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

Religious Discrimination at Google

cajundiscordian.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 320 posts

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#61

Post by iLoveOncall »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #28
krisoft wrote: post #23

Quoting the most concrete example he gives: > If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as sma…

Fascinating - to me, a thoroughly irreligious person, I can’t possibly imagine being that fucking rude to someone. The idea that you think it’s “very polite and restrained” is amazing.

You missed the part where the OP is going around Google talking about how religious he is when nobody asked.

If you believe in something nonsensical, people will let it slide. If you believe in something nonsensical and are being obnoxious about it, you will be insulted and you will deserve it.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#62

Post by pc86 »

matsemann wrote: post #30
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People have forgotten in these companies you are there to give your time and get paid for said time given. Period. Well put - you're in a business relationship with your employer, they're not there to provide religious instruction, you do you job and they pay you for it - period!

A company is where people spend most of their time, so of course the companies should cater to how people want to live their lives. Period...

No, in any sane work arrangement you spend the majority of your time somewhere other than work.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#63

Post by CodeMage »

stefankorun wrote: post #45
krisoft wrote: post #23

Quoting the most concrete example he gives: > If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as sma…

Okay, so how would you consider the alternative when someone is expressing their opinion on other topics like: “Do you really like dating people of the same sex? Sorry that’s the kind of thing I associate with someone who does not have any mental issues as yourself”. I am not advocating if any of them are good or bad (personally I avoid both), but we should really have the same standards when it comes to the famed “f…

False equivalence. Religion is a personal choice. Sexual orientation isn't.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#64

Post by matthewmacleod »

annyeonghada wrote: post #44
eric4smith wrote: post #11

Bruh. When are people going to stop expecting large public companies to cater to their every whim? It seems these days people are expecting every possible form of accommodation and bending backwards. People have forgotten in these companies you are there to give your time and get paid for said time given. Period. Companies will do things to help employees spend even more hours and be more loyal to their workplace in…

>When are people going to stop expecting large public companies to cater to their every whim? When these companies will stop to cater to specific groups and will stay politically neutral. The moment they started making socio-political utterances is the moment they've become a political entity not merely an economical one. And given that Google has profits that surpass the budgets of entire countries they can, they wi…

You have to remember, however, that decisions companies make are things that people will interpret as “political” all the time - so this idea is without merit.

Google providing directions to vaccination sites on a map is “political”. Providing equal benefits to same-sex couples when they can’t marry is “political”. Providing a virtual gallery that celebrates women artists over history is “political”.

Too often “politically neutral” means “politically within a narrow range of values that I myself accept as uncontroversial” and hey-ho, you’re back to politics.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#65

Post by tialaramex »

thinkingemote wrote: post #24
k1ll3r wrote: post #16

But what if you really are crazy? Not a dysfunctional schizo type of crazy, but just talking to invisible deities in the sky and sincerely believing they are there type of crazy? Which is literally what the author (proudly) claims to be, no? Are we supposed to take such beliefs seriously? Being unable to tell people they're full of shit, in a respectful manner, is much more of a serious problem here. You want to hold…

History will also show you that it is religion that has formed the moral and social framework for today's values to be opposed to oppression. You might think they, human rights, good morals, fundamental truths, are innate and fundamental but then look at geography and history together and you will see that it's religion that is the origin for these beliefs. The twentieth century featured many deaths caused by 2 diffe…

The Princess Alice experiments are evidence for the alternative rationale that belief in invisible God-like beings who impose rules is a useful trait for early civilisations which have inadequate oversight for their members.

Superstitious people will obey rules with no actual enforcement out of a mistaken belief that an invisible Deity might punish them for disobedience, this benefits the rest of their society, at least in the short term. Of course it breaks down if a few people in society exploit everybody else's beliefs. "Princess Alice wants you to look after the sheep" is beneficial because it means shepherds do their jobs properly, but "Princess Alice needs you to sell your worldly possessions so that I can have a nice necklace" not so much.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#66

Post by kaba0 »

teekert wrote: post #31
krisoft wrote: post #23

Quoting the most concrete example he gives: > If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as sma…

You are at a meeting with colleagues, one colleague suddenly starts to insist that Santa Claus is real. Do you take them seriously? Sure it’s freedom of speech but there will be some kind of drop in respect. I mean I get that you believe that one book trumps all of human science because you were raised that way but when you grow up your critical thinking skills should kick in. If they don’t, it’s very difficult to ke…

That's such a bad take, and I'm not even religious. This is the utmost lack of respect for another person that we should strive to stray very very far away from.

Also, if you would know anything at all about religion (from context, I assume you mean Christianity), they don't believe that one book trumps all of human science at all -- taking the text literally is a relatively modern take done by very few branches of it, but Catholics were responsible for several huge discoveries in science and science is absolutely in line with the religion (the current Pope has a background in chemistry). The usual direction of religious dogmas is not based directly on the Bible, but on its "interpretation" by the Church, which is evolving.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#67

Post by KaiserPro »

UberFly wrote: post #9
hackyhacky wrote: post #3

In this article, the author doesn't provide any concrete example of the religious discrimination that he's allegedly experienced, or how it's impacted him in any way. It seems that he's very eager to play the victim. A good example of his rush to victimhood is when he tells how he confronted leadership about why Google hasn't opened an engineering office in Louisiana. He seems to take the fact that Google doesn't hav…

Let me replace the word religious with racial: "In this article, the author doesn't provide any concrete example of the racial discrimination that he's allegedly experienced, or how it's impacted him in any way. It seems that he's very eager to play the victim." Sounds familiar now doesn't it? Claims like that have been dismissed for decades. Don't be so quick to get on the dismissal train.

if you compare and contrast what Tanuja Gupta wrote, it starts off with a CV, then a detailed list of clear incidents from not just her, but others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/02/google-...

crucially they are incidents that occurred because of who they are rather than actions they willingly took.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#68

Post by klodolph »

jjeaff wrote: post #50
teekert wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are at a meeting with colleagues, one colleague suddenly starts to insist that Santa Claus is real. Do you take them seriously? Sure it’s freedom of speech but there will be some kind of drop in respect. I mean I get that you believe that one book trumps all of human science because you were raised that way but when you grow up your critical thinking skills should kick in. If they don’t, it’s very difficult to ke…

It's likely that a minority of Christians take everything in the Bible literally and believe that it trumps science. I think you are being a bit disengenuous.

I don’t think you have justification for calling the argument “disingenuous”. Seems like accusations of people being disingenuous is the go-to accusation on HN and I’m tired of it.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#69

Post by thinkingemote »

k1ll3r wrote: post #34
thinkingemote wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History will also show you that it is religion that has formed the moral and social framework for today's values to be opposed to oppression. You might think they, human rights, good morals, fundamental truths, are innate and fundamental but then look at geography and history together and you will see that it's religion that is the origin for these beliefs. The twentieth century featured many deaths caused by 2 diffe…

The notion that humanity would be morally lost without the guidance of religious belief is laughable. For sake of gaining some perspective and widening one's thoughts I'd suggest reading the works of any of the number of major philosophers. And if you need to read in some book that oppression is bad, that murdering people is bad, that basic human rights are a good idea, etc. - if you need to read that in a book and h…

"Moral compass is innate" is a belief. Science cannot provide evidence for it.

It's such a good belief, that we are blind to it being a belief and blind to its origins.

It's a belief that is so successful because it is true. It comes from the belief that every person has an intrinsic value. Philosophy isn't about rational atheistic science. Science cannot prove or disprove the idea that every human has value.

The Nazis didn't belief that and used science to back up their abhorrent beliefs. They murdered millions of religious People.

The communists also hated religion and murdered millions more of people who thought different. The irony is that they did so in the name of ending oppression.

History and geography will help you see that ideas about innate rights come from religion. But we don't need religion to keep these ideas going.

Just looking at how the human rights movement started should be illuminating.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#70

Post by klodolph »

CodeMage wrote: post #63
stefankorun wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so how would you consider the alternative when someone is expressing their opinion on other topics like: “Do you really like dating people of the same sex? Sorry that’s the kind of thing I associate with someone who does not have any mental issues as yourself”. I am not advocating if any of them are good or bad (personally I avoid both), but we should really have the same standards when it comes to the famed “f…

False equivalence. Religion is a personal choice. Sexual orientation isn't.

It’s reasonable to equate them. Both are protected classes.
Post reply on HN