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.?
What's more important to talk about than your immortal soul? The problem is when I think those not saved by Jesus will burn for eternity and you think religious people are the bane of advanced civilization, and there's no way to reconcile these views, this is a problem. It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord.
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).
> It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord.
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.
Fair point. Personally, I'm also comfortable disagreeing with people strongly & still being friendly. Unfortunately this trait is not widespread. If you don't think so, I would ask why you think "Don't talk about politics or religion [at work, at the dinner table etc.]" has been such a common maxim for so long? (In case you're not from North America: this is a commonly understood practice in North America.)
I see no reason why one should not be able to recognize a common desire and work to achieve it regardless on disagreement on other issues.
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.
To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger social mission.
That's an interesting point - especially when it comes to the urgency a lot of people feel when considering climate change.
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.
Most of this political fervor is simple grandstanding. If these people really, truly cared about the issues they advocate, they'd have abandoned their cushy jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference.
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.
There's a huge difference between taxes (an aspect of societal behavior encoded in law) and personal lifestyle choices. We (supposedly, allegedly) exist in a political system that allows for some participation by citizens. One could choose to run for office, or campaign on behalf of a political candidate who might pursue progressive policies when elected. Over time this adds up to real change. I can see the point that perhaps slowly nudging a large political system towards real change is too little, too late for some issues. If this is indeed the case, then change must happen outside the bounds of normal political action. Take the tax issue you brought up: there is no law that would levy a tax on wealth. This law doesn't exist. If it existed, and if it were written without loopholes, it would achieve the goal of redistributing all this wealth. Unfortunately, this law isn't a reality, so until that changes we're stuck with other ways of making the rich pay. We can shame them, refuse to do business with them, and so on; but simply bitching about this at work won't move the needle even a little bit.
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.
Quitting civilization to live on a self sustaining farm is a perfect way of limiting your political influence. It's the exact opposite of what you should do if you want real change in an issue where everybody needs to do something.
How did you arrive at "quitting civilization" after starting at "living on a self-sustaining farm"? Does the Internet experience 100% packet drop around manure or in the presence of a critical mass of agricultural specialists?
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.
> they'd have abandoned their cushy jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference...Go live on a self-sustaining farm in Montana and show the rest of us how it's done
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.
Human history is littered with holy wars. Unfortunately we're also really good at bulldozing away the resulting wreckage, which ironically feeds back into history's tendency to repeat itself.
One thing I learned in Europe is to discuss politics over food.
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.
Not every place where people discuss "politics" has to be a place for political battles.
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.
It's taboo because it's human nature to have fixed opinions (which only change over extended periods of time) about your worldview, be it politics or religion. Few political arguments have outcomes beyond disagreement.
That's really the crux of the issue. I agree that people should probably leave most of their personal beliefs at home... unless it's something that directly related to what the company is doing. So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
>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.
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.
NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So not only are you taking statements and removing them from the necessary context to understand WHY I drew the comparison I did, you’re continuing to launch personal attacks in place of forming a more cogent disagreement.
Wow you went through quite a few edits before the reply link popped up for me.
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.
Agreed, but it's Google's approach that's up for discussion here, not whether or not they have the right to shut down such discussion. I don't think a company who shits down reasonable debate is going to do well over the long term.
You can have proper workshops/apps/meetings to discuss these things and gather input from all employees in a way that doesn't disturb the regular day-to-day work.
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.
I think I can agree in the affirmative with the first sentence, not so much the second one, with the context of my original comment in mind. If your company is demonstrably involved in issues that affect global, heck or even local politics, speaking to those affairs is an imperative.
Whether or not people enter those conversations with the intent on solving problems and actually discussing in earnest is where things get weird, admittedly.
The most political most Googlers work gets is what to call variable names. We decided to not use master/slave, so we are A-OK now!
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.
Just because you can't see where the data you're plumbing touches the world doesn't mean it doesn't have impact.
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.
For profit companies should not choose sides. Google's only discussion of politics in the workplace should be on how to make their systems be as unbiased as possible.
The problem with statements like this is that not choosing sides is exactly as political as choosing sides. There is no such thing as ignoring politics — it's an essential part of the human experience, so any organization must grapple with it.
People who think everything is political are usually authoritarians. They believe in order for progress to be made, you have to force or coerce people into doing the right thing.
I think we pigeonhole "things that most people are too stupid and childish to discuss without losing their minds" as politics. There're a million critically important things that government does that people don't tie their identities to that we don't really count as "political discussions".
Precisely. These aren't "merely" politics. These are the issues that shape peoples lives, for now and for future generations. One of the greatest cons of all time was the casting of Climate Change as a "political" issue. It's our lives we're talking about. Our very existence.
It's funny how there's always some weird overlap between "human rights and public policy" and "culture war over which cartoons are problematic or who was honored with a Google Doodle today".
Well, that depends what you regard as important. Many of the things I'd guess you regard as important I don't, and vice-versa. Who decides? Why are you the arbiter of what's "obviously" important? That's a fallacious appeal to common knowledge.
Also if we can't discuss politics over disagreement in a civil way seeking to learn from each other even where we find the other points of view difficult, then all hope for a better future is lost. Nobody ever learns from mere agreement. Disagreement is a precondition to learning from other people.
I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?
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.
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.
Sex, politics and religion have long been held up as the bane of polite society. This is why polite society is pretty fucking boring and rarely achieves much of any value.
Those topics are also the most likely to devolve into hostile confrontations because they are emotionally loaded and highly complex. No one person is going to be able to devise a solution to the major problems in those domains, let alone be able to hold that solution in their head and effectively argue it. This is why we have vastly complicated social and political structures for dealing with these things. It all has to be broken down into the simplest possible parts and handled in a case by case manner by whole institutions of people in order for us to even have a hope of approximating a correct solution.
hyperbole doesn't make an argument so try it elsewhere.
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
Can you imagine how soulless work would be if you couldn't talk about your family and friends? These are the things that make us people. We can't just put them in a box at 9am and take them back out at 5.
There are small talks and talks that elicit a response. Small talks about family which mostly draws wows and wahs are totally fine, but you want work to be centered around the work itself and not get drawn into lengthy discussion about politics. At least do it during breaks.
Work is not meant as a substitution of life, it can be incredibly fulfilling but it's still work.
