Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just aren't trying hard enough.
Pro-skub or anti-skub? https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/
Which are you and what's your favorite color?
Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
431–440 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#432I 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…
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…
This! All categories break down but many arise out of some reasonable necessity. The categories of "work life" and "personal life" are useful categories. I see no reason why I should discuss politics with someone I work with. It seems like a recipe for disaster.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#433I 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…
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…
This. I've been saying for a long time now that 2010-era Google will be in business school textbooks for generations as an example of why we have a taboo against contentious issues in the workplace.
It's like the old demotivational poster said: "it might be the case that your purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others".
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#434Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#435Finally common sense prevails! Get to work on time, eat your free lunch, work, go home. To those of you who disagree; if you want to "make a difference" take a cue from Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther king Jr. etc. Mahama Gandhi didn't work for the East India company while simultaneously fighting for freedom. If you are serious about it put your money where your mouth is and stop being empty vessels.
> Mahama Gandhi didn't work for the East India company while simultaneously fighting for freedom. LOL! I worked at Google for about two years as a "TVC" (a programmer in a cubical, not a "real" Googler) and it was like being kidnapped by aliens, after I left that's how it felt: Like I was one of those people who had just been returned to Earth. One thing that doesn't get talked about in re: Google and values: there's…
Is this in California? I've noticed in California that food service workers (at any establishment) tend to be Hispanic. In Toronto, they tend to be Asian.
Since these companies are required to be race-blind when hiring, they are going to be a reflection of their local job markets.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life, hardly any topic remains apolitical. Like that quote "you may not be interested in war, but ..."
That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life. Do a historical survey of people who tried to suffuse politics completely through the lives of their followers. For completeness, look also at the actions of religions in the same way. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Politics, movements of any kind which demand the entirety of the lives of their…
I surely enjoy wild associations as much as the next guy, but I meant more pedestrian topics such as:
- are you eating meat or are you vegetarian?
- do you take a car to work or ride a bike or take public transportation?
- do you drink tap water or bottled water?
- do you send your kids to private or public school?
Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics".
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#437It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?
Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.
if it's the Blitz, don't be the guy who shows up to tea time and tries to talk about the weather.
it isn't that tea time is the place for political battles. it's that when bombs are falling, there is little else which feels worth discussing.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they call it trans hate? Or did they object to unisex restrooms and/or pronoun usage rules? I usually see “hate” used very loosely here, when the reality is much more nuanced, and mischaracterizing it as trans hate (or hate in general, for whatever the issue might be) is contributing to the problem.
Is it merely a viewpoint to disagree politely upon that people should be called using pronouns they identify as? For example, if I repeatedly called a cis woman a man, and insisted she was a male, should this be objected to any differently than if I repeatedly called a trans woman a man and insisted she was a male? I understand the former (calling a cis woman a man and insisting on referring to her as he pronouns) to…
> But the idea of calling a trans woman a woman is a political move?
You are arguing that we should accept a man who’s feeling “womany” as a real woman, and that he should legally be treated as a woman.
Personally I think that’s absurd. I think we should let everyone be who they are, but I disagree about having legalities determined by what someone claims to feel.
Feelings are feelings, and very much soft and fluid. The law should be hard.
Clearly though, you think that the base argument makes sense, so my question is: do you accept it universally? The full way out?
Should a person who feels like or identifies as an animal (a furry), be considered a “real” animal? Should he legally be governed by the laws which governs real animals?
If not, why so? How is that different?
Or how about the famous attack chopper? Again it’s the exact same argument: someone claims to feel something, and demands you to respect the consequences of it, no matter how ridiculous.
Being opposed to such is a rationalist view, and has nothing to do with so “hate” no matter how much someone want to frame it as such.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I wasn't being serious about that. I was trying to say is that just as they can't tell if the Amazon is on fire because they don't live there, they can't tell if someone is being opressed by the system because they simply aren't this certain someone.
But this is true of everything, everywhere, all the time. The world is a complex place, and we have to make do with the knowledge we have at hand. It doesn't mean that we should be brash and unwavering in whatever our current judgement is, but we also can't endlessly refuse to form own judgements simply because we don't know everything there is to know in the universe.
Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.
if it's the Blitz, don't be the guy who shows up to tea time and tries to talk about the weather. it isn't that tea time is the place for political battles. it's that when bombs are falling, there is little else which feels worth discussing.
[deleted]