led to a broader understanding of the negative perspectives women in tech had to deal with constantly. Damore was fired for his contributions to this "conversation". Hardly just. > particularly the ones who felt it was worth staying and using their influence internally to push Google toward creating a more just world. How about ju…

Search is an intensely political issue, we're just used to ignoring that particular aspect.

What results should you and I see when we search Google for gun control? Global warming?

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

#830

Post by tomcam »

einhverfr wrote: post #572
sarbaz wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice? I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power…

I think the problem is that the US has developed for various reasons (including a lack of discussing politics) a series of echo chambers and people don't connect politically beyond their echo chambers. In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. The first of…

Any citations for “Business Liberalism view of the elite GOP members such as the Koch brothers”? Unable to confirm this term
Post reply on HN