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

Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 600 posts

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#211

Post by m0zg »

mbo wrote: post #89
arkitaip wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What might happen is the rise of an informal communications channel managed by employees that Google executives cannot direct let alone cancel. That's far worse in a way.

A communications channel controlled by the workers and not the managerial structure? This is a truly tragic development.

The issue of "control" is pretty peripheral to this conversation. TGIF was a fixture in the company culture and as such nobody really "controlled" it. It was just expected that it'd happen every week, you'd go grab a beer, and watch the execs answer the top voted Dory questions they'd rather avoid, at least from time to time. That was a crucial feedback mechanism which is now at least reduced if not gone entirely. This will make the system (Google) less stable.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#212

Post by klyrs »

umeshunni wrote: post #133
journalctl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like “anyone who says racist, homophobic, sexist things is probably a racist, homophobe, or sexist”.

Sure, once you classify anyone who opposes, for e.g. illegal immigration, as a racist, everyone is a racist.

> everyone is a racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#213

Post by dave_b »

zarkov99 wrote: post #201
sagichmal wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a deeply disingenuous interpretation of events, to the extent of being a lie. Damore, Woods, and that other dude who went on a misogynist Twitter tirade for a full day, were all deliberate assholes in public. There were consequences for that. This is just and correct.

Could you please provide a link to anything that Damore might have written or said in public that would justify calling him an asshole? Because I have read his paper, listened to some of his interviews and to me he looked as far from an asshole as any human can be.

He also never intended to be public about it, he kept his memo internal and posted it in a place that was soliciting feedback on the topic. It only became public when one of the activist types leaked it.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#214

Post by joshuamorton »

manigandham wrote: post #210
joshuamorton wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, nobody in this entire page has said anything like that. How did you come up with this statement? Something about lying with dogs and fleas. I'm happy to listen if you elaborate on what exactly you mean by political. Though I'll caution by stating that in general, I find that most "political" issues can be phrased as consequences of ethical concerns (if there weren't underlying ethical disagreements, there wo…

There's nothing wrong with you privately expressing your concern about a project to superiors, and leaving the company if you don't agree. When you protest against it publicly in the workplace and shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you, then we have a problem. This is the difference between escalating concerns vs political activism, regardless of the actual issue at stake.

> shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you

Isn't this what you're doing now: shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about the place of political discussion in the workplace?

Edit: To rephrase since you missed what I was getting at: you are advocating for institutional support in silencing people who express views with which you disagree in the workplace. That is, views which are "too political" should be forbidden and, if expressed, presumably shouted down or otherwise silenced.

If for example, I expressed my disagreement with you that I believe political views are reasonable to express in the workplace, what action would you take?

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#215

Post by nlfwhulsdhouv »

refurb wrote: post #196
nlfwhulsdhouv wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left was pretty damn upset about the blackface scandal. The Liberals are a _centrist_ party, not a leftist one. That's the NDP.

The left wasn’t upset enough not to vote for him!

[flagged]

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#216

Post by nlfwhulsdhouv »

manigandham wrote: post #46
triceratops wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the political position picked by the site you provided?

Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.

I'm excited for your shock when you _actually_ meet a leftist in that case instead of these milquetoast liberals.

Hint: Google still supports and enforces capitalism.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#217

Post by underwater »

umeshunni wrote: post #84
bitwize wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there as a contractor in 2014, well before the Damore flap, and while it wasn't as overt as it is now, I could certainly taste it in the air.

[flagged]

I hope you can identify the irony in your statement.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#218

Post by triceratops »

manigandham wrote: post #179
triceratops wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, "identity politics" and centering ideologies around physical characteristics, religious views (almost as unchangeable), or ethnic backgrounds is practiced across the political spectrum. According to Wikipedia at least, "Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy"[1]. There's nothing specific about identity politics there. Secondly, looking at the…

So this "diversity" is also part of right-wing politics then? And if so, why is there any political disagreement about it?

I don't know why you have scare-quotes around diversity, but practically every company has diversity initiatives (random examples)[1][2]. The existence of such says nothing about the company's politics, or those of its employees, one way or the other.

I have no clue what you mean by "diversity" (with scare-quotes), so I can't really answer your question. A simple search for the words "diversity" or "diverse" turns up nothing on the Wikipedia page for left-wing politics.[3]

1. https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/about/company/beliefs-and-cu...

2. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/global-diver...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#219

Post by nlfwhulsdhouv »

manigandham wrote: post #150
reroute1 wrote: post #143

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…

[flagged]

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#220

Post by manigandham »

joshuamorton wrote: post #214
manigandham wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with you privately expressing your concern about a project to superiors, and leaving the company if you don't agree. When you protest against it publicly in the workplace and shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you, then we have a problem. This is the difference between escalating concerns vs political activism, regardless of the actual issue at stake.

> shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you Isn't this what you're doing now: shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about the place of political discussion in the workplace? Edit: To rephrase since you missed what I was getting at: you are advocating for institutional support in silencing people who express views with which you disagree in the workplace. That…

No, I'm discussing. This isn't a workplace, it's a public internet forum. Nobody is prevented from participating here by my posts. You're free to discuss whatever you want as well.

Replying to your edit => A workplace is different than the state. You do not have complete freedom within a corporation, and expression is very different from beliefs. Nobody cares about your beliefs, but your expression will be limited to increase harmony and productivity within a commercial space where you're paid to do work.

Post reply on HN