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

131–140 of 320 posts

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#131

Post by slightwinder »

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…

> It also sounds like they express their opinion very politely and in a restrained

How is an insult restrained? The reactions are just disrespectful, and I can understand why someone could feel it as some kind of discrimination. Just switch Religion with your preferred technology, hobby or even some political topic, and think about how you would take such reactions, if they come up too often.

> Having opinions and saying them is a free speech, a cherrised cornerstone of the American culture.

Free Speech should also come with respect and manners.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#132

Post by qwertox »

> when a random manager at Google with whom I had never spoken began harassing me about my beliefs. [...] I think he did it out of ignorance but it is an incredibly common type of harassment that religious people have to endure [...] if they are crazy enough to actually admit that they believe in the divine power of God.

followed by a

> I had simply posted a meme on an internal social media platform in support of Tanuja Gupta’s protest against caste discrimination at Google.

This reads like "I posted a meme and a random person who read it started harassing me because he didn't share my belief."

What did this harassment look like? Also, I really would like to see that meme. And the examples he/she sent privately to the manager and the responses to it.

Then there's this thing: In my first quoted paragraph is the line "if they are crazy enough to actually admit that they believe in the divine power of God."

together with

"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?"

I'd make sure to not talk about religion with this person anymore, and if that overly religious person would try to do so again, would I be seeing that as an harassment?

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#133

Post by alxmrs »

It sounds like Blake is experiencing micro aggressions for his beliefs, based on the evidence in the article. However, that is not the same as discrimination. It seems like he is suffering from not experiencing a privilege that he is used to having.

While in tech, I do believe religious people are in the minority, they still make up the hegemonic norm in the US. An article like this can appeal to a much larger majority outside of the intended technology audience.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#134

Post by KaiserPro »

coffeeblack wrote: post #96
KaiserPro wrote: post #43

There are two things to tease out here. 1) the Indian caste system is not _just_ religious discrimination, its a class system that is devilishly tricky to escape. Its difficult to comprehend in the USA because the class system there is basically skin colour>money>very distant last religion. OP touches on this, but doesn't really quite grasp the difference. The implication is that he is but a poor dalit, because of hi…

Quoted post unavailable.

No its a bit more complex, there is nationality mixed in there as well as colour.

however my statement is based on personal experience travelling through the USA. Americans talk a lot more about race than I expected. They are upfront about their dislike of certain racial epithets.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#135

Post by slightwinder »

londons_explore wrote: post #92
Renaud wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your relig…

The way religions spread is to violate this social etiquette. Many religions explicitly require followers to try to 'spread the word' for exactly this reason.

So is politic, or pretty much anything else people have a personal interest in.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#136

Post by satellite2 »

tialaramex wrote: post #65
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 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 le…

It's a rational looking theory, but is there any evidence that superstitious people exhibit more ethical behaviors?

I have the impression that since those people are not bound by evidences they can justify unethical behavior much more easily. And so this trait that should make them more ethical actually backfires and enable worse behavior.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#137

Post by ekianjo »

Renaud wrote: post #51
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…

It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your relig…

> To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering.

in case you have not noticed politics is creeping everywhere these days, even in non-political events.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#138

Post by ken47 »

eps wrote: post #123
ken47 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you prove the Big Bang occurred? If so, can you prove that nothing preceded a Big Bang? If you are as rational as you arrogantly imply, then the obvious answers to these are no. Are you equally appalled when you come across average people talking about these theories as if they are facts? I wonder.

Big Bang is the best available explanation of observed facts. This doesn't mean it's the right one, but other explanations are inferior. Especially those provided by religions.

The superiority to which you refer is questionable. If the goal of these explanations is to prove the origin of the universe in some kind of mathematical sense, they all fail. They all belong to the same category.

The inferior tier is one where an explanation can be proven false with the limited tools of the 2022 version of humanity. Perhaps some religions' explanations fall into this category, but not all.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#139

Post by ekianjo »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #101
kaba0 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> Catholics were responsible for several huge discoveries in science and science is absolutely in line with the religion This comes off as hugely apologetic. I’m not sure whether Copernicus would agree with the sentiment.

> I’m not sure whether Copernicus would agree with the sentiment.

This shows your ignorance of History more than anything else.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#140

Post by mrweasel »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #88
mrweasel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If other employees are mocking or harrasing you for you beliefs, then I think the company should step in. A hostile work environment should not be tolerated. That being said: You leave your religious belief at home. Religion may guide you in life, but unless there’s a obvious reason religion is something you keep at home and in church/temple/whatever. You can believe anything you want, but you keep it to yourself. If…

> If other employees are mocking or harrasing you for you beliefs Or harassing you WITH their beliefs, like OP is doing.

I didn’t get that impression. It seemed like the author openly talked about their beliefs, but didn’t like when people then shared their opinions about it.
Post reply on HN