12 ms·

I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. After the way the James Damore thing was handled I'm starting to think maybe tech workers are safer keep

by xupybd 9y ago

I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. After the way the James Damore thing was handled I'm starting to think maybe tech workers are safer keeping their political beliefs between them and the ballot box. I think people should be free to hold any political belief, but are wise to separate work and politics.

rectang 9y ago
"The personal is political." Injustice cannot be compartmentalized away.
- xupybd 9y ago
  I agree to an extent but let me put it like this. I'm very conservative, to the point that many at my work place would disagree with the way I live and others around me live. So I'm not super open at my work place. I like my co workers and I enjoy working with them despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum. This is only possible because we silently agree to disagree on those topics by not bringing them to work.
  - rectang 9y ago
    The phrase "The personal is politial" is associated with second-wave feminism. I never expected to see it applied to James Damore. Something to think about for both of us. ;)
- dionidium 9y ago
  I know you mean you say that injustice should not be compartmentalized away, but it's worth making this explicit. History tells us unequivocally that it absolutely can be.
ianbicking 9y ago
It's always safer to be less political. It's safer not to be political in your professional life, and not to be political in your personal life. It's safer to look after yourself. If you actually care to act civically, if you care about your political beliefs, then you might want to consider the impact of what you do. What you do in your personal life is likely to be much less socially impactful than what you do at work. If you are not concerned about your impact then it doesn't matter.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  I agree.
- lkerrekfjk 9y ago
  > It's always safer to be less political. Not anymore. If someone at work brings the discussion to some wedge issue and you dare say nothing, or "I don't have an opinion about it", God helps you. You'll be labelled anti-X, Y-phobic or Z-supremacist because you dared not expressly agree with someone's "right side of history" political stance...
  - confounded 9y ago
    Not my experience at Bay Area tech companies.
- moonka 9y ago
  >It's always safer to be less political. It's safer not to be political in your professional life, and not to be political in your personal life. It's safer to look after yourself. It's only safer until your life is disrupted by politics. Be it access to healthcare, taxes, education, etc it's a certainty that at some point ignoring politics will stop being a great option.
  - sova 9y ago
    Don't ignore but don't get petty either, post political society awaits us
    - eropple 9y ago
      There is no "post-political society". Society is defined by politics; "politics" appear as soon as three people are in a room together. "Politics" is an active, controlling, and inescapable force that permeates every connection between those people, between you and me, and between everybody else around. There is no "post-political" society unless everybody's dead. And, to make it really-real clear, it's not "petty" to refuse to associate with people who want to make life significantly worse for you and yours. It's defense.
kiliantics 9y ago
Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo. He made the mistake of not organising with others and building power as a group that challenges the status quo. This is why unionising is important: a demand from a mass worker movement that can pose a real threat to the status quo is the only demand that has a chance of being met.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  > "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. Even though their opinions might almost completely agree with what their peers think, it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food. edit: I can no longer delete this, but I would if I could. I'm not defending nor condemning any partisan stance. I am not stating my own opinion on any matter at hand. I'm giving what I think could be a reason for someone not wanting to be politically active.
  - drdeadringer 9y ago
    To a point, there is a reason why I don't wear on my sleeve some of my beliefs be them political, social, economical, or whatever. Morally, ethically, fill-in-the-blank, there is a variety of spectrums I am happy to hold my tongue on until my personal limit is reached. Yes, it varies on any given range. I'm not sure it's fair. No, it's not consistent because I'm Human; don't sue me. > "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself I agree. I don't know why this is necessarily wrong. Maybe I like the current political stance, whatever that is. If any one of us thinks it's wrong, we can act and speak and accept accordingly.
    - 9y ago
rrhd 9y ago
Damore wasn't fired for political beliefs. That's a narrative spread by conservatives because it gets people riled up and lets then act like victims. He was fired because he made statements that pissed off a fair number of his coworkers, and that were not in line with the companies views.
wpietri 9y ago
You do understand that itself is a political position, right? The notion that people must entirely erase themselves to conform to the preferences of whoever is paying them is a very particular viewpoint, one that demands very specific power relationships. And it's only even hazily tenable to the extent that one's interests align with the status quo.
confounded 9y ago
I think you may have got triggered on a few of the words, and may not actually disagree with Tech Solidarity. This is about tech workers organizing; realizing that their power is greater when they are united, and having greater ability to challenge what comes down from the top. There are huge swathes of policy decisions made at technology companies where the engineering classes are likely to have different views to the executive class, like: - What is reasonable data to exfiltrate from a user’s device? - Can you open source this cool internal tool you’re working on? - Should the company prevent you from working on FOSS projects in your spare time, or try and get first-dibs on patents you dream up on the BART? If you want autonomy over your work-life, that means being able to speak frankly about the politics of work with your colleagues. Even if you or they feel uncomfortable occasionally.
- xupybd 9y ago
  Totally. Everything you’ve raised there seem like professional issues to me. I fully agree with unionising and working with other tech workers to address professional issues. Ethics and things related to work as a tech worker should be discussed and debated in the work place. But I’m not sure societal issues need be debated there. In your free time great, but not at the cost of your working relationships. Sorry not trying to not pick on terms, just trying to better communicate my intention.
  - confounded 9y ago
    > But I’m not sure societal issues need be debated there. Then you'd better organize your workplace so you can tell your colleagues what they can and can't talk about, or believe is an important aspect of their work. The line between ethics in the technology industry, and societal issues is likely not as bright as you think. You may wish that there wasn't overlap, but that doesn't make it the case. Figuring these things out is difficult, but if we want technology to represent the intentions of technologists (not executives and venture capitalists) then it is incumbent upon us!
    - xupybd 9y ago
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
> I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. After the way the James Damore thing was handled I'm starting to think maybe tech workers are safer keeping their political beliefs between them and the ballot box. The whole point of tech-worker organizing is to, for instance, obtain more secure employment than at-will law provides for, keeping companies from firing people who accidentally generate bad publicity by falling into an HR honeypot. Under a sensible system, whatever Damore's private opinions, I do believe it would have counted as Google basically entrapping him.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  I don't trust the people organizing tech worker "solidarity" to actually protect everyone's free expression. History suggests that the solidarity effort is instead about further enforcing ideological rigidity.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > I don't trust the people organizing tech worker "solidarity" to actually protect everyone's free expression. History suggests that the solidarity effort is instead about further enforcing ideological rigidity. It also doesn't particularly help when some of its prominent advocates are on the record stating that some intersections of gender and racial minorities are less important than others.
    - fletom 9y ago
      Can you explain who and what you mean by this?
  - mamoswined 9y ago
    Having been a member of a union, I've seen unions protect unpopular people, including sexual harassers. I have mixed feelings about this. I do think the harassers deserve to go through a fair process ultimately though. Also see for example how "progressive" police unions are.

by xupybd 9y ago

rectang 9y ago

"The personal is political." Injustice cannot be compartmentalized away.

xupybd 9y ago
I agree to an extent but let me put it like this. I'm very conservative, to the point that many at my work place would disagree with the way I live and others around me live. So I'm not super open at my work place. I like my co workers and I enjoy working with them despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum. This is only possible because we silently agree to disagree on those topics by not bringing them to work.
- rectang 9y ago
  The phrase "The personal is politial" is associated with second-wave feminism. I never expected to see it applied to James Damore. Something to think about for both of us. ;)
dionidium 9y ago
I know you mean you say that injustice should not be compartmentalized away, but it's worth making this explicit. History tells us unequivocally that it absolutely can be.

ianbicking 9y ago

It's always safer to be less political. It's safer not to be political in your professional life, and not to be political in your personal life. It's safer to look after yourself. If you actually care to act civically, if you care about your political beliefs, then you might want to consider the impact of what you do. What you do in your personal life is likely to be much less socially impactful than what you do at work. If you are not concerned about your impact then it doesn't matter.

drdeadringer 9y ago
I agree.
lkerrekfjk 9y ago
> It's always safer to be less political. Not anymore. If someone at work brings the discussion to some wedge issue and you dare say nothing, or "I don't have an opinion about it", God helps you. You'll be labelled anti-X, Y-phobic or Z-supremacist because you dared not expressly agree with someone's "right side of history" political stance...
- confounded 9y ago
  Not my experience at Bay Area tech companies.
moonka 9y ago
>It's always safer to be less political. It's safer not to be political in your professional life, and not to be political in your personal life. It's safer to look after yourself. It's only safer until your life is disrupted by politics. Be it access to healthcare, taxes, education, etc it's a certainty that at some point ignoring politics will stop being a great option.
- sova 9y ago
  Don't ignore but don't get petty either, post political society awaits us
  - eropple 9y ago
    There is no "post-political society". Society is defined by politics; "politics" appear as soon as three people are in a room together. "Politics" is an active, controlling, and inescapable force that permeates every connection between those people, between you and me, and between everybody else around. There is no "post-political" society unless everybody's dead. And, to make it really-real clear, it's not "petty" to refuse to associate with people who want to make life significantly worse for you and yours. It's defense.

kiliantics 9y ago

Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo. He made the mistake of not organising with others and building power as a group that challenges the status quo. This is why unionising is important: a demand from a mass worker movement that can pose a real threat to the status quo is the only demand that has a chance of being met.

jakebasile 9y ago
> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. Even though their opinions might almost completely agree with what their peers think, it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food. edit: I can no longer delete this, but I would if I could. I'm not defending nor condemning any partisan stance. I am not stating my own opinion on any matter at hand. I'm giving what I think could be a reason for someone not wanting to be politically active.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  To a point, there is a reason why I don't wear on my sleeve some of my beliefs be them political, social, economical, or whatever. Morally, ethically, fill-in-the-blank, there is a variety of spectrums I am happy to hold my tongue on until my personal limit is reached. Yes, it varies on any given range. I'm not sure it's fair. No, it's not consistent because I'm Human; don't sue me. > "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself I agree. I don't know why this is necessarily wrong. Maybe I like the current political stance, whatever that is. If any one of us thinks it's wrong, we can act and speak and accept accordingly.
  - 9y ago

rrhd 9y ago

Damore wasn't fired for political beliefs. That's a narrative spread by conservatives because it gets people riled up and lets then act like victims. He was fired because he made statements that pissed off a fair number of his coworkers, and that were not in line with the companies views.

wpietri 9y ago

You do understand that itself is a political position, right? The notion that people must entirely erase themselves to conform to the preferences of whoever is paying them is a very particular viewpoint, one that demands very specific power relationships. And it's only even hazily tenable to the extent that one's interests align with the status quo.

confounded 9y ago

I think you may have got triggered on a few of the words, and may not actually disagree with Tech Solidarity. This is about tech workers organizing; realizing that their power is greater when they are united, and having greater ability to challenge what comes down from the top. There are huge swathes of policy decisions made at technology companies where the engineering classes are likely to have different views to the executive class, like: - What is reasonable data to exfiltrate from a user’s device? - Can you open source this cool internal tool you’re working on? - Should the company prevent you from working on FOSS projects in your spare time, or try and get first-dibs on patents you dream up on the BART? If you want autonomy over your work-life, that means being able to speak frankly about the politics of work with your colleagues. Even if you or they feel uncomfortable occasionally.

xupybd 9y ago
Totally. Everything you’ve raised there seem like professional issues to me. I fully agree with unionising and working with other tech workers to address professional issues. Ethics and things related to work as a tech worker should be discussed and debated in the work place. But I’m not sure societal issues need be debated there. In your free time great, but not at the cost of your working relationships. Sorry not trying to not pick on terms, just trying to better communicate my intention.
- confounded 9y ago
  > But I’m not sure societal issues need be debated there. Then you'd better organize your workplace so you can tell your colleagues what they can and can't talk about, or believe is an important aspect of their work. The line between ethics in the technology industry, and societal issues is likely not as bright as you think. You may wish that there wasn't overlap, but that doesn't make it the case. Figuring these things out is difficult, but if we want technology to represent the intentions of technologists (not executives and venture capitalists) then it is incumbent upon us!
  - xupybd 9y ago

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

> I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. After the way the James Damore thing was handled I'm starting to think maybe tech workers are safer keeping their political beliefs between them and the ballot box. The whole point of tech-worker organizing is to, for instance, obtain more secure employment than at-will law provides for, keeping companies from firing people who accidentally generate bad publicity by falling into an HR honeypot. Under a sensible system, whatever Damore's private opinions, I do believe it would have counted as Google basically entrapping him.

quotemstr 9y ago
I don't trust the people organizing tech worker "solidarity" to actually protect everyone's free expression. History suggests that the solidarity effort is instead about further enforcing ideological rigidity.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > I don't trust the people organizing tech worker "solidarity" to actually protect everyone's free expression. History suggests that the solidarity effort is instead about further enforcing ideological rigidity. It also doesn't particularly help when some of its prominent advocates are on the record stating that some intersections of gender and racial minorities are less important than others.
  - fletom 9y ago
    Can you explain who and what you mean by this?
- mamoswined 9y ago
  Having been a member of a union, I've seen unions protect unpopular people, including sexual harassers. I have mixed feelings about this. I do think the harassers deserve to go through a fair process ultimately though. Also see for example how "progressive" police unions are.