What's wrong with that? Work is for working, is it not?
Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
381–390 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not silence anyone, it just means that their speech needs to take place outside the workplace. In my experience, most people who complain that curbing political discussion in the workplace amounts to silencing them have views that are well in line with the status quo at the company.
I meant "silencing" in general. Of course you're free to talk about what you want in your free time. In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.
> In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.
And again, the only people I've seen making this argument have ethics and hold values that are in line with the company's values. I've never seen a liberal at a conservative company call for more political discussion, or vice versa. It's always been conservatives in conservative companies or liberal in liberal companies making this argument. People who hold views contrary to the company mostly stay quiet, because making their views known results in ostracism and other negative consequences.
I think the primary motivation is that people whose views are in line with the company enjoy the situation of voicing their positions while being immune to challenge because people who disagree with them are pressured into silence. It produces a gratifying sense for the people in th majority, but comes at the expense of people in the minority. For that reason, there's good cause to not allow political discussion in the workplace.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you, but have you considered that the world's actually on fire? Perhaps you wouldn't notice because you don't live in the Amazon. I don't mean that seriously, but it does serve a point. How can you tell if people are just ranting "because of the internet" and not because they are suffering and think your political inaction is contributing to their pains? Because of your comment I will try to be more cautious a…
You're proving his point. The Amazon is experiencing a more or less average amount of fire during its dry season as farmers clear/maintain cropland like they do every year. However, the internet media has turned this into sensationalism that captures people like you and turns them into doomsayers. From nasa.gov: > As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the…
Who is to say that the status quo isn't alarming, "things aren't worse than last year" isn't a valid argument that things are fine in any logical setting.
And the internet has helped spread information, some of these issues may have been captured by Nat Geo in the 40s but others will have been missed. A status quo progression may be championed as an issue not because everyone previously accepted it but because no one was previously aware of it.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#384I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…
Help me out here. Do you mean "internal political" as "Oh man Jimmy is in charge of gmail now!" (just a made up example of internal politics there) or "Can you belive what the POTUS did!?!?!"? If the latter, I'm a bit surprised ... I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at work. That is absolutely a NO GO zone for me at work.
I try to keep the latter out of work-related mail, slack, etc, but I've had plenty of political discussions over coffee and lunch, and nobody ever seemed any the worse off for it.
I suspect an important factor is that these happen in smaller groups that know each other better, beyond individual views.
I was appalled that one of my foreign born, non-Christian, non-Caucasian co-workers voted for Bush 43 and listened to Rush Limbaugh, but having known him for years, I did not reduce him to that single aspect of his life.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion. Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguab…
Great points. There are plenty of areas to discuss politics, and at work doesn't have to be one of them. I've studiously avoided talking to anybody at work about politics, as it usually only serves to anger people if you don't agree. I've had a successful career of doing that.
I enjoy discussing politics, at work too, however, you have to do it in a respectful way. Politics is like religion, you will never directly convince anyone of anything, but if you can expose them to new ideas, and watch them either incorporate or challenge these ideas, it's a really rewarding discussion. You also have to limit these discussions to willing participants.
In my time at Google, there were tons of people who felt they had the right answer, and had to convince everyone else who was wrong to come around to their views.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. * edit: changed "competition" to "opposition"
Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.
Of course I don't want total mayhem to happen but workers should have the ability to talk about issues at their workplace or raise concerns about the work they're doing and the resulting discussion will probably be political. Shutting down political discussion entirely (100%) will prevent employees from raising concerns.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Help me out here. Do you mean "internal political" as "Oh man Jimmy is in charge of gmail now!" (just a made up example of internal politics there) or "Can you belive what the POTUS did!?!?!"? If the latter, I'm a bit surprised ... I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at work. That is absolutely a NO GO zone for me at work.
Definitely the latter - people trying to convince others that their views on war, or abortion, or taxes, or political party are the correct ones. These are also people who are intelligent, educated, and quite arrogant, so the fireworks were pretty spectacular.
I gotta admit I'd take a peek too to watch the fireworks.
But also a bit shocked how many people feel that participating is a good idea.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#388From the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the world is on fire? What if that never happens? I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavo…
No one pro-gun is refusing a discussion: they’re refusing emotional manipulation, whereby you use dead children as totems for emotional impact, but fail to discuss the actual costs and facts.
As you’ve done here.
“I’m emotional about something that might happen to my child, look at these dead kids!” while refusing to address their point — guns used for self defense and civil freedom — isn’t having a discussion, and isn’t a way to reason about a complex trade off in society. It’s using dead children as a grotesque banner for your emotional manipulation.
Maybe if you want a discussion, try having one?
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, no, many jobs are much more complicated than that. Honestly, a contractor relationship where you are taking orders from one person and only have to worry about what they think is refreshingly simple compared to working in a highly collaborative environment. For example, at Google, your manager is one person whose opinions are important, but things like promotions also depend heavily on peer review and your gene…
That sort of "plumbing" exists in lots, if not most places. Google is not different in that sense, except for the size.
I agree that some things are similar, but I think the differences between jobs matter, even if they aren't unique to one company.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting point - especially when it comes to the urgency a lot of people feel when considering climate change. I feel like part of the partisan leak into the workplace might be due to the lack of responsible governance that most Americans are feeling right now - since the entities responsible for fixing the big problems are out to lunch everyone is feeling a need to try and help solve those problems them…
Most of this political fervor is simple grandstanding. If these people really, truly cared about the issues they advocate, they'd have abandoned their cushy jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference. I fully agree that the American consumerist lifestyle has run its course, and has done tremendous damage to the planet. However, those who yell the most loudly about it should also be the ones to quit it first…
> should also be the ones to quit it first.
I disagree, that's of the same vein of reductive arguments that try to shame rich people who want higher taxes into paying higher taxes voluntarily - for these big problems we actually need to act together or there will always be a more efficient way to pursue wealth by over-exploiting the resources other people are leaving on the table to preserve.