Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 603 posts

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#461

Post by username90 »

mike00632 wrote: post #191
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the world famous #1 gay couple Dolce and Gabbana homophobic? They oppose gay marriage, but in your American culture there are only two ways of life, you pick Republicans or Democrats and run with whatever their ministries of truth spew out.

Try to elaborate on why they are against gays marrying without the reasoning sounding homophobic.

It is a motte and bailey argument, most people agree with gays having access to legal marriage, the contentious part is religious marriage. Should we force preachers who don't believe that homosexuality is kosher to wed gay couples? A lot of people don't think so, and then they say they are against gay marriage even though they would be fine with legalizing them getting a legal marriage.

For example, do you think that we should force Muslim Imams to wed gay couples? I believe that it would be a fairly controversial topic even in left-wing circles.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#462

Post by high_derivative »

askafriend wrote: post #448
high_derivative wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is a fantasy stemming from the idea that everyone who is talented and intelligent must basically agree with you politically. The world does not work like that. Talent comes in many shapes and forms. I know many people, myself included, at FAANG jobs who would love for a less political environment.

This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing politically. Did you read what he wrote? Their HR is combing through private social media profiles and rejecting everyone who shows any signs of dissent towards anything. What kind of employees do you think are being filtered out in that process? Exactly. The best and brightest.

Again, disagree. I read the comment differently.

There is a certain type of person who thinks because they are smart and good at one thing, e.g. software development, their powers of reason allow them to come to the right conclusions about everything. They are super vocal about this on social media, e.g. typical Twitter mob warriors. Because they think they are intelligent and their views are logical to them, everyone intelligent will agree with them ("the best and brightest will want to work with people like me").

Conversely, people disagreeing must either be dumb or have outright malicious intent (e.g. James Damore). This type of person has difficulty accepting that there can be highly intelligent people who come to entirely different conclusions about various issues. They can be intelligent, but they are also often toxic because they are loud and vocal and lead other people to just withdraw from the work environment, lest to provoke them. I am reading the original comment as the HR trying to avoid hiring such people, not that they don't hire someone who expresses dislike about Burger King's offerings or the latest Marvel movie.

That sounds completely reasonable to me. In particular, this says nothing about the morals of the people you do end up hiring. I am not aware of any research investigating the correlation between doing good and virtue signalling on Twitter, but my guess is that you can do one without the other, and that in fact participating in vocal outrage is a distraction to serving your community in more productive ways (e.g. getting people to vote, or otherwise getting anything done to change what you believe must be changed).

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#463

Post by auiya »

cptskippy wrote: post #263
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…

> Being fired from Google amounts to not just losing a job but "friends" and the only people who the company encouraged socializing with. I've never worked for Google so I have no basis for comparison but it's very common across white collar jobs for employees social circles to very closely if not entirely overlap with work. Unless you participated in extracurricular activities that weren't school sponsored, you prob…

I worked there until 2012. I find this opinion odd as I remain friends with many former colleagues, and probably 3/4 of them have left to work for other companies as well. The tech world is smaller than most people realize.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#464

Post by auiya »

Hitton wrote: post #248
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…

Funny thing is, that although Google boasts about its racial and gender diversity, there is preciously little ideological diversity. And once people stray, they must be purged.

> Google boasts about its racial and gender diversity

Does it? Because the metrics it reported just this year says it's made up of mostly still white males. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2019/04/07/googles...

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#465

Post by RangerScience »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #151
RangerScience wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcin…

>at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you. Not op, but curious what actions or behavior you think becomes fair game.

This is the best explanation I've seen: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

In answering your question, it's more about reciprocation: if you make it comfortable for people to be who they are, we'll make it comfortable for you to be who you are; or the inverse. Which does have a strong element of "who did it first", but that's resolvable by risking the other person defecting while you cooperate and if they do that, well, doesn't really matter who did it first because it's clear who wasn't up for trying.

Picking out specific actions... I honestly don't know. We had a guy in one my communities get kicked out for doing this thing where he'd hear about someone's story about being a victim, and then retell that story in such a way that a) he was now that kind of victim and b) the original person now wasn't.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#466

Post by depressedpanda »

DagAgren wrote: post #286
int_19h wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being intolerant of intolerant actions is what is necessary to maintain a tolerant society. If you tolerate intolerant views, the paradox doesn't arise.

Views lead to actions. You can not draw a line between them and hope people will happily stand on one side of it. If you allow intolerant views, you normalise intolerance. If you normalise intolerance, you ALSO normalise intolerant acts, and they WILL follow naturally.

So you are arguing that people should be punished for thought crimes?

You most certainly can draw a line between actions and views, and fortunately most laws do.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#467

Post by toraobo »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #167
tehjoker wrote: post #5

"The tracking had made the staff of those departments feel unsafe, the spokeswoman said." ...said the largest worldwide private spy agency the world has ever known.

"unsafe" is clearly hyperbolic here, their physical safety isn't threatened. Their "safe place" AKA ideologic echo chamber? Sure.

> A Google spokeswoman said the company is investigating the employees who were placed on leave. One of them had searched for and shared confidential documents outside the scope of their job, while the other tracked the individual calendars of staff working in the community platforms, human resources, and communications teams, she said. The tracking had made the staff in those departments feel unsafe, the spokeswoman said.

This sounds like actual harassment of individual employees who happen to work in a department that is seen as "the enemy".

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#468

Post by RangerScience »

mindslight wrote: post #172
RangerScience wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcin…

The problem is that you can turn around every generality you have said to be supportive of what I presume you're against. For example, why wouldn't " un-inhibited self-expression " include someone getting a tattoo of a swastika? (preemptively responding to an argument that said tattoo would diminish more self expression than it itself is: this depends on the makeup of society, tautologically). > I will continue to pr…

First: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

> getting a tattoo of a swastika

You can totally go get it. I won't welcome you back. You are no longer celebrating other people's self-expression, and so lose our celebration of yours.

> So this means I no longer need to tolerate you, personally?

Hmm... Yeah, seems reasonable. Here's a different approach:

It seems clear that most people are able to mostly tell when something intolerant is happening. So, look up the event chain: is this intolerance in response to intolerance, or is it response to something else?

> some tendency of de-escalation is required for things to settle out

Yes! Pretty sure the answer here is "forgiving tit-for-tat".

> are brought up by critics and reacted to as if they were actions

Which is (generally) really unfortunate :( I'd (generally) like to have tolerant discussions on views, but it's rare that people can do that. Where this generality can break is when the view is extreme enough that it undergoes a state change; as a friend puts it, "advocating genocide is not expressing an opinion"; although for me there's a step before that break that is "are you willing and able to discuss this as if you could be wrong."

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#469

Post by RangerScience »

stale2002 wrote: post #159
RangerScience wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcin…

> The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing. No, it is actually not. It is self defeating. The problem with giving "exceptions" for why you are now allowed to treat another person, in a horrible manner, is that humans are great at trying to take advantage of those exceptions. Basically nobody who is do…

This is revealing some interesting things to me.

Seems to me the issue is poor self-examination.

If you feel like you're doing something because someone "deserves" it, you're doing it wrong; examine the what led yourself here to find out what it's really about.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#470

Post by meddlepal »

Konnstann wrote: post #367
bregma wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> due to the rise of teleworking. No longer do people grab a drink after work. I spent 7 years teleworking and had no problem grabbing a drink after work. Now that I have to physically co-locate with cow orkers I can't do that because (a) I'm driving and (2) they want to join me. Drinking alone is the best kind of drinking.

Drinking alone is one of the tell-tale signs of alcoholism.

Continuously over-consuming alcohol is one of the tell tale signs of alcoholism.

Drinking alone? I dunno about that.

Post reply on HN