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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by memmcgee »

waterhouse wrote: post #908
memmcgee wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. htt…

I'm autistic myself. Damore trying to deflect criticism by saying he's autistic is insulting.

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

#972

Post by flippinburgers »

If I had to guess, the individuals demanding that google employees be allowed to debate political subjects because "everything is political" are the same people who would argue that consumers of google's services shouldn't expect that google won't censor them. An odd position to take if you ask me.

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

#973

Post by TheGRS »

big_chungus wrote: post #679
TheGRS wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling people to stop talking about politics because one don't feel like the discussion is important or productive can be viewed as its own form of covert political discourse. "The status quo is fine, I'm doing fine, discussion to the contrary hurts my worldview".

Exactly. Every one regards his issues as too important to be merely political. My point is many people don't agree with your interpretation of what ought to be allowed/banned, and you've presented no reason why those issues in particular ought to be discussed. Again, my best solution is to just avoid talking politics at work.

Discrimination in the workplace and society is a perfectly valid reason for talking about politics at work.

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

#974

Post by notzuck »

bjourne wrote: post #945
notzuck wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utter nonsense - the lack of politcal discourse at work does not result in worse politics generally. Politics at work has long been a no no at most companies and there's no evidence to show this has caused the rise of any extremism. Work is where you get your work done. There is no room for you opinions on Trump etc, whether positive or negative. Your political views can very easily marginalise others especially when…

Impaired critical thinking ability leads to shitty politics. Impaired critical thinking ability is caused by people's lack of experience which is caused by political arguments being seen as taboo. You become fat if you never exercise and you become dumb if you never think critically. Work is where we spend a major part of our lives 8-9 hours per day five days per week. The idea that freedom of speech should be suspen…

I respectfuly disagree with most of your points.

Being respectful of other people not being interested in your BS opinions is not stopping your freedom of speech. You're at work to get work done, not to espouse your opinions on the middle east.

Politics isn't the only way to keep your critical thining sharp. We're knowledge workers after all.

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

#975

Post by numakerg »

malvosenior wrote: post #937
numakerg wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be the case if the distribution of views were evenly stratified, but they are not. Even the application of very simple mechanics can subtly amplify the views of the majority. Search is one example, as is jury selection.

I specifically do not want results manipulated to be more politically correct. It makes sense that the most popular results would be first. I want that.

It's very possible that they are not being manipulated, simply that most people who use the internet are more left/right wing. That's the amplification of the majority.

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

#976

Post by lostgame »

lostgame wrote: post #25
DannyBee wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your attempt to argue this is somehow vague or a slippery slope is silly - most workplaces seem to have not a tremendous amount of trouble with this, even though it is not rigorously defined.

Agreed. I am transgender, lesbian, asexual and polyromantic, and none of these things have I ever had so much as a discussion about at my office, nor have they sparked any 'political' discussion. (I work at one of the major 5 banks in Canada).

I'm baffled by the level of ignorance in these comments, I'm used to a far higher awareness and intelligence in HN comments.

The comments about being dependent on one's sexuality, or 'making it up,' and thusly being prepared to accept being mocked, are particularly disturbing.

The inability to separate a romantic and sexual nature is more so just surprising.

Very eye-opening responses for me.

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

#977

Post by lostgame »

Geeek wrote: post #118
pseudalopex wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Romantic attraction.

What is?

What is romantic attraction? o.o

I shudder to think about your love life, if you solely define your relationships on sexuality alone. Sexuality is a step from an emotional state to a physical expression of that, of course outside of prostitution and casual hook-ups. And I don't mean that in a negative way, I just...feel sorry for you.

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

#978

Post by Izkata »

joshuamorton wrote: post #564
Consultant32452 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Damore was asked for his response to a training class he had taken. That would make the dissertation, as you call it, a work assignment. Is that understanding incorrect?

Yes. For a number of reasons, not least of all that such feedback optional, and to be sent to the people who managed the class. So it wasn't an assignment, and sharing it with everyone wasn't the way to handle it.

It wasn't feedback, it was a report on what he got from there so Google could improve its practices. One solicited by Google.

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

#979

Post by joshuamorton »

Izkata wrote: post #978
joshuamorton wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. For a number of reasons, not least of all that such feedback optional, and to be sent to the people who managed the class. So it wasn't an assignment, and sharing it with everyone wasn't the way to handle it.

It wasn't feedback, it was a report on what he got from there so Google could improve its practices. One solicited by Google.

That doesn't address either of the things I said, so I'll restate them:

1. Anything he did was optional, it was therefore not a work assignment.

2. If such a report was solicited (which I don't actually agree with in the way you're implying), the way to provide it wasn't to post it on public company mailing lists, but to give the report to the people in charge of the class.

Do you disagree with either of those claims?

I'll now add a third one:

3. A "report" of the form he provided wasn't solicited by Google. They solicited feedback on the class. Your claiming this wasn't feedback on the class. Therefore it wasn't solicited.

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

#980

Post by Izkata »

joshuamorton wrote: post #979
Izkata wrote: post #978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't feedback, it was a report on what he got from there so Google could improve its practices. One solicited by Google.

That doesn't address either of the things I said, so I'll restate them: 1. Anything he did was optional, it was therefore not a work assignment. 2. If such a report was solicited (which I don't actually agree with in the way you're implying), the way to provide it wasn't to post it on public company mailing lists, but to give the report to the people in charge of the class. Do you disagree with either of those claims…

The second one is completely wrong, and I think the first is though I'm not certain.

* No one was looking for feedback on the class as far as I remember.

* He went to an external session to learn how to improve their own processes, which is the report he wrote. I believe in one interview he said his did do it at some manager's suggestion, and so did use work time for the trip with their (figurative) blessing.

* He sent his report only to one or two internal groups, never a public internal mailing list (one was meant to privately poke holes so submitters could improve their arguments before submitting it to HR or whoever. I've heard conflicting stuff on the order of events, so he may or may not have sent it to HR).

* It was the internal quality group that leaked it to a public internal mailing list instead of maintaining privacy.

Post reply on HN