3 ms·

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'd like to suggest that "People shouldn't do X" should not automatically be interpreted as "People shouldn't be allo

by md224 8y ago

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'd like to suggest that "People shouldn't do X" should not automatically be interpreted as "People shouldn't be allowed to do X". We could save ourselves so much grief if high schools offered courses on the Hermeneutics of Online Discourse. People are so bad at interpreting each other.

Barrin92 8y ago
I'm aware of that distinction, but even the former case isn't legitimate. Of course employees should negotiate against what they perceive is unfairness. Not just legally, but culturally. If Google employees believe that many of their peers are not compensated fairly and that executives are biased in their compensation, they ought to speak out. Why shouldn't they? To not disrupt the echelons of upper management? is that the tech industry now, run like a 1940s oil company?
- weberc2 8y ago
  They should entertain the possibility that they're mistaken and consider contrary arguments, instead of (for example) slandering the person making those arguments and pressuring management to fire him.
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    what makes you think they did not? Do you think people generally speak out lightly against the guys who sign their paychecks? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they, as employees who are aware of what's going on internally and have their own employment at stake have made this decision after deliberation?
    - weberc2 8y ago
      > what makes you think they did not? Lots of personal experience with far-left Googlers and other far left-wing folks in and out of the tech industry. Like their right-wing equivalents, they have an agenda to act on and they're not about to respond rationally to evidence one way or another, as evidenced by the Google memo fiasco. Yes, I'm aware this is a huge generalization, but I'm strapped for time so I'll leave the nuanced, longform version for your imagination. EDIT: Tried to change the wording to make this less likely to trigger a flame war.

by md224 8y ago

Barrin92 8y ago

I'm aware of that distinction, but even the former case isn't legitimate. Of course employees should negotiate against what they perceive is unfairness. Not just legally, but culturally. If Google employees believe that many of their peers are not compensated fairly and that executives are biased in their compensation, they ought to speak out. Why shouldn't they? To not disrupt the echelons of upper management? is that the tech industry now, run like a 1940s oil company?

weberc2 8y ago
They should entertain the possibility that they're mistaken and consider contrary arguments, instead of (for example) slandering the person making those arguments and pressuring management to fire him.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  what makes you think they did not? Do you think people generally speak out lightly against the guys who sign their paychecks? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they, as employees who are aware of what's going on internally and have their own employment at stake have made this decision after deliberation?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > what makes you think they did not? Lots of personal experience with far-left Googlers and other far left-wing folks in and out of the tech industry. Like their right-wing equivalents, they have an agenda to act on and they're not about to respond rationally to evidence one way or another, as evidenced by the Google memo fiasco. Yes, I'm aware this is a huge generalization, but I'm strapped for time so I'll leave the nuanced, longform version for your imagination. EDIT: Tried to change the wording to make this less likely to trigger a flame war.