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

Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by BrandonM »

phonon wrote: post #656
jasode wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>100 SJWs [...] contracting with a company of 100 MAGA [...] would be more productive than putting all 200 of them in a single company and imposing the traditional politeness restrictions of a corporate job. So the question in my mind is, why did Google need to grow? I had trouble parsing what you wrote but I think the question you're asking (growth with employees vs growth by contractors?) is answered by Coase's "Th…

No, he's saying diversity is disruptive/adds friction . See https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026...

...if everyone is bringing their whole self to work. Not saying I agree or disagree, but I think that's important context that shouldn't be left out.

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

#772

Post by weberc2 »

kerzol wrote: post #620
weberc2 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, that's my point. Saying "everything is political" might be true, but it misses the point that some things are far less political than others, and almost everyone who says things like "no political conversation" probably means "no highly political conversation".

The question of whether a certain discission have more "politics inside" than another is a very political one, especially when someone tries to have a right opinion (even if the advocated opinion is "let us promote diversity and respect different political opinions) and use it to achieve some goals.

I think any reasonable definition of "politicalness" must respect consensus, and I think you'll find significant consensus that things like "abortion" are more political than things like "math". Arguments like "everything is political" are almost always an excuse used by firebrands to legitimize their pet issue--in this case, to make talking about their politics as appropriate in the workplace as getting their work done.

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

#773

Post by lagadu »

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.

"Bigger"? You guys have two parties, one of which is right/far-right and the other is just regular center/right. Parties on most countries on our side of the pond generally range between fascist and communist with at least half a dozen more in between those, not to mention that each differs in other axii too, like the level of cosmopolitanism.

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

#774

Post by bendbro »

ausbah wrote: post #734
fromthestart wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are rabidly dismissive of the project veritas expose, but articles with quotes like this repeteadly show pervasive bias among Google staff which aligns exactly with the accusations and candid management recordings within the video [1]. The video is admittedly obnoxious and overly dramatic, but the candid clips with exec Jen Gennai strongly suggest that these political biases are leaking into technical work wit…

People are rabidly dismissive of Project Veritas and another one of their "exposures" because of their attempts to "make evidence" by tricking people into admitting something, cherrypicking what "evidence" they do display, and having a "answer first, evidence second" mindset to their operation. If you want to show that Google has "bias against conservatives" or whatever, get it from a reputable source instead of the…

I've seen some of their videos. They seem fairly damning, and rebuttals have always been fairly weak. For example, a google exec was captured on video saying: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”. In what context does that statement not amount to silencing conservative perspective on their platform? I completely agree it is their right to do so, and probably benefits the nation, but pretending they aren't doing it is terrible optics.

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

#775

Post by microtherion »

ci5er wrote: post #762
microtherion wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. We discussed this a bit, and my impression was that he (a) had somewhat negative opinions of muslims in general (although he got along fine with muslim co-workers — again, the phenomenon of knowing somebody protecting against "othering" them) (b) did not hold his political views very strongly, but partially saw politics as entertainment (he also listened to Michael Savage) (c) somewhat felt that when L…

Thanks for the detailed and sincere response. I apologize upfront for not knowing who Mike Savage is, but it is my understanding that Limbaugh (who I don't listen to, so I could be wrong) is a guy that rudely declares that we should enforce border policies as written into regulations written by Congress? That may not be true, but if it is, is that wrong-headed? Edit: I have many loving/giving Muslim friends, and with…

> it is my understanding that Limbaugh is a guy that rudely declares that we should enforce border policies as written into regulations written by Congress?

I'm somewhat conflicted in my thinking on border enforcement, and I do think it should, in general, exist, but that's far from the core and the tone of his argument, I think. He also declares that Mexicans in general are lazy (regardless of the legality of their status): https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-attacks-mexican...

and has a long history of racist comments: https://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

> I am somewhat afraid of [Muslim] "extremists" when I travel to Pakistan, or Qatar.

My colleague did in fact come from a country where Muslim extremism was a thing. For your travels, I would certainly share your concern in Pakistan, but I don't really think there is an objective basis for it in the case of Qatar:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/terrorism-index https://tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/terrorism-index https://tradingeconomics.com/qatar/terrorism-index

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

#776

Post by rayiner »

malvosenior wrote: post #479
jgunsch wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since. On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and…

> The discourse around the James Damore memo, as divisive as it was, felt like it still led to a broader understanding of the negative perspectives women in tech had to deal with constantly. Damore was fired for his contributions to this "conversation". Hardly just. > particularly the ones who felt it was worth staying and using their influence internally to push Google toward creating a more just world. How about ju…

Damore should have been fired for his awful logical reasoning skills. No harm no foul.

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

#777

Post by Aqua »

t34543 wrote: post #767
oppositelock wrote: post #187

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. 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…

Discussing politics at work is a huge liability. With the recent surge of outrage culture I’m not willing to put my job on the line to prove a point. I engage in discussion, but only online and anonymously.

This doesn't sound like freedom, look what the western society turned into. Interesting times we live in.

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

#778

Post by taway90210ca »

sarbaz wrote: post #538
LordFast wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…

Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice? I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power…

>> Do you really think that striving for justice isn't OK?

The problem is that one person's justice is another person's genocide. I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Consider the typical political discussion around Israel and Palestine. Both sides feel they are on the verge of being wiped out, with or without merit. Both sides feel they can do anything and everything to avoid that presumed outcome.

"Striving for justice" means very different things to both sides. To a Palestinian mother who has seen, say, two toddlers shot to death, justice might mean killing the offender, a soldier. To an Israeli mother of the soldier, justice might mean killing the Palestinian mother before she kills the soldier (her son.)

Details will vary, but suffice it to say, no view of this is pretty.

You dont want to talk about that stuff in the office, because there is not going to be any just solution.

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

#779

Post by Izkata »

jcranberry wrote: post #618
nailer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

>Damore cited two studies, three Wikipedia pages, and an article from Quillette, a contrarian online magazine that often covers free speech on campus and alleged links between genetics and IQ. Quote from the recent WIRED article on Google culture, easily verifiable but I'm too lazy right now. But that's hardly 'most of the memo was citations of studies'.

An intentionally misleading quote. The memo has over 30 references, looks like about half of which are either to a research paper or reporting about some research.

Even the Wikipedia links are either to a general definition, or a well-referenced section that cites research papers, not to baseless claims.

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

#780

Post by lagadu »

einhverfr wrote: post #674
jdm2212 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Ummmm.... The entire American political spectrum fits in the center-right of most European countries' political spectrums. When was the last time you saw a political discussion between a Socialist, a Social Democrat, and an old-s…

> Yes, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama would be in the same party in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, etc.

You're getting downvoted but I'd like to register that I agree with you: they'd both be social-democrats, sitting on the center-right in my opinion :)

Post reply on HN