5 ms·
> animals can be subject to prejudice just as people can, as part of the company’s “Talks at Google” series. Another group of employees said the topic was offen
by rdtsc 9y ago
> animals can be subject to prejudice just as people can, as part of the company’s “Talks at Google” series. Another group of employees said the topic was offensive to humans who face racism, and they protested.
I read that a few times and I just fail to parse it. Can anyone explain the idea there. How are the topics connected? Is there something obvious I am missing or it is supposed to be satire which points that people can offended about anything.
> The dilemma is especially striking at tech companies, which typically cast themselves as open meritocracies
Not like all tech companies. Google milked morality perception for years "Don't be evil etc...". It has no doubt paid huge dividends. "We are not like those crusty old evil companies with suits and ties, we are young playful, cool and super-nice! Come join us!".
Even though it is a huge tech giant which tracks millions of people, know what they email, what credit cards they use, what sites they visit, lobbies the government more than financial giants, defense contractors or telecom companies, somehow deep down the first instinct I have is still to think of it as cutesy little startup with colorful letters that does search better than AltaVista. A small underdog that everyone loves to root for. Their morality marketing is really that good.
And well people bought into that propaganda and now they are finally paying for it internally. So animal rights activists are somehow fighting with racial justice ones. And besides getting invited to product management meetings, one gets invited to talks about how their coworkers sexually identify as "a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin".
> The Google spokeswoman said an employee working on Talks at Google on a volunteer basis unilaterally made the decision to cancel the talk
Aha, I think they are slowly, after great fanfare and drama, realizing that maybe the workplace should just be for work. People will just start objecting to any talks. Doesn't matter the topic, because with a few rhetorical tricks, an intelligent enough person can be offended (or claim to be offended) by anything.
- smsm42 9y ago> Can anyone explain the idea there The idea is that something being offensive is inherently subjective. If you claim being offended, you are offended. Offending people - at least people that Google management is inclined to listen to - is a no-no. Consequently, if you want to veto a speaker, you just need to proclaim your offense. There's no proof required because there's no proof possible - there's no objective test for being offended, only your feelings, of which you are the only judge. As soon as you decided to proclaim your veto, that's it, the deed is done. Why people at Google decided to veto PETA speaker - who knows. But there's no point in digging deeper than that and trying to find logic in it - there's no logic in this setup. > People will just start objecting to any talks. That'd work if the decision were impartial. But an anonymous "employee working on Talks at Google" doesn't have to be impartial.
- talmand 9y ago>> there's no logic in this setup. That's why if I'm ever presented with such a setup I would protest by voting to veto everything, even the talks I would be interested in. If any one person is to be censored by such drivel, then none should be heard until the divisive and bigoted system is removed. Of course, people who run such a system would immediately remove my ability to vote. Which, in a way, would prove a point.
- humanrebar 9y ago> Can anyone explain the idea there. I can't speak for these particular people, but people can be offended by equating people and animals. I wouldn't be offended, and I'd be tolerant of these kind of PETA lectures, but I do find the underlying emotional appeals presumptuous and tone deaf. I can see why someone would feel offended by the argument. I don't see why someone would be intolerant of it, though.