3 ms·

> there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother

> there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it?

geofft 9y ago
As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem. Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Because at the time there were no strong taboos about this and everyone seems to have been enjoying themselves. > it's a serious problem. What's with the present tense? This is ancient history.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Nope, but if every single workplace is structured in a way that one group of people likes them all and one group of people dislikes them all, that does seem like a problem for the second group. (Also I think that describing it as just not a workplace they "like" is a poor way to describe it, but.) I am actually of the opinion that, while I side with the opinions of the SJW folks at Google, for a Google-sized company to be so political in one direction is unfair to people of other political leanings, regardless of how strongly I disagree with those leanings. I do actually think that there should be a comparable workplace option in terms of pay and prestige for people with those political views who can't "bring their whole selves to work" at Google. I am more than happy to compete with them in the market and to recruit away any of their employees who don't hold those views, and I am extremely happy to fight via market and political means against specific policies they might seek to promote, but I don't think they should be cut out of employment entirely. And whether you feel like a sexualized culture is an uncomfortable place to work is a lot harder to change than your political views. (Partly because it's correlated with gender a little more strongly than political views are, but even ignoring gender, it's correlated with things like base personality and sexuality and cultural upbringing.) If some people like a sexualized culture, great, I'm glad they have places to work - if all the good places to work are sexualized, I think that's a problem. > What's with the present tense? This is ancient history. This story started out because a present-day conference is presently considering giving an award to one of the people in this story, who is still alive, because that conference believes there's some relevance to the industry in the present that they represent. Nobody is talking about whether to give an present-day award to Cato. Nobody is even talking about whether to give a present-day award to Nabokov, who died around the time being discussed here. If you want to call that ancient history, sure. But you can't simultaneously hold the position that this particular culture was ancient history and it's deserving of an award today. I'm fine with the conclusion "This is not our present-day culture, and we don't think that it's appropriate for us to either endorse or condemn it, so let's focus on giving awards for present-day achievements instead" - which is more or less what ended up happening, it sounds like.
rayiner 9y ago
> Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it? Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers?
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers? What's that supposed to prove? That I might retroactively impose modern values in some other area? For all I know, they enjoyed having the extra free time.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The point is that people generally don’t know what they don’t have. Just because they’re not “bothered” with something doesn’t mean that there isn’t something better out there for them, which they wouldn’t want to give up if they did have it.
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      But that's a different thing. What we're talking about here was whether it was a "problem" for them or not, and I would say the lack of an unknown-unknown can't be a problem for someone (outside of some contrived scenarios). That's leaving aside the question of whether the particular unknown-unknown is actually better for them, or just something we'd like to be better for them.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        It’s not a view that makes any sense. People are incredibly resilient creatures. Kids in Bangladesh with access to adequately clean water are still happy kids! But that doesn’t mean that an outside observer, separated by either geography or time, can’t recognize things about their condition that are a problem.
        9y ago

> there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it?

geofft 9y ago

As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem.

Slansitartop 9y ago
> As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem. Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Because at the time there were no strong taboos about this and everyone seems to have been enjoying themselves. > it's a serious problem. What's with the present tense? This is ancient history.
- geofft 9y ago
  > Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Nope, but if every single workplace is structured in a way that one group of people likes them all and one group of people dislikes them all, that does seem like a problem for the second group. (Also I think that describing it as just not a workplace they "like" is a poor way to describe it, but.) I am actually of the opinion that, while I side with the opinions of the SJW folks at Google, for a Google-sized company to be so political in one direction is unfair to people of other political leanings, regardless of how strongly I disagree with those leanings. I do actually think that there should be a comparable workplace option in terms of pay and prestige for people with those political views who can't "bring their whole selves to work" at Google. I am more than happy to compete with them in the market and to recruit away any of their employees who don't hold those views, and I am extremely happy to fight via market and political means against specific policies they might seek to promote, but I don't think they should be cut out of employment entirely. And whether you feel like a sexualized culture is an uncomfortable place to work is a lot harder to change than your political views. (Partly because it's correlated with gender a little more strongly than political views are, but even ignoring gender, it's correlated with things like base personality and sexuality and cultural upbringing.) If some people like a sexualized culture, great, I'm glad they have places to work - if all the good places to work are sexualized, I think that's a problem. > What's with the present tense? This is ancient history. This story started out because a present-day conference is presently considering giving an award to one of the people in this story, who is still alive, because that conference believes there's some relevance to the industry in the present that they represent. Nobody is talking about whether to give an present-day award to Cato. Nobody is even talking about whether to give a present-day award to Nabokov, who died around the time being discussed here. If you want to call that ancient history, sure. But you can't simultaneously hold the position that this particular culture was ancient history and it's deserving of an award today. I'm fine with the conclusion "This is not our present-day culture, and we don't think that it's appropriate for us to either endorse or condemn it, so let's focus on giving awards for present-day achievements instead" - which is more or less what ended up happening, it sounds like.

rayiner 9y ago

> Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it? Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers?

Slansitartop 9y ago
> Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers? What's that supposed to prove? That I might retroactively impose modern values in some other area? For all I know, they enjoyed having the extra free time.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The point is that people generally don’t know what they don’t have. Just because they’re not “bothered” with something doesn’t mean that there isn’t something better out there for them, which they wouldn’t want to give up if they did have it.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    But that's a different thing. What we're talking about here was whether it was a "problem" for them or not, and I would say the lack of an unknown-unknown can't be a problem for someone (outside of some contrived scenarios). That's leaving aside the question of whether the particular unknown-unknown is actually better for them, or just something we'd like to be better for them.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      It’s not a view that makes any sense. People are incredibly resilient creatures. Kids in Bangladesh with access to adequately clean water are still happy kids! But that doesn’t mean that an outside observer, separated by either geography or time, can’t recognize things about their condition that are a problem.
      - 9y ago