161–170 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.
Google is currently fighting unionization efforts. That's not leftist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't post the site, but those are the politics involved within the company and its hiring. The connection is pretty clear.
Sorry I thought I was replying to the poster of the comment I replied to. How is the connection "pretty clear"?
Nothing to see here. While most employees are chill, I would imagine Google has a disproportionation of hyper ideologists who are intolerant to different opinions and self-righteous to bring everything down to achieve personal validation. The trust is reduced, but it is both way, between employer and employees. Without that, any conversation is meaningless.
If you're an engineer at Google, you've probably had a great technical education, you feel empowered because if Google would hire you, you can assume most anyone else would too; you probably feel smart because of this and in many ways you probably are a pretty smart person. You're very well paid and compensated and you know it. There are a lot of things here that not only give someone confidence but also conviction.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointing out the inherent privilege-preserving effects of discouraging challenge to the status quo is not adding an incendiary meaning. It's lifting a latent consequence to the level of manifest evidence. This understandably makes some people uncomfortable. It challenges beliefs, it challenges self-worth, it challenges value systems, it challenges worldviews. None of these invalidate the underlying concept that shelt…
If we work together, you should assume good faith. We are all on the same team at work. That's the point.
I'm on my side, first and last and always. If cooperation helps me, so be it. But if cooperation harms me, then I will speak up. If I am not heard, I will leave.
That is my inherent and sovereign right as a human being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US "left" is basically center though.
Not anymore. US left has stretched very far to the left in the last few years while the right has moved slightly more to the right. It's created a whole new "center". Here's Pew research, check page 12: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/201...
Though I wouldn't call it "very far". Solidarity peak is the same as it was around 2008 (the Great Financial Crises I guess), regulation and waste views are interestingly conflicting, the anti-corporatism shift is happening across all cohorts, so again it doesn't seem like the Dems are going that much more left.
The views of immigration are very polarized. That's interesting, and probably the result of the excessive media coverage plus the very real recent underlying events.
The emptying out of the center is the effect of Trump.
Though it'll be interesting what will happen in the upcoming 2020 primaries. And we'll get a lot of data about what people value. (With the usual caveat about polling and statistics.)
Are all-hands meetings actually ever useful to anyone or ever more than merely internal PR?
I was at Yahoo under Marissa Mayer, who instated a weekly Friday all-hands, FYI, obviously modeled on whatever Google had. Those who worked at Yahoo before her said that it was a huge change, because previous upper management was pretty much invisible, no-one knew who they were, what they did, what they were thinking, which direction the company was going in. So even if you're 100% cynical about it and thinking the a…
The PR is there and sometimes the raffles, but the Q&A is non-existent and whenever bad things happen the meeting is skipped for a few weeks. Everyone notices the weeks that get skipped and it sends a huge signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it absolutely isn't. Adding an arbitrary and incendiary meaning to what others say is a major problem. You can create as many enemies as you want that way and it just fuels more division.
Pointing out the inherent privilege-preserving effects of discouraging challenge to the status quo is not adding an incendiary meaning. It's lifting a latent consequence to the level of manifest evidence. This understandably makes some people uncomfortable. It challenges beliefs, it challenges self-worth, it challenges value systems, it challenges worldviews. None of these invalidate the underlying concept that shelt…
You can challenge all you want, but being an annoyance in the office by forcing your views and interpretations on everyone is a major issue. I don't care about your politics and don't want to discuss mine. The company is paying you for productivity, not political change. Understanding boundaries is the first step to communicating with people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> at these previously pro-politics (some kinds of politics) workplaces There are no people who actually think it’s ok to bring politics into the workplace. There are only people who don’t think their politics are politics; it’s everybody else’s politics that’s politics.
I think it’s OK to bring politics into the workplace. I discuss Brexit, elections, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, etc, with those of my colleagues that want to discuss it when they want to discuss it. I agree with some of them, disagree with others.
I wonder if companies like Google and GitHub that actively courted activists are now regretting their decision. For a long time it was common knowledge that you would try to keep stuff like that out of the workplace. The past 10 years have been an about face to that strategy and now we're seeing more or less complete chaos internally at these previously pro-politics (some kinds of politics) workplaces. My guess is th…
I think it's more that they actively courted assertive people with opinions and then created a culture where you can bring your whole self to work. They did this so that they could get the benefits of creativity, which inherently requires emotional engagement, which requires that you not repress your emotions. (It turns out that it's not possible to selectively repress emotions: "I've got to watch what I say about po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left. 1) Completely contradicts what you said earlier above 2) How? When does it stop being people and start being a corp? Aren't the decisions made by employees? 3) So? You just linked 'diversity' to left and far-left, isn't that the same thing that started this side thread? How is that site linked with activism or left politics? You mentioned a "prett…
Obviously nothing is absolute, that doesn't make anything contradictory. The majority political stance is left/far-left. The company is massive and sometimes will do things people consider right-wing, but usually those things are not actually "right-wing" but just normal behavior of a giant corporation seeking to maximize profit and shareholder value. Corporations and capitalism are not antithetical to left-wing poli…
I could just as easily say it's a decision for the economics of the company and you're projecting your own politics into that, confusing capitalism with left/right? But you know your example is a political decision pushed by the company? The same company that sometimes pushes the opposite political message? You're assertions are lacking consistency