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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by einhverfr »

wilg wrote: post #818
einhverfr wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because to vote for someone defending PRWORA would be a betrayal of what my family went through. It was at that point vote third party or stay home. I think if I had it to do over again I would vote third party.

How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)?

> How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)?

How do you weigh two options when one has a record of imposing very long-term harms (PRWORA has now been on the books for almost 30 years and if you remember her response to Sanders' accusation she helped round up the votes for PRWORA, it was to defend the law) vs a more acute set of insecurities?

That's the choice between measles (orange, fast-spreading, kill you or you recover) and polio (not orange, slower spreading, you might not ever fully recover). So I am not entirely sure from the perspective of being married to a non-American who was the lesser evil except to say they were both genuinely horrifying.

Theres a second very important point here as well. If the issues that matter to my family (for example, full inclusion in the protections of the working classes -- even we knowledge workers are working class) are not on the table, withholding my vote may be the only way to get them on the table at all, and voting for someone who has actively worked against those interests is a betrayal of that.

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

#902

Post by panda88888 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #339
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression has not been that the memo is when political discussions turned toxic, but merely the first time it very publicly breached the sacred wall of non-disclosure with the outside world. Prior to that, most everyone seemed content to be upset with each other internally.

Shortly before the memo, there were stories and comments in HN about problems inside Google. I vaguely remember a story about someone in HR getting fired because they didn't pull a white male out of the running for a job. (The details are too fuzzy at this point.)

This one?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500974

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

#903

Post by scoobyyabbadoo »

freshhawk wrote: post #861
scoobyyabbadoo wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a bunch of tech workers be administering justice? We've elected government officials to handle that.

"Freedom is a verb", "citizenship", whichever of the many versions of the objection to that idea are all available. We elected officials to administrate it only, these ideals are done by everyone.

>We elected officials to administrate it only, these ideals are done by everyone.

That's mob rule / vigilantism.

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

#904

Post by whiddershins »

jgunsch wrote: post #448
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 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…

Where in your comment do you show any indication you understand your views are very much both subjective and opinion and based on your necessarily limited lived experience?

In the few concrete examples you have, your wording implies a one sided take on various controversial topics.

People who think like that aren’t creating a “just world” by any definition I agree with. It’s more an example of the truism that the most dangerous people are the ones who are convinced they are acting from a place of moral correctness.

These people aren’t the solution, they are the problem.

And they can’t be reasoned with because they can’t see that, which is why they can’t stamp the problem out.

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

#905

Post by closeparen »

magduf wrote: post #531

This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and c…

Many of my teammates are immigrants. Visa related uncertainty and progress are major parts of their lives. The H1-B renewal lottery colors all future plans. Finally getting a green card is like having a child or buying a house. When the President tweets about blowing up NAFTA, my colleagues on TN-1s can no longer be sure which country they'll live in six months from now. We tried to go for drinks and couldn't get into the bar: my work friend's driver license is expired and she can't get a new one while her visa application is in a queue somewhere at DHS.

If we know each other at all as people, immigration policy certainly comes up.

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

#906

Post by tjpnz »

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…

>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?

I'm often stuck in the elevator with Googlers (our office is on the same floor as one of theirs). Some of the stuff that I end up overhearing is particularly jarring. It's not really the opinions but the self entitlement that makes me wish we had faster elevators.

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

#907

Post by philshem »

joshuamorton wrote: post #579
brodouevencode wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilariously too, they're agreeing with Rush Limbaugh: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/05/everything_is_...

No they're agreeing with early 20th century communist theorists like Marx. The left has always biased toward the idea that social interaction is politics. And "politics" is just the micro social politics playing out on a grander scale. It's just easier to ignore those things when you're in (relative) power, since, as a straight person, you aren't directly affected by the ability of gay people to marry, or whatever. L…

Not sure why your comment is getting down voted.

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

#908

Post by waterhouse »

memmcgee wrote: post #786
bduerst wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a weekly improv class with him and while I don't think that's enough to get a good read on who someone truly is, I think you may be projecting on the naivete bit. In the midst of the chaos he was generating, he had ample opportunity to redact, change, apologize, debate, or even acknowledge other viewpoints, but he chose to broadcast adamantly. Even as he knew his opinion was generating controversy he didn't tak…

Yep. I don't know how someone can read him as "naive". He immediately went to new sources like Breitbart and PV.

Do you know if he contacted Breitbart and PV, or if they contacted him? Because if a Breitbart journalist said to him, "We see your opinion, we think it's terrible you're being silenced, we'd love to interview you and give you a chance to say your piece", then it would be very fitting with "naive" for him to say "Sounds good!"

This article mentions Damore was diagnosed in his mid-20s with high-functioning autism. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-dam...

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

#909

Post by tunesmith »

kartickv wrote: post #879
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.…

> I also wonder if there's a universal central reason behind why it is important to understand someone else's argument if their conclusion differs than yours. In fact, if you can't argue for their side as well as they can, you haven't really understood it, so you shouldn't argue.

I'd agree with the first two parts, but one can argue a fully reasoned argument without understanding all possible conflicting arguments. At least in the terms of normative arguments, where values (premises) can differ from person to person.

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

#910

Post by panda88888 »

skybrian wrote: post #285
didip wrote: post #253

I bet majority of Google employees are taking a deep sigh of relief now. It must be suffocating being surrounded with political talks at work when one is trying to do their job well.

I left a few years ago, but it was more like internal politics was a fascinating addiction that some people are better than others at ignoring. Sort of like reading Hacker News. I wonder if memegen is shut down yet?

Memegen is alive. Leadership team still need it for their all hands slides. XD
Post reply on HN