5 ms·

This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a hig

This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality. Leaving aside who's right or wrong, innocent or guilty, I wonder if there isn't a cultural and world view disconnect between the rank and file at Google and the high ranking executives? Could it be of the same size and nature as that between the Saudi rank and file and their elites? Many of the rank and file Google employees I know personally seem to hold with a quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality" -- especially similar with regards to parallel mental constructs to purity and original sin, like "privilege." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvyqUOKhGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvyqUOKhGA This case may have privilege at its core. Elites across history and cultures often adopt more permissive sexual behavior, as their position and resources enable this. It's quite common to see a disconnect between their mores and the standards of the rank and file. (I'd much rather see social norms of "live and let live," while personally, I think keeping one's personal life simple and uncomplicated is by far the best policy.)

jerf 8y ago
"This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality." Nominally, there is not necessarily a contradiction. One can consent to being a "sub", hence "safe words" and such. One is free to believe that there are still potentially issues involved, or that it may still be a dangerous relationship, or whathaveyou. But I do think that it would be something that puts the question beyond the modern spin on consensuality; that set of ethics stops making sense if you start letting people mutilate the definition of "consent" any which way they please. (Note I am speaking independent of the question of whether there was consent; as I say in another post, I don't think that question is answerable in this forum by any information we can get, other than an investigative report.)
throw-away-368 8y ago
> This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality. Consent is a critical pillar in the BDSM community, it's the only barrier between abuse and not. Some countries do have restrictions on what you can consent to, but that's a different issue.
ajross 8y ago
It's a shareholder lawsuit over inappropriate compensation of Rubin (i.e. that he got money that should have been paid in dividends and the reason was personal embarrassment on the part of executives and not a desire to increase shareholder wealth). I don't see how that has anything to do with "rank and file" Google employees at all. This sounds like you are trying to make a political point, c.f "quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality"". I don't have a clue what that means, but it certainly sounds like you're trying to call them dumb liberals or something...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  "quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality"". I don't have a clue what that means, but it certainly sounds like you're trying to call them dumb liberals or something... I miss the days when such people were just "dumb liberals" like me. Now, there are people who spend their time going after other people, like obnoxious religious people used to go after homosexuals. It's not the ideology which is problematic. It's the meta can be wrapped around it which seems inextricable from negative emotion, oppressive acrimony, and a desire to impinge upon other lives. As I said before, live and let live is the best way. Don't judge, lest ye be judged. Most of all, don't project hypothetical emotional and mental states on others and engage in moral judgement and condemnation on that basis. This is precisely what accusations of "internalized" _-isms are, such pronouncements are objectively produced by adherents of intersectionality, are objectively stated in presentations of the ideology, and objectively have as little evidence backing them as accusations of "satanic influence" had from fundamental religious people during social controversies of the 80's.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I think (ironically) you're projecting things onto "intersectionality" that aren't there in the normal meaning of the term.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I think (ironically) you're projecting things onto "intersectionality" that aren't there in the normal meaning of the term. I have direct experience of people making emotion driven, unjust, evidence-less accusations in the name of "intersectionality." Online, you can see people doing the same. In personal discussions, it's absolutely amazing the number of times someone contradicts what someone else says and comes out with their evidence-free version of what they're "actually thinking." Again, it's not the ideology per-se. It's the tribal emotion-driven meta around it which makes people behave in unproductive ways.
tdb7893 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with the sub/dom dynamic as long as it's consensual, and it's not really opposed at all to the generally liberal culture at Google (in my experience it's generally more common in liberal circles). If the relationship is with someone you work with that's an issue but any relationship with someone you work with is an issue.
pjc50 8y ago
BDSM is .. rather widespread .. in the tech community; however it traditionally comes with a much higher awareness of the need for clear consent. No, the clear thing here that applies up and down the hierarchy is that managers should not have sexual relations with their reports. It's not a complicated rule that people should not be put in the position of having to decide whether refusing sex will ruin their career.
- mc32 8y ago
  Having a (sexual) relationship with reports even co-workers isn't the best idea. It can lead to thing as superficial as embarrassing interactions to acrimony and then to labor disputes (favoritism and punishment for following along or not), but it's not a crime in and of itself nor should it be. It should be frowned upon because it not only "looks" "bad" but because it can place the individual and the employer in an unenviable position.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    It's not illegal, but it absolutely should be a sackable offence because it completely compromises the manager and the organisation's equal treatment of staff.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I would disagree about fireable. Do the majority of countries in Europe consider this a grave sin? I think people should be fired if something bad comes as a result, but I don't think we should prejudge the possibility ahead of time. It comes across as puritanical.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        It's workplace policy in a lot of places e.g.: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/77485/am-i-required-to-report-a-relationship-am-i-in-a-supervisory-relationship-h https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/77485/am-i-req... The intent is not puritanical but egalitarian - against the "old days" of using employment power relations for sexual harassment and assault.
amyjess 8y ago
> This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality. Pretty much every description of the cultural mores of BDSM center around consent. There are basically two formulations: SSC = Safe, Sane, Consensual RACK = Risk-Aware Consensual Kink (the difference here is in just how okay people are with edgeplay, but in both cases consent is paramount)

jerf 8y ago

"This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality." Nominally, there is not necessarily a contradiction. One can consent to being a "sub", hence "safe words" and such. One is free to believe that there are still potentially issues involved, or that it may still be a dangerous relationship, or whathaveyou. But I do think that it would be something that puts the question beyond the modern spin on consensuality; that set of ethics stops making sense if you start letting people mutilate the definition of "consent" any which way they please. (Note I am speaking independent of the question of whether there was consent; as I say in another post, I don't think that question is answerable in this forum by any information we can get, other than an investigative report.)

throw-away-368 8y ago

> This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality. Consent is a critical pillar in the BDSM community, it's the only barrier between abuse and not. Some countries do have restrictions on what you can consent to, but that's a different issue.

ajross 8y ago

It's a shareholder lawsuit over inappropriate compensation of Rubin (i.e. that he got money that should have been paid in dividends and the reason was personal embarrassment on the part of executives and not a desire to increase shareholder wealth). I don't see how that has anything to do with "rank and file" Google employees at all. This sounds like you are trying to make a political point, c.f "quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality"". I don't have a clue what that means, but it certainly sounds like you're trying to call them dumb liberals or something...

stcredzero 8y ago
"quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality"". I don't have a clue what that means, but it certainly sounds like you're trying to call them dumb liberals or something... I miss the days when such people were just "dumb liberals" like me. Now, there are people who spend their time going after other people, like obnoxious religious people used to go after homosexuals. It's not the ideology which is problematic. It's the meta can be wrapped around it which seems inextricable from negative emotion, oppressive acrimony, and a desire to impinge upon other lives. As I said before, live and let live is the best way. Don't judge, lest ye be judged. Most of all, don't project hypothetical emotional and mental states on others and engage in moral judgement and condemnation on that basis. This is precisely what accusations of "internalized" _-isms are, such pronouncements are objectively produced by adherents of intersectionality, are objectively stated in presentations of the ideology, and objectively have as little evidence backing them as accusations of "satanic influence" had from fundamental religious people during social controversies of the 80's.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I think (ironically) you're projecting things onto "intersectionality" that aren't there in the normal meaning of the term.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I think (ironically) you're projecting things onto "intersectionality" that aren't there in the normal meaning of the term. I have direct experience of people making emotion driven, unjust, evidence-less accusations in the name of "intersectionality." Online, you can see people doing the same. In personal discussions, it's absolutely amazing the number of times someone contradicts what someone else says and comes out with their evidence-free version of what they're "actually thinking." Again, it's not the ideology per-se. It's the tribal emotion-driven meta around it which makes people behave in unproductive ways.

tdb7893 8y ago

There's nothing wrong with the sub/dom dynamic as long as it's consensual, and it's not really opposed at all to the generally liberal culture at Google (in my experience it's generally more common in liberal circles). If the relationship is with someone you work with that's an issue but any relationship with someone you work with is an issue.

pjc50 8y ago

BDSM is .. rather widespread .. in the tech community; however it traditionally comes with a much higher awareness of the need for clear consent. No, the clear thing here that applies up and down the hierarchy is that managers should not have sexual relations with their reports. It's not a complicated rule that people should not be put in the position of having to decide whether refusing sex will ruin their career.

mc32 8y ago
Having a (sexual) relationship with reports even co-workers isn't the best idea. It can lead to thing as superficial as embarrassing interactions to acrimony and then to labor disputes (favoritism and punishment for following along or not), but it's not a crime in and of itself nor should it be. It should be frowned upon because it not only "looks" "bad" but because it can place the individual and the employer in an unenviable position.
- pjc50 8y ago
  It's not illegal, but it absolutely should be a sackable offence because it completely compromises the manager and the organisation's equal treatment of staff.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I would disagree about fireable. Do the majority of countries in Europe consider this a grave sin? I think people should be fired if something bad comes as a result, but I don't think we should prejudge the possibility ahead of time. It comes across as puritanical.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      It's workplace policy in a lot of places e.g.: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/77485/am-i-required-to-report-a-relationship-am-i-in-a-supervisory-relationship-h https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/77485/am-i-req... The intent is not puritanical but egalitarian - against the "old days" of using employment power relations for sexual harassment and assault.

amyjess 8y ago

> This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place a high moral value on consensuality. Pretty much every description of the cultural mores of BDSM center around consent. There are basically two formulations: SSC = Safe, Sane, Consensual RACK = Risk-Aware Consensual Kink (the difference here is in just how okay people are with edgeplay, but in both cases consent is paramount)