Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#661

Post by kgwgk » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

jachee wrote: post #622

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a significant difference between an ideology and an identity. I suspect that many Muslims consider that to be their identity, not just their ideology. > Why—whenever the question of hate comes up—is HN so quick to rise to the defense of the hateful? Because I'm hateful (to at least somebody). And so are you. We don't defend the hateful because the hateful are so wonderful. We don't defend them because we ag…

"I'm a shitty person, and so are you." is a cop-out and frankly insulting. > I suspect that many Muslims consider that to be their identity, not just their ideology. I can't believe I have to explain that the difference is between what's a choice and what's not: You can't change your identity. Ideology is arbitrary.

Are you saying that people can never change the gender/sex/etc they identify with? Some people would find that hateful!

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#662

Post by refurb » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

lreeves wrote: post #259

duxup wrote: post #206

Earlier 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.

I understand your perspective but I'm honestly very surprised given your example. I'm in Canada and the things Trump does and says are still present in conversations nearly every day.

I believe it. I was always amazed that Canadians seemed more interested in US politics than their own politics.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#663

Post by cameronbrown » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

Nullabillity wrote: post #512

cameronbrown wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is meaningful change in society related to shipping Google Drive features? Time and a place. Politics has no nuance or filter anymore. It's all the time on full blast, forever. I hate it.

Plenty of Google Drive features are political. For example, allowing people to monitor who has read a document. Or deciding what the default permission set should be for new files. Or whether or not the files should be encrypted at rest. Or whether the Drive client should download and sync everything, or download stuff on demand. Etc, etc.

That's a strawman argument. I think we both know there's a distinction to be made between 'political' and mainstream political conversation. Of course if you're stretching the definition it will include everything.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#664

Post by bduerst » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #592

threeseed wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misrepresenting their point. There are many reasons why women don't go into IT. And whilst you can look at at it holistically it is ultimately a personal decision. And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT.

> And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT. The memo did not claim this. The references to innate differences were only in reference to women's choices. At no point did the author claim they women "aren't physically suited" to IT.

He says it right here: [emphasis added]

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

He's saying that women lack the ability to work in engineering and leadership because they are biologically different. His argument isn't limited to preference.

And this is ignoring the fact that his supporting data used the Big5 psych method, which has been debunked as not being scientific in identifying biological differences due to it's lexical nature.

Edit: Damore says that women more having extraversion and empathy, which "leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading."

Saying they are having a harder time is saying they lack the ability.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#665

Post by anoncake » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

tidepod12 wrote: post #490

new2628 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I'm trying to say this as politely as possible, but... are you serious? If you seriously cannot have conversations at this level without them turning into political discussions, you really need to reflect on your conversational habits. It is absolutely not normal or healthy if you can't talk about drinking water without it turning political. My SO is a vegetarian. It comes up a lot , both with my friends (who are all…

Vegetarianism is a political issue (except when it is a medical one). Animal rights are a political issue and so is ecological policy.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#666

Post by ci5er » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #384

duxup wrote: post #206

Earlier 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.

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…

Your observation that small groups that are already friends having differing points of view does not make them "the other" in your mind, may well be the opposite of (Political) Twitter, which may well be why that ends up being such a dumpster fire.

Q: You mention that you were 'appalled'. Did either of you take the time to explore your presumptions behind your reasons for coming to differing conclusions (while realizing the humans are 'rationalizing creatures', not 'rational creatures')?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#667

Post by anoncake » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

f00zz wrote: post #277

rollinDyno wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C++20 coroutines are tools to serve a purpose. That purpose is political.

Sometimes that purpose is just to tell if two binary trees have the same fringe

That's an odd line of business.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#668

Post by TheGRS » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

jdm2212 wrote: post #648

einhverfr wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its worth noting my colleagues and I have very different political views when we talk over lunch but I find it very insightful to see different views and we are all on good terms over it all. And I think we do think about eachother's views and we do try to build common ground, so frankly I find it healthy.

The American political spectrum is way bigger than the political spectrum in most European countries. There's a lot more potential for deep disagreement in the US when people talk politics.

I'm American and I've had plenty of political discussions on polar opposite political sides at work or with colleagues at a bar or wherever. There's two lines that should not be crossed: the obvious one is threatening someone's job due to politics, but the more nuanced one is mistrusting someone professionally based on their political affiliation or opinions.

I suspect some on this discussion are also conflating political discussion at work with this incident: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-eng...

Sure, it's "political", but more importantly it's discriminatory and therefore unacceptable on many other levels.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#669

Post by bcrosby95 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #417

TheCapn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Everyone wants to be able to have their political opinions, try and convince others, and not get fired. In fact, many people do not want to try and have others convince them of their political leanings.

Yeah, THIS. Trying to convince other people of MY political leaning goes against one of the central political leaning that I have: Everyone should have freedom to believe in whatever they want to believe in. I also find it annoying when other people try to shove their believe down my throat.

I try to view political discussions as helping to spread information and confront one's own biases. Most people don't seem to though. I've had people that I agree with politically on a subject yell and curse at me because I don't believe every bullshit "fact" they sling my way.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#670

Post by scarejunba » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #600

manigandham wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company becomes a "traditional" company because only traditional companies have survived. If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now. Also I'm willing to be that a startup's lack of bureaucracy and momentum lets it experiment and move faster rather than just a carefree internal attitude. I've been in midsize companies on both sides of the free-culture spectrum and have never noticed…

Look up WL Gore and Associates. They have thrived on a very different company power structure. Or maybe their founder was right and the power structure wasn't different (he thought official power structures were not where the power was held, and therefore dispensed with them in order for unofficial power structures to more easily come to the fore). The problem is that you have to have some forms of effort in coordina…

Well, Google only changed when they reached two orders of magnitude the size of Goretex, so maybe the answer is that Gore just didn't get big enough.