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

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#361

Post by qwerty11111 »

calcifer wrote: post #355
qwerty11111 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming you're totally against Asia then? Asian countries have been far more staunch against refugees. Japan for example accepted only 27 refugees in one year while rejecting 7,586 according to the Brookings Institute. South Korea accepted only 94 in one year. Refugees are pretty much shut off from Singapore and China and many other Asian countries. I'm curious why these countries don't receive the same flak for…

> I'm curious why these countries don't receive the same flak for their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants. There are no boycotts against buying goods from these countries as they are with Trump hotels. This is text book whataboutism. Just because someone isn't publicly complaining about Y doesn't make their criticism of X any less relevant.

Y is more far oppressive but is coddled while X gets all the flak and is stifled. Conservative sites like Breitbart are essentially stifled on Google while the oppressive Chinese government can manipulate any Google search results it wants. What is Google's reasoning for this?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#362

Post by dingle_thunk »

slg wrote: post #59
roenxi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…

>I value political neutrality in the workplace Political neutrality is just political support of the status quo. That is a perfectly acceptable political stance to take, but you should recognize it is still a political stance.

By definition, neutrality is not support of anything.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#363

Post by mikejb »

greyman wrote: post #225

To be honest, it caught me by surprise how politically unified the whole top management is, and how strong their political convictions are. It is publicly known that Eric Schmidt for example supports democrats, but I (wrongly) supposed that is mostly his personal affinity. Now it seems that not; the company as a whole supports one political party. Now the question is how is this reflected in their products (search, G…

I don't think they're that unified; They united here to support employees who worried about their future. But I would assume they have certain common views, e.g. that immigration isn't the all-time evil.

Also, the company as a hole supports both parties - their lobbying efforts (and campaign contributions) are more diverse, which makes sense since you don't want to bet everything on a single horse/party.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#364

Post by hef19898 »

qwerty11111 wrote: post #358
danharaj wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

Obviously controversial, but this could be one of the reasons some may fear immigration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...

Which is one of the worst examples ever. It was so highly politizised at the time. But you have point, it actually helped to form a certain narrative and a lot of people followed that narrative.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#366

Post by qwerty11111 »

hef19898 wrote: post #364
qwerty11111 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously controversial, but this could be one of the reasons some may fear immigration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...

Which is one of the worst examples ever. It was so highly politizised at the time. But you have point, it actually helped to form a certain narrative and a lot of people followed that narrative.

How is it a bad example? From Wikipedia itself...

> On 7 June, a Federal Criminal Police Office report confirmed that most of the perpetrators were of North African origin and had arrived in Germany during the European migrant crisis. Investigative results about the perpetrators were congruent with witnesses' statements.[48]

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#367

Post by hef19898 »

qwerty11111 wrote: post #361
calcifer wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious why these countries don't receive the same flak for their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants. There are no boycotts against buying goods from these countries as they are with Trump hotels. This is text book whataboutism. Just because someone isn't publicly complaining about Y doesn't make their criticism of X any less relevant.

Y is more far oppressive but is coddled while X gets all the flak and is stifled. Conservative sites like Breitbart are essentially stifled on Google while the oppressive Chinese government can manipulate any Google search results it wants. What is Google's reasoning for this?

And just because one Party is really "evil" I can be as "evil" as I want unless I become the most "evil"? Really?

And you really Need an Explanation why a company adopts to reuls in specific country (not saying it is good thing) and treats a (fringe) news outlet differently (not sure if they actually do, so)?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#368

Post by _khau »

stryk wrote: post #244
jasonvorhe wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe being conservative just isn't that smart to begin with?

THIS is a not-insignificant part of the problem. right here. You jumped straight out of the gate with calling the OP stupid. Not even a feigned attempt at some sort of discussion or debate. You saw the word "conservative" and BOOM it's right into the Us vs. Them, Me vs. You, Good vs. Evil. I just don't see how that is healthy, at all, for anyone or anything including the country. It's childish. Social media and karma…

I mean, if you look throughout history, even at the last century, you see civil rights actions that were vehemently opposed by conservatives and traditionalists.

Votes for women, emancipation of slaves, equal rights for women, for blacks, for gays, for the transgendered, worker protections, abolition of child labour, mandatory paid leave, maternity leave, environmental protections etc.

The list could go on, and in each and every instance we have had conservatives and traditionalists fighting them tooth and nail, and losing the battle every single time.

While the comment the person you replied to is short and lacking in substance, I do think there is truth to it.

What's that old Buddhist maxim?

Change is the only constant in life or You cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails.

Change is a certainty, but conservatives and traditionalists have made it their life's work to resist it.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#369

Post by _khau »

piokoch wrote: post #248
paganel wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this actually a real theory? I'm not a professional historian by any means, but I think Ernst Nolte's opinion (he was a German historian) that WW2 was actually an European Civil War fought between fascism and communism is right (you can read an introduction into the whole discussion on his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte ). His basic idea was summed up by another historian, Norman Davies (yo…

"People in the States and generally speaking in Western Europe tend to forget how much communism (Bolshevism as it was called back then) was seen as a threat after WW1." Because it really was, Europe was pretty lucky that Soviet army was defeated in 1920 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920) ] before it managed to go further to the West - that was the ultimate communists goal, as they wanted to spre…

> In that way not only Eastern and Central Europe countries would experience the fun communism brings: poverty, inequality, secret police murdering opposition members and priests, lack of freedom.

You say that like fascism didn't exhibit these characteristics as well.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#370

Post by bitlax »

danharaj wrote: post #354
bitlax wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern intersectionality dictates that people be treated very differently based on their gender, sexuality, and ethnic origin.

This is a bad faith interpretation of intersectionality.

It's an accurate one, but you're welcome to add any nuance you feel is necessary and let people respond to it.
Post reply on HN