7 ms·

Absolutely. I completely disagree with the whole "bring your whole self to work". No! Bring your professional self to work. The counter-argument is that the ca

Absolutely. I completely disagree with the whole "bring your whole self to work". No! Bring your professional self to work. The counter-argument is that the causes relate to discrimination in the workforce. I.e., BLM needs to be supported because blacks are underrepresented in the American tech workforce. I disagree these need to be equivalent. It's possible for a company to promote hiring underrepresented minorities without allowing employees to advertise their political beliefs. What happened to never talking about politics on the first date or at your job?

austinheap 8y ago
It's called corporate social responsibility. Companies advocate for their bottom line and their employees at the same time. As a gay dude that grew up in Ohio -- and had people yell "fag" when I got my diploma at graduation -- I'm beyond happy that the next generation of LGBTQ engineers won't grow up with the same level of hate I experienced. The arc of moral justice is only bent when force is applied.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  You only say that because it's convenient for you. You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. It really is a two way street and u-turns are allowed.
  - taysic 8y ago
    This is an important question - how much personalization is ok within a workplace? I am grateful I've worked in really professional environments - nothing overtly political or anything. It might have been a bit bland, but honestly it helped us stay focused on the work.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. So the commenter says that he looks forward to the next generation of developers not experiencing the hate that he has experienced. You say, he’d be unhappy at conservative places, presumably because he’d still experience that hate. So then why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? His goal—hell, it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged.
    - Const-me 8y ago
      > why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? Because he doesn’t understand that these places openly hostile towards gays are likely formed by white heterosexual Christian conservatives defending their identity and pushing for politics at workplace. > it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged You can’t stamp out people. You forcibly convert that one place to your faith, people will likely change jobs or move to other states.
      - ionised 8y ago
        What are these white heterosexual Christians defending their identity against?
        Const-me 8y ago
        Against treats to that identity. Through most of the history, the threats were imaginary, and it was conservative majority who oppressed other people. Recently however, in places like Bay Area, the conservatives are no longer a majority, and consequently the treats became quite real, see e.g. https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsu... I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. The right way is promoting tolerance (the good one i.e. civilized behavior towards people despite different positions, not the bad one that says everyone must express the only true position), and most importantly following the laws. Democracy + judicial system worked OK for centuries. IMO it’s the only working mechanism invented so far how a society can function despite different people have different identities and beliefs.
        mike10010100 8y ago
        > Against treats to that identity. What, precisely, about other minorities existing threatens that identity? You keep repeating this claim of threats, but haven't been able to articulate any. > I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers based solely on their biology. Hence, why he was fired. The only thing that cannot be tolerated in a tolerant society is intolerance itself.
  - colanderman 8y ago
    That an individual would "not like it one bit" at a politically-active conservative company for no reason other than that they are gay, is an argument against modern American conservatism, not against corporate social responsibility.
  - alsetmusic 8y ago
    > You only say that because it's convenient for you. I’m a heterosexual white male. It’s convenient for me to ignore the hardship of people who are outside my demographic. I went for smoothies with a work friend who was outwardly gay and heard him called a faggot by a couple of random people when I realized how different life might be for someone who is not me. It was not great. It would be more convenient if I hadn’t heard that. The fact is, it happens.
- o0-0o 8y ago
  Cry me a river. I am not even gay and people yell fag at me in Bushwick all the time. Time to grow up dude. Sticks and stones...
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines right after we asked you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- irishcoffee 8y ago
  https://image.slidesharecdn.com/simpleharmonicmotion-090324121249-phpapp02/95/simple-harmonic-motion-3-728.jpg?cb=1237896815 https://image.slidesharecdn.com/simpleharmonicmotion-0903241...
- fatjokes 8y ago
  I'm not saying you and others shouldn't be politically involved. I'm not even saying companies shouldn't contribute to political causes. I'm just saying they shouldn't encourage their workers to do so in the workplace. You shouldn't be called a slur at work not because of the type of slur, but the fact that it is a slur at all.
  - camtarn 8y ago
    The idea that one shouldn't be called a slur at work, and the definition of a slur, is itself intensely political.
- pluto9 8y ago
  > Companies advocate for their bottom line and their employees at the same time. Pretty much just their bottom line. Companies advocate for whatever position makes a large majority of people think of them as the "good guys". How many companies did you see advocating for gay marriage before the political zietgeist shifted in favor of it a few years ago? Rest assured that all these "socially conscious" corporations will have a sudden and miraculous change of heart the instant the sociopolitical winds shift on any given issue. And you will be expected to fall in line or keep your opinions to yourself. Personally, I don't want my career success or failure to depend on my willingness to pledge fealty to whatever insincere political opinion my employer thinks is currently expedient.
chrisco255 8y ago
I don't agree with this "professional self" thing. I think you should bring your whole self to work...but sure, as with everything that should come in moderation. We all go to work to do a job, after all. But maybe the core problem is that we can't just agree to disagree, on some things. We have gotten to the point, as a society, that if you are right of center (in some circles), you're batshit alt-right crazy. And that's honestly just another form of discrimination. Why can't you talk about politics at work? We spend most of our waking hours at work. There should be basic ground rules for civility and then people should be free to say what they want, without fear that they'll be fired because they donated to some GOP candidate. That's tolerance, and honestly, that's America. What the hell happened where everyone's trying to bite each other's heads off all the time?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisco255 8y ago
  The downvote button is not a disagree button.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    If you google for “downvote disagree hn” you’ll find references from mods that downvotes are valid for disagreement. Disclaimer: haven’t voted anything in this thread
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      A certain amount of downvotes cause a post to disappear. Downvotes should be restricted to non-constructive posts. :shrugs:
  - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
    It's not that people disagree with you; it's just that your ideas aren't adding much to the conversation. You've got piles of misinformation, no sources, that beautiful demand for civility in the face of categorically uncivil views, and then the wonderful demand for "tolerance". Tolerance has limits and you can't allow tolerance of ideas that exist in mortal opposition. IE there is no room for white supremacists in a multicultural world. That's why you've been downvoted. Your dog whistles are too obvious for even this forum.
706f6f70 8y ago
I think a lot of it stems from the dorm-ification of workplaces. Because the ROI is so good, employers want you to think of work as more of an institution that is heavily tied to your identity rather than just a place of business. You're not an employee at Google - you're a Googler. Once you leave, you are a Google Alumni. The end result is that your whole self is brought into work because the boundaries between personal and professional life are heavily eroded.
coliveira 8y ago
Except that it was never like that. In the old times when conservative beliefs were the norm, discrimination was brought to the workplace. There was no standard saying that you should leave your racist, misogynistic views out of the office.
princekolt 8y ago
I think this only makes sense if you see corporations as entities completely separate from the people who work for them. The way I see it, corporations are the people who work for them and their relationships. And since politics deals with peoples and their relationships, politics in an inherent aspect of corporations. And all attempts to separate the two by promoting politics that differ from the politics of the people in the organization is an act of propaganda.
mc32 8y ago
Up front, I believe it's for the good of American society that more women should be in tech in America. That said, I think companies should go out there and ensure they engage people at the start, in Elementary school. Be they women, blacks and even whites (see the many H1Bs we need to shore up demand). But... I don't think this should be a PR stunt. Or should be politicized. Go out there, and do the hard work. Engage all people and recruit the whole eligible population. It's in our interest, but don't politicize it and don't introduce politicized quotes. Do it methodically without pretenses.
- sjg007 8y ago
  Recruit in elementary school? Seriously? How about pay more taxes to provide a better k-12 education so the kids have a baseline on which they can learn the skills they need to succeed in tech.
  - brandonjm 8y ago
    I believe that is exactly what they mean. They aren't proposing that Google etc. hire 6 year olds, they're proposing that the companies get involved in promoting what they do and how to get there. If these companies spent more of the billions they earn on enhancing education, showing off what they do and getting young kids involved in Tech then we may see a change in representation for these underrepresented groups.
  - ibeckermayer 8y ago
    Pay more taxes so kids can "learn" more common core bullshit? Why on earth should the institution of force in our society have a monopoly on funding our schools and legislating what's taught in them? The tacit statism on this forum is just absurd...
    - ionised 8y ago
      because otherwise you end up with kids being taught that the Earth is 12000 years old and that evolution is a communist plot.
- 8y ago
ibeckermayer 8y ago
"It's possible for a company to promote hiring underrepresented minorities without allowing employees to advertise their political beliefs." That's only true with extreme censorship. If a company I was working for was hiring people based on race, I would call that out for the blatant racism that it is (under the disguise of "hiring underrepresented minorities"). Would that be an inappropriate airing of my "political" beliefs. It may be construed as "political", but really it's just pointing out a tautology and making a very obviously true value judgement (people ought not to be hired or not-hired based on their race).
- camtarn 8y ago
  I don't agree with the sentiment, but you're absolutely right that "non political" can only be achieved by strict definition and enforcement of what is and isn't political, which of course is itself a political act.

austinheap 8y ago

It's called corporate social responsibility. Companies advocate for their bottom line and their employees at the same time. As a gay dude that grew up in Ohio -- and had people yell "fag" when I got my diploma at graduation -- I'm beyond happy that the next generation of LGBTQ engineers won't grow up with the same level of hate I experienced. The arc of moral justice is only bent when force is applied.

badrabbit 8y ago
You only say that because it's convenient for you. You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. It really is a two way street and u-turns are allowed.
- taysic 8y ago
  This is an important question - how much personalization is ok within a workplace? I am grateful I've worked in really professional environments - nothing overtly political or anything. It might have been a bit bland, but honestly it helped us stay focused on the work.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. So the commenter says that he looks forward to the next generation of developers not experiencing the hate that he has experienced. You say, he’d be unhappy at conservative places, presumably because he’d still experience that hate. So then why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? His goal—hell, it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged.
  - Const-me 8y ago
    > why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? Because he doesn’t understand that these places openly hostile towards gays are likely formed by white heterosexual Christian conservatives defending their identity and pushing for politics at workplace. > it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged You can’t stamp out people. You forcibly convert that one place to your faith, people will likely change jobs or move to other states.
    - ionised 8y ago
      What are these white heterosexual Christians defending their identity against?
      - Const-me 8y ago
        Against treats to that identity. Through most of the history, the threats were imaginary, and it was conservative majority who oppressed other people. Recently however, in places like Bay Area, the conservatives are no longer a majority, and consequently the treats became quite real, see e.g. https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsu... I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. The right way is promoting tolerance (the good one i.e. civilized behavior towards people despite different positions, not the bad one that says everyone must express the only true position), and most importantly following the laws. Democracy + judicial system worked OK for centuries. IMO it’s the only working mechanism invented so far how a society can function despite different people have different identities and beliefs.
        mike10010100 8y ago
        > Against treats to that identity. What, precisely, about other minorities existing threatens that identity? You keep repeating this claim of threats, but haven't been able to articulate any. > I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers based solely on their biology. Hence, why he was fired. The only thing that cannot be tolerated in a tolerant society is intolerance itself.
- colanderman 8y ago
  That an individual would "not like it one bit" at a politically-active conservative company for no reason other than that they are gay, is an argument against modern American conservatism, not against corporate social responsibility.
- alsetmusic 8y ago
  > You only say that because it's convenient for you. I’m a heterosexual white male. It’s convenient for me to ignore the hardship of people who are outside my demographic. I went for smoothies with a work friend who was outwardly gay and heard him called a faggot by a couple of random people when I realized how different life might be for someone who is not me. It was not great. It would be more convenient if I hadn’t heard that. The fact is, it happens.
o0-0o 8y ago
Cry me a river. I am not even gay and people yell fag at me in Bushwick all the time. Time to grow up dude. Sticks and stones...
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines right after we asked you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
irishcoffee 8y ago
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/simpleharmonicmotion-090324121249-phpapp02/95/simple-harmonic-motion-3-728.jpg?cb=1237896815 https://image.slidesharecdn.com/simpleharmonicmotion-0903241...
fatjokes 8y ago
I'm not saying you and others shouldn't be politically involved. I'm not even saying companies shouldn't contribute to political causes. I'm just saying they shouldn't encourage their workers to do so in the workplace. You shouldn't be called a slur at work not because of the type of slur, but the fact that it is a slur at all.
- camtarn 8y ago
  The idea that one shouldn't be called a slur at work, and the definition of a slur, is itself intensely political.
pluto9 8y ago
> Companies advocate for their bottom line and their employees at the same time. Pretty much just their bottom line. Companies advocate for whatever position makes a large majority of people think of them as the "good guys". How many companies did you see advocating for gay marriage before the political zietgeist shifted in favor of it a few years ago? Rest assured that all these "socially conscious" corporations will have a sudden and miraculous change of heart the instant the sociopolitical winds shift on any given issue. And you will be expected to fall in line or keep your opinions to yourself. Personally, I don't want my career success or failure to depend on my willingness to pledge fealty to whatever insincere political opinion my employer thinks is currently expedient.

chrisco255 8y ago

I don't agree with this "professional self" thing. I think you should bring your whole self to work...but sure, as with everything that should come in moderation. We all go to work to do a job, after all. But maybe the core problem is that we can't just agree to disagree, on some things. We have gotten to the point, as a society, that if you are right of center (in some circles), you're batshit alt-right crazy. And that's honestly just another form of discrimination. Why can't you talk about politics at work? We spend most of our waking hours at work. There should be basic ground rules for civility and then people should be free to say what they want, without fear that they'll be fired because they donated to some GOP candidate. That's tolerance, and honestly, that's America. What the hell happened where everyone's trying to bite each other's heads off all the time?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chrisco255 8y ago
The downvote button is not a disagree button.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  If you google for “downvote disagree hn” you’ll find references from mods that downvotes are valid for disagreement. Disclaimer: haven’t voted anything in this thread
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    A certain amount of downvotes cause a post to disappear. Downvotes should be restricted to non-constructive posts. :shrugs:
- lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
  It's not that people disagree with you; it's just that your ideas aren't adding much to the conversation. You've got piles of misinformation, no sources, that beautiful demand for civility in the face of categorically uncivil views, and then the wonderful demand for "tolerance". Tolerance has limits and you can't allow tolerance of ideas that exist in mortal opposition. IE there is no room for white supremacists in a multicultural world. That's why you've been downvoted. Your dog whistles are too obvious for even this forum.

706f6f70 8y ago

I think a lot of it stems from the dorm-ification of workplaces. Because the ROI is so good, employers want you to think of work as more of an institution that is heavily tied to your identity rather than just a place of business. You're not an employee at Google - you're a Googler. Once you leave, you are a Google Alumni. The end result is that your whole self is brought into work because the boundaries between personal and professional life are heavily eroded.

coliveira 8y ago

Except that it was never like that. In the old times when conservative beliefs were the norm, discrimination was brought to the workplace. There was no standard saying that you should leave your racist, misogynistic views out of the office.

princekolt 8y ago

I think this only makes sense if you see corporations as entities completely separate from the people who work for them. The way I see it, corporations are the people who work for them and their relationships. And since politics deals with peoples and their relationships, politics in an inherent aspect of corporations. And all attempts to separate the two by promoting politics that differ from the politics of the people in the organization is an act of propaganda.

mc32 8y ago

Up front, I believe it's for the good of American society that more women should be in tech in America. That said, I think companies should go out there and ensure they engage people at the start, in Elementary school. Be they women, blacks and even whites (see the many H1Bs we need to shore up demand). But... I don't think this should be a PR stunt. Or should be politicized. Go out there, and do the hard work. Engage all people and recruit the whole eligible population. It's in our interest, but don't politicize it and don't introduce politicized quotes. Do it methodically without pretenses.

sjg007 8y ago
Recruit in elementary school? Seriously? How about pay more taxes to provide a better k-12 education so the kids have a baseline on which they can learn the skills they need to succeed in tech.
- brandonjm 8y ago
  I believe that is exactly what they mean. They aren't proposing that Google etc. hire 6 year olds, they're proposing that the companies get involved in promoting what they do and how to get there. If these companies spent more of the billions they earn on enhancing education, showing off what they do and getting young kids involved in Tech then we may see a change in representation for these underrepresented groups.
- ibeckermayer 8y ago
  Pay more taxes so kids can "learn" more common core bullshit? Why on earth should the institution of force in our society have a monopoly on funding our schools and legislating what's taught in them? The tacit statism on this forum is just absurd...
  - ionised 8y ago
    because otherwise you end up with kids being taught that the Earth is 12000 years old and that evolution is a communist plot.
8y ago

ibeckermayer 8y ago

"It's possible for a company to promote hiring underrepresented minorities without allowing employees to advertise their political beliefs." That's only true with extreme censorship. If a company I was working for was hiring people based on race, I would call that out for the blatant racism that it is (under the disguise of "hiring underrepresented minorities"). Would that be an inappropriate airing of my "political" beliefs. It may be construed as "political", but really it's just pointing out a tautology and making a very obviously true value judgement (people ought not to be hired or not-hired based on their race).

camtarn 8y ago
I don't agree with the sentiment, but you're absolutely right that "non political" can only be achieved by strict definition and enforcement of what is and isn't political, which of course is itself a political act.