Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing • Hacker News Board

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#661

Post by secondcoming » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

OpieCunningham wrote: post #603

Areading314 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also what people do in autocratic regimes. Effectively we have created a "democratic autocracy" by means of allowing mobs of people to steamroll people online and destroy their reputations.

Maybe their reputations weren’t all that impressive to begin with. In any case, “allowing” is doing some heavy lifting there. No one is allowing anything. This is just how a society with mostly free expression works. Are people not supposed to express their dissatisfaction with other people? If I don’t like something, and enough other people don’t like it, such that an organization responds in a way to appease us, sh…

> If I don’t like something, and enough other people don’t like it, such that an organization responds in a way to appease us, should there be a law to prevent that?

Like when certain people didn't like other people sitting at the front of buses?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#662

Post by kortilla » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:06 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #411

ThinkBeat wrote: post #371

One part of the article: This is about a guy who wrote a book on his own time, published it outside of work. Someone did not like some parts of the book and the guy had to quit his job? There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. I write fictional stories in my spare time (never at work), I enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy reading them (I can't figure out why) It is a sad day for a Democracy when I…

> There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. We've had this discussion already, but claiming sexist views is going to be a problem for you whether you do it at work or elsewhere because of how laws around hostile work environments and notice work. Particularly, if you go on to actually create a hostile work environment (as one might reasonably suppose you will, having publicly espoused the relevant…

Why is it acceptable for people who espouse currently popular racist ideas (e.g. the anti-white training put on by Coca Cola) to remain employed in your paradigm?

Do you carve out an exception where it’s acceptable to cause problems for people as long as they aren’t a minority?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#663

Post by secondcoming » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:07 AM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #628

refurb wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke about struggle sessions but that seems to be the direction we’re headed in, just using different words. I’ve been in HR sessions where “self-criticism” is a core part of the training. All we need to do now is start throwing around terms like “counter-revolutionary ideas”. We’ve already started to label ideas as “dangerous” because they “foment discord”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism…

I think the word is going to be "harmful". Harmful ideas, harmful expressions, harmful thoughts.

Harmful considered harmful?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#664

Post by kortilla » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:09 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #581

imgabe wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. No. A million times no. If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is under any obligation to preemptively address things someone imagines might happen based on their misi…

> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee…

Ironic speech police coming from a throwaway. You clearly don’t really think people should be held accountable for what they write.

Writing under a pseudonym doesn’t change the meaning of what is written or the damage it can do.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#665

Post by taneq » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:10 AM UTC

didibus wrote: post #610

imgabe wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…

So, I haven't read the linked article, I'm just going off from what you say here. Hypothetically, say someone hates you, think you're a low life, that you're not as smart, and have bad habits, a trash culture, despise the way you dress and talk, and find your life choice repulsive, might even think you're tainted and doomed to eternal condemnation. Now say you work with this person, but at work they pretend like none…

What is your argument here? That your co-workers are obliged to only have positive feelings towards you?

Yes, that would suck. And yes, you would feel bad about the whole situation. But unless they have actually victimized you in some manner (say, this blog actually identifies you, or they're actively hostile to you at work) then no, you aren't entitled to any action against them.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#666

Post by whoooooo123 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:10 AM UTC

smegger001 wrote: post #230

archsurface wrote: post #2

I have no tolerance for politics at work. As far as woke at work goes, not too long ago someone in my office commented on slack "I don't approve of unnecessarily gendered emoji" - I can't even begin to imagine what sort of mind produces such thoughts. First world problems? No idea.

the one that gets me is adding race to emoji. they all used to be 'Simpsons yellow', a skin tone not found in any ethnic or racial group, and as such not representing or excluding any group but now we have black white and other various skin tones for our happy-faces. WHY? Does black happy face mean something different than white happy face isn't happiness universal? why bring race into something that was simply meant…

Am I misremembering? I coulda sworn that originally the 'white' (realistic, non-yellow) emojis were the only option, and the "neutral" yellow tone was added at the same time as the more diverse set of realistic skin tones. I'm certain that's how it was in Slack, for example - I remember discussing it with people at the time. Was I hallucinating?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#667

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:12 AM UTC

ayyy wrote: post #605

imgabe wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…

> I don't see how that is hard to understand. For a growing percentage of the workplace, knowing that a coworker has a socially unacceptable opinion is creating a hostile work environment. I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're literally wrong. If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things. I'm not super keen on how this is all…

I think there are several problems in how things are framed and the language we use. This is important because conflict resolution depends on it.

1) "creating a hostile work environment" means different things to different people which makes it hard to pin down.

2) Person Y claims "Person X made them feel unsafe", which can't be proven since there are no outside witnesses to how people "feel". Maybe I just disliked the person for other reasons and this gave me an opportunity to get at them.

3) People will get offended easily for billions of reasons depending on what their believes are (especially in a heavily polarized society).

4) Solidarity: my friend/coworker who I like claims X makes them feel unsafe so I believe them and stand in solidarity with them because I know them better than I know X. This can easily be turned into "I don't feel safe" in order to get back at them because the moment you have an additional "witness" it will get harder to question the event with every person who says they also feel this way. It becomes safer to just stand with them or to say you weren't there but very risky to stand up for the (alleged) perpetrator.

There is a saying "I can't change what people say, but I can change my reaction and how I feel about them, and whether I allow it to affect me".

If the framing/language requires me to trust that the other party is truthful (but which I don't) then solving the resolving the conflict is impossible.

Personally I dislike the woke movement because I come from a different time where we were told to settle things by ourselves and the person screaming or appealing to the higher authority was not applauded for doing so but considered a coward. This had also many problems but they were not better or worse than what we do today.

When I see my friends bring up their children and protecting them not only from physical harm but also insulating them from the feeling of offense, telling them it's their right never to have a feeling that they don't like and blame the other party the moment they do, so they never experience outrage and how to deal with it - then it becomes clear (to me) why so many kids have turned into idiots. If we then give these people virtual/digital technology and rob them of any real type of social connections and a chance to resolve conflict IRL it's a recipe for exactly this kind of disaster.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#668

Post by kortilla » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:12 AM UTC

didibus wrote: post #610

imgabe wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…

So, I haven't read the linked article, I'm just going off from what you say here. Hypothetically, say someone hates you, think you're a low life, that you're not as smart, and have bad habits, a trash culture, despise the way you dress and talk, and find your life choice repulsive, might even think you're tainted and doomed to eternal condemnation. Now say you work with this person, but at work they pretend like none…

> might even think you're tainted and doomed to eternal condemnation.

This is pretty much literally the case with most strongly religious people and how they feel about non-religious or other religions. Shall we preemptively fire all Muslims, Christians, and Jews just to be safe?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#669

Post by rimliu » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:14 AM UTC

taurath wrote: post #657

crackercrews wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace Researchers haven't found a link between implicit bias and behavior. [1] From the abstract: "No causal relationship: Implicit bias doesn't affect behavior at all." Is there more recent research that contradicts this? 1: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190802144415.h.…

Absolutely, and you’ll find many other studies that contradict the above. Plus good old fashioned common sense. Here’s a meta review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01913...

Common sense tells us that the Earth is flat and ths Sun rotates around it. Just look outside, is it not obvious?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#670

Post by 0xy » Sat, May 22, 2021, 8:14 AM UTC

aksss wrote: post #644

0xy wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, including the US. If an employee was a member of a fascist party it'd quite literally be illegal to fire them on that basis.

Political beliefs are not a protected class federally but some states and DC may offer protections. I think a majority of states do not, however.

100% of the companies in the OP are headquartered in a state that does, however. Including the vast majority of their employees.

California has strict protections, including protection from retaliation.