It'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.?
Does this mean you and I cannot work together towards shared goals? I don't believe it does! We can each hold very strong and opposing views on some things, but if we both agree that e.g. we want our rivers to be cleaner, why shouldn't we work together on a river cleanup?
Forcing divisive discussions in every context makes collaboration on those goals you do share difficult or impossible. There are very good reasons to compartmentalize political/religious feelings (and the two don't seem that different these days).
In one of the companies I have worked, I participated in exactly the discussion you mentioned, on many occasions, and no discord was created. All involved remained friendly and effective co-workers.
To my knowledge, this freedom of discussion was widespread.
However when a person's point of view is objectively fallacious (Evangelical Christians, national socialists) and advocates doing harm or passing fallacious moral judgement of a class of people (Heathens, hedonists, homosexuals, jews) and that class of people includes you I do not believe you should ever be expected to tolerate or abstain from challenging that point of view.
If an individual is advocating harm to others and can't withstand scrutiny of their agenda then that's their problem. I don't see this any differently than suggesting you should avoid challenging sexual harassment or physical abuse in the place of work in order to minimize friction. Certain "points of view" should encounter friction at all times and from all sides, because they are reprehensible.
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 themselves.
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. Go live on a self-sustaining farm in Montana and show the rest of us how it's done. Until then, stop disrupting the office: people are trying to work in order to make ends meet.
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.
Personal lifestyle choices, on the other hand, are called that for a good reason: each person can make that choice for themselves. There's a liberal echo chamber in which the choice of one person, along with the right amount of advocacy and education, can be greatly amplified leading to a critical mass of people making a similar choice. Imagine an emergent group that is just like hipsters, but focused on environmentalism and sustainable living instead of rushing to tightly pack themselves into increasingly sparse and really expensive apartments in Brooklyn. Imagine communes springing up in agriculturally productive regions, helped along by technology and innovative thinking, operating fully on renewable energy, and doing brisk business selling food. Make this model repeatable by someone without extensive education, and you have yourself real change.
Google employs plenty of people who have the right ideology, drive, and technical skills to make this happen. Instead all they do is work for a giant advertising and surveillance firm.
The Internet gave everyone a voice. If "everyone" includes only those who are forcibly compacted into big cities, I think this should be made clear to the rest of us.
Lastly, living on a farm does not remove a person's ability to vote.
There are plenty of examples of people doing this. It hasn't made a lick of difference. No one listens to a lonely voice out in the middle of nowhere.
Maybe people work at "cushy" jobs so they can make money and donate it. Or influence their company to do the right thing, rather than the profitable thing. These things really do make a difference. For example, Google has been carbon-neutral since 2007.[1] Surely that has been influential for other companies.
1. https://www.wired.com/story/how-google-keeps-power-hungry-op...
Maybe it is. I know know. That said, what I haven't heard is any good coming out of it.
Food is like CS Lewis said about smoking a pipe: It gives a wise man time to think and a fool something to put in his mouth.
What that means is that people get to spend time thinking before they respond and that makes a big difference. When I did a contract in Denmark we used to discuss all kinds of politics -- immigration, cultural differences, which parties were insane, etc but always over food. And it meant we could discuss and disagree without feelings getting hurt.
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.
People get into arguments and fights over football, for heaven's sake. Should we ban that, too?
I and my friends regularly discuss politics (on Discord, of all places) and we all have different viewpoints- everything from classical liberal to Bernie Sanders-socialist to conservative to libertarian and we all manage to get along- it's hard sometimes, and there are heated discussions, but we all leave having a good time, and, more importantly, we've learned something.
The way I see it, the problem here is that as political polarization increases, the need for frank discussion without hating people afterwards only increases, and the tolerance for it only goes down. If we want to recover even a little bit from the edge, stuff like Google's "no discussing politics" policy needs to be stopped, and replaced with "discuss politics politely or not at all" instead.
An important question, I think. It would seem some think they should, and some probably think they should do both.
Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
An attitude I find personally disheartening, but I'll stop there because these discussions never end well.
But even then there's a difference; NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL. If Google employees were using their position to push some agenda the company did not agree with and had nothing to do with then I'd agree.
It's certainly within Google's rights to take a "shut up and work" position, but I don't imagine it will work out well for them in the long run.
Oh yes, they absolutely are.
Miami Dolphin's player Kenny Stills directly protested his team owner's involvement and affiliation with a charity donating funds to the Trump administration.
This seems to have had some result: https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/barry-j...
Oakland Raider's player Antonio Brown is directly protesting recent changes to the NFL's helmet guideline policies.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/antonio-brown-reacts-afte...
Seattle Seahawks player Earl Thomas, in addition to protesting criminal justice inequalities, directly protested his team and how the league was, at the time, addressing and handling player safety, right before he himself got injured and gave his coach the finger while being carted off the field. He has since been traded.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/oct/01/earl-thomas-mi...
Players are absolutely protesting the actions of the NFL in some degree or another. To say otherwise is, I'm sorry, to be ignorant of the issues.
Well, yeah... of course there are instances of that. None of those are examples represent "social change". When you talk about protests in the NFL in the context of this thread, anyone who doesn't live under a rock is going to think of taking a knee during the anthem.
C'mon, helmet disputes? In what way is that relevant to your quote here?
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
Are you arguing just to argue?
I don't know what to tell you, then, if you really don't think two players putting their careers on the line, 1 by directly challenging and publicly calling out the organization that pays his salary for their relationship to the sitting President isn't political.
You claimed players weren't protesting the actions of the NFL.
I gave you three examples of it. Two of them squarely political, one over connections to the president, the other over criminal justice reform.
Please stop moving the goalposts.
None of those are examples represent "social change".
I'd argue the recent attention the league has been placing on player safety and the conversations emerging about brain injuries in sports represents a pretty important social change.
Are you arguing just to argue?
No and I'd appreciate a better characterization of my viewpoints on the topic, than a reductionist accusation of arguing for sport simply in the presence of your apparent disagreement. We can disagree how valuable these topics are to a larger political dynamic, but I'm not going to engage if this is how you choose to label my opposing viewpoint.
We're talking about speaking out on political/social issues at work.
My position is that I'm fine with it (and I think Google should support it to some extent) assuming that it is relevant to the actions of the employer or working conditions.
You bring up the NFL. The exact quote is
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
Obviously people are going to assume you're talking about what began with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem.
I point out how that is different because it does not directly relate to the NFL.
You then bring up three examples of 'protests' (because they're not even protests, they're internal disputes):
>Kenny Stills and Trump donations
Agreed, this is relevant.
>Antonio Brown and helmet guideline policies.
We're talking about helmets now and this is somehow a "social issue" (It's not. Really, it's not.)
>Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett, in addition to protesting criminal justice inequalities, directly protested his team and how the league was, at the time, addressing and handling player safety
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. One is relevant, one is not.
Honestly at this point I think you're either confused or a troll.
Good day.
I didn't take anything out of context. The entire reply was
>So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
>An important question, I think. It would seem some think they should, and some probably think they should do both.
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
>An attitude I find personally disheartening, but I'll stop there because these discussions never end well.
That changes exactly... nothing. You're impossible to talk to. The funny thing is, I don't even think we fundamentally disagree on anything material here.
The bit you had about your prediction of how "this wouldn't end well" is a "prophecy" as you put it, but one of the self fulfilling types. Have a good one.
1. use designated/official channels to report such issues (ex. talk to their manager or their HR representative or even bring it up at TGIF)
2. if #1 fails they have a choice: continue working or walk away. Nobody is forcing them to work for a company that doesn't listen to them for issues they deeply care about (presumably)
A company is not a democracy. There should of course be plenty of channels to get feedback up the chain but the decision is ultimately that of those hired to make such decisions, not of software engineers hired to do something else entirely.
The problem is that discussing politics at any time in your workplace to people that have opposite views and/or don't want to discuss politics at that time is counterproductive.
Whether or not people enter those conversations with the intent on solving problems and actually discussing in earnest is where things get weird, admittedly.
But seriously, I know a few roles have immense influence over peoples lives, but most of us just try to efficiently plumb data we don't see between black boxes we don't understand.
I work on one of the edges of those engineering efforts. On one side I see first hand how detached engineers at Google are from the things they build and on the other I see people's lives being defined by using those products / services. That impact is real and I think it's at a level that very few googlers respect because they're not lucky enough to be on an outside edge like me.
They may have had to make the restrictions overly broad to avoid tripping over some labor organization laws.
Those are indeed important. Fundamentally so. This is also why sociopaths and scoundrels will try to wrap themselves in those flags to further their own ends.
https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
Also, many of the taboo topics are very efficient in calling forth human group instincts and group-think behaviors. This makes the aggregate less intelligent and more prone to being led to concerted action. That is also precisely why scoundrels and sociopaths seek to be the ones out in front, waving the banners.
This is not to say that all such leaders are sociopaths. Just that everyone should be aware that there are incentives which attract them. This is also why, in traditional culture, leaders can be held to high standards.
the simple matter is those subjects are not likely the issue at hand but instead of politically sensitive issues. worse when one side is more than willing to declare opposition to any position as racist or bigoted because their own presumptuous moral superiority there is no room for intelligent discourse
What's more important to life than family and friends? Do you talk about them at length at work?
Just because something is of monumental importance to the society/world, doesn't mean you need to talk about it all the time, especially at work.
Work is not meant as a substitution of life, it can be incredibly fulfilling but it's still work.
You mean I could get my work done and not have to feign interest when people blather on about their family and friends? One soul, coming up.
Talk, when you have no ability to act, is just arguing and helps no one.
What's more worth talk about? Things you can actually act upon.