161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to confirm, "this one" in your comment refers to the original article's title being "really bad"? (As opposed to the editorialized title.)
I think "this one" refers to the original article's title being really bad: "Blood money is fine with us, says GitLab: Vetting non-evil customers is 'time consuming, potentially distracting'"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you expound upon which aspects of society are political and which are nonpolitical? The Supreme Court is currently considering whether or not companies can discriminate on sexual orientation, just as it had done for race and religion. What do you say to such people whose identities are inherently political?
I think his point is that any aspect of a person not directly related to the question at hand should be off-limits. In his example, that would mean that the literature should be judged on its own merits, without any reference to the character or activities of its author. Which seems to me like a reasonable and consistent ethical position. However, it does have some consequences that might be hard to stomach. Such as,…
I personally have no problem with them making this decision. I wish more companies would take stands like this. At least it's honest. Unlike the NBA and every other company with value statements they honor only when convenient or advantageous. Look, if you morally object to this, then don't use GitLab. If you think businesses should be held to a higher ethical standard than they are currently, get active with local o…
Genuine question: you're making a strong statement on Hacker News expressing your disagreement with how other people are acting; what do you think distinguishes this from the behavior that you're describing that makes it more productive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you expound upon which aspects of society are political and which are nonpolitical? The Supreme Court is currently considering whether or not companies can discriminate on sexual orientation, just as it had done for race and religion. What do you say to such people whose identities are inherently political?
I think his point is that any aspect of a person not directly related to the question at hand should be off-limits. In his example, that would mean that the literature should be judged on its own merits, without any reference to the character or activities of its author. Which seems to me like a reasonable and consistent ethical position. However, it does have some consequences that might be hard to stomach. Such as,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When things some people classify as "politics" directly affect work. When you're trying to get your company to make improvements to the state of the world. When you're talking about corporate culture, inclusion, and solving problems. When you're arranging for your company to make a donation, or sponsor an event, or advising against doing so due to potential ramifications. When you're making travel plans and need to k…
> We're not just talking about the stereotype people standing around a water cooler declaring affiliations and throwing political talking points past each other. Who said they aren't talking about just that? At one of my first jobs people got a bit upset in a discussion at some point about religion. My then boss said 'I have learned to never talk about politics and religion at work.'. He didn't forbid it, but the poi…
I am glad Dang changed the title as the original one was unnecessarily inflammatory. I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? > Such a declaration could run afoul of legal boundaries in some circumstances. Whi…
While you correctly note that governments can pass sanctions against countries to facilitate trade restrictions, it's worth considering the full context of the article when considering their descent into proving Godwin's law.
They explicitly state the example of Chef working with arguably contentious and/or politicized domestic organisations. Given that recent employee protests are based around domestic government organisations, that have (rightly or wrongly) been compared to nationalist and/or protectionist organisations in history, what is the correct course of action there?
If you disagree so strongly with your own government, and/or believe your own government cannot be trusted to tell you the truth, what is the correct response? In recent history, we had marches against going to war on what wasn't considered believable grounds. Despite the best intentions of the leaders at the time, who ultimately ignored the peaceful and legitimate protests, the protestors were later proven to be true.
Given that backdrop, and the corporate / commercial capture of legislative interests, how is employee activism not a logical next step of 'vote with your wallet' combined with 'change it from the inside'?
If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion.
Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups:
— lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality because it’s too political.
— Women in tech: Nope, let’s not go there, too political.
— Underrepresented minorities in tech: Sorry it’s a pipeline problem, don’t bring politics into this.
— Education: Too political to discuss the fact that schools are trying to balance their admissions in the face of very uneven opportunities amongst their applicants. Never mind the fact that school admissions were never fair to begin with.
We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive.
Again, If you disagree I’d love to understand your viewpoint as to why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. There is a middle-ground between "talking about politics" is "encouraged" and "forbidden".
Where we seem to find ourselves today is in a position where if you have very progressive politics, you can say whatever you like - no matter how radical - whereas if you have conservative politics you can't even admit that without any specifics without being thought of as evil. This is how we can get away with saying it's "encouraged" while really making sure any meaningful counter-argument is "forbidden" at the sam…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fair to call women in tech initiatives nonpolitical. There's no significant political opposition to them; things like the INSPIRE Women Act (the women in tech initiative for NASA) regularly get passed with no real debate.
"I think it's fair to call women in tech initiatives nonpolitical" I don't actually know if this is true? James Damore has largely been considered a political act, and James Damore was stating being skeptical of the needs of women in tech initiatives. So, if being skeptical of the initiative is a political act, wouldn't going through with the initiative (being nonskeptical) also political? (Personally I am for women…