241–250 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? I am honestly asking, not flaming or anything. What is the point you are making?
That they are being hypocritical. Frankly, I think more women in tech and LGBT representation are probably good things, but GitLab is being profoundly disingenuous.
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…
There are so many things that can disturb team cohesion! Even non political ones like talking about if you prefer rain or sun, or fries with mayo or ketchup.
Thank you! And now let’s go back to work...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever you have reasonable adults working together? I think I’ve, on appropriate occasion, discussed politics with friends and colleagues at every workplace I’ve ever been at. [Edit: some senior leadership] openly supports the DNC and has commented to that effect at town halls. To pretend that people are apolitical or to ban all political discussions because some people can’t seem to handle disagreements in a profe…
Would you feel the same way if your current CEO openly supported the RNC?
Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?
GitLab are being hypocritical[1][2]. Let's not pretend the "women in tech" and LGBT movements aren't political. Frankly, I think more women in tech and LGBT representation are probably good things, but GitLab is being profoundly disingenuous with their guidelines. To clarify my point: if you open the gates to the marketplace of ideas, make sure it's an actual marketplace . [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/10/08…
It feels uncharitable to call them hypocritical without understanding what they mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I work at an oil company in Houston and if I expressed a shred of progressive thought I would be run out of town. Maybe this place is more your speed?
Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. 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 becau…
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…
Do you think the Gitlab CEO's policy declaration helped or hurt team cohesion?
Good thing that gitlab is fully remote because a) there is no possible way to reconcile the viewpoints of people who live in very different parts of the workd, and b) they can survive when inevitably they will become shunned from SF.
It's also smart PR to get some controversial open source projects in their platform
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are great questions. But please omit the flamebait. (Edit: dvt kindly took the flamebait out—see below.) If flames take over, only the people who enjoy flaming will remain in the debate. That's a strict loss for thread quality, which is one reason for the guideline I asked everyone to remember above: " Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " https://news.y…
Oh no, someone dares to question the left-authoritarian talking points. Better shut that discussion down.
Actually - worse - it's a talking point used to defang actual authoritarianism rising in the world today via false equivalence.