8 ms·

It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than h

It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?

gtirloni 7y ago
At work? A lot of other things.
- abeisgreat 7y ago
  Not if your work directly impacts these things as Google's often does.
  - the-pigeon 7y ago
    For profit companies should not choose sides. Google's only discussion of politics in the workplace should be on how to make their systems be as unbiased as possible.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      The problem with statements like this is that not choosing sides is exactly as political as choosing sides. There is no such thing as ignoring politics — it's an essential part of the human experience, so any organization must grapple with it.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        No it’s not. Where did this stupid notion come from that everything neatly fits into two sides
        munk-a 7y ago
        Oh, I know this one! From the broken political system that forces the optimal play to be a contest of two parties.
        BigBlueBanjo 7y ago
        People who think everything is political are usually authoritarians. They believe in order for progress to be made, you have to force or coerce people into doing the right thing.
  - username90 7y ago
    The most political most Googlers work gets is what to call variable names. We decided to not use master/slave, so we are A-OK now! But seriously, I know a few roles have immense influence over peoples lives, but most of us just try to efficiently plumb data we don't see between black boxes we don't understand.
    - abeisgreat 7y ago
      Just because you can't see where the data you're plumbing touches the world doesn't mean it doesn't have impact. I work on one of the edges of those engineering efforts. On one side I see first hand how detached engineers at Google are from the things they build and on the other I see people's lives being defined by using those products / services. That impact is real and I think it's at a level that very few googlers respect because they're not lucky enough to be on an outside edge like me.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Even if your place of work has a hand and a demonstrably relevant position in a lot of global political discussions?
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    You can have proper workshops/apps/meetings to discuss these things and gather input from all employees in a way that doesn't disturb the regular day-to-day work. The problem is that discussing politics at any time in your workplace to people that have opposite views and/or don't want to discuss politics at that time is counterproductive.
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      I think I can agree in the affirmative with the first sentence, not so much the second one, with the context of my original comment in mind. If your company is demonstrably involved in issues that affect global, heck or even local politics, speaking to those affairs is an imperative. Whether or not people enter those conversations with the intent on solving problems and actually discussing in earnest is where things get weird, admittedly.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    That's really the crux of the issue. I agree that people should probably leave most of their personal beliefs at home... unless it's something that directly related to what the company is doing. So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave? An important question, I think. It would seem some think they should, and some probably think they should do both. Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another. An attitude I find personally disheartening, but I'll stop there because these discussions never end well.
nafey 7y ago
What I believe Google would say: "Closing your JIRA ticket"
maxaf 7y ago
Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.
- rollinDyno 7y ago
  To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger social mission.
  - madrox 7y ago
    That's the problem when you think you're "on a mission from God." You give yourself permission to do anything because this is sufficiently important. Maybe it is. I know know. That said, what I haven't heard is any good coming out of it.
    - maxaf 7y ago
      Human history is littered with holy wars. Unfortunately we're also really good at bulldozing away the resulting wreckage, which ironically feeds back into history's tendency to repeat itself.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    That's an interesting point - especially when it comes to the urgency a lot of people feel when considering climate change. I feel like part of the partisan leak into the workplace might be due to the lack of responsible governance that most Americans are feeling right now - since the entities responsible for fixing the big problems are out to lunch everyone is feeling a need to try and help solve those problems themselves.
    - maxaf 7y ago
      Most of this political fervor is simple grandstanding. If these people really, truly cared about the issues they advocate, they'd have abandoned their cushy jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference. I fully agree that the American consumerist lifestyle has run its course, and has done tremendous damage to the planet. However, those who yell the most loudly about it should also be the ones to quit it first. Go live on a self-sustaining farm in Montana and show the rest of us how it's done. Until then, stop disrupting the office: people are trying to work in order to make ends meet.
jonbronson 7y ago
Precisely. These aren't "merely" politics. These are the issues that shape peoples lives, for now and for future generations. One of the greatest cons of all time was the casting of Climate Change as a "political" issue. It's our lives we're talking about. Our very existence.
- Bostonian 7y ago
  To what extent the earth is warming is a scientific question, but what if anything should be done about it is certainly a political issue.
big_chungus 7y ago
Well, that depends what you regard as important. Many of the things I'd guess you regard as important I don't, and vice-versa. Who decides? Why are you the arbiter of what's "obviously" important? That's a fallacious appeal to common knowledge.
- TheGRS 7y ago
  I suppose one would have to debate these topics to figure that out.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    A debate doesn't mean that the losing side is no longer to espouse its views.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
It's funny how there's always some weird overlap between "human rights and public policy" and "culture war over which cartoons are problematic or who was honored with a Google Doodle today".
cameronbrown 7y ago
It's taboo because it's human nature to have fixed opinions (which only change over extended periods of time) about your worldview, be it politics or religion. Few political arguments have outcomes beyond disagreement.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wutbrodo 7y ago
I think we pigeonhole "things that most people are too stupid and childish to discuss without losing their minds" as politics. There're a million critically important things that government does that people don't tie their identities to that we don't really count as "political discussions".
mark-r 7y ago
I think they just got sick of having their employees telling them what businesses they couldn't engage in. They may have had to make the restrictions overly broad to avoid tripping over some labor organization laws.
ars 7y ago
> I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.? Talk, when you have no ability to act, is just arguing and helps no one. What's more worth talk about? Things you can actually act upon.
Shivetya 7y ago
hyperbole doesn't make an argument so try it elsewhere. the simple matter is those subjects are not likely the issue at hand but instead of politically sensitive issues. worse when one side is more than willing to declare opposition to any position as racist or bigoted because their own presumptuous moral superiority there is no room for intelligent discourse
stcredzero 7y ago
I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.? Those are indeed important. Fundamentally so. This is also why sociopaths and scoundrels will try to wrap themselves in those flags to further their own ends. https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths Also, many of the taboo topics are very efficient in calling forth human group instincts and group-think behaviors. This makes the aggregate less intelligent and more prone to being led to concerted action. That is also precisely why scoundrels and sociopaths seek to be the ones out in front, waving the banners. This is not to say that all such leaders are sociopaths. Just that everyone should be aware that there are incentives which attract them. This is also why, in traditional culture, leaders can be held to high standards.
pharke 7y ago
Those topics are also the most likely to devolve into hostile confrontations because they are emotionally loaded and highly complex. No one person is going to be able to devise a solution to the major problems in those domains, let alone be able to hold that solution in their head and effectively argue it. This is why we have vastly complicated social and political structures for dealing with these things. It all has to be broken down into the simplest possible parts and handled in a case by case manner by whole institutions of people in order for us to even have a hope of approximating a correct solution.
sequoia 7y ago
What's more important to talk about than your immortal soul? The problem is when I think those not saved by Jesus will burn for eternity and you think religious people are the bane of advanced civilization, and there's no way to reconcile these views, this is a problem. It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord. Does this mean you and I cannot work together towards shared goals? I don't believe it does! We can each hold very strong and opposing views on some things, but if we both agree that e.g. we want our rivers to be cleaner, why shouldn't we work together on a river cleanup? Forcing divisive discussions in every context makes collaboration on those goals you do share difficult or impossible. There are very good reasons to compartmentalize political/religious feelings (and the two don't seem that different these days).
- Diederich 7y ago
  > It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord. In one of the companies I have worked, I participated in exactly the discussion you mentioned, on many occasions, and no discord was created. All involved remained friendly and effective co-workers. To my knowledge, this freedom of discussion was widespread.
  - sequoia 7y ago
    Fair point. Personally, I'm also comfortable disagreeing with people strongly & still being friendly. Unfortunately this trait is not widespread. If you don't think so, I would ask why you think "Don't talk about politics or religion [at work, at the dinner table etc.]" has been such a common maxim for so long? (In case you're not from North America: this is a commonly understood practice in North America.)
    - Diederich 7y ago
      I agree with you.
- 1_person 7y ago
  I see no reason why one should not be able to recognize a common desire and work to achieve it regardless on disagreement on other issues. However when a person's point of view is objectively fallacious (Evangelical Christians, national socialists) and advocates doing harm or passing fallacious moral judgement of a class of people (Heathens, hedonists, homosexuals, jews) and that class of people includes you I do not believe you should ever be expected to tolerate or abstain from challenging that point of view. If an individual is advocating harm to others and can't withstand scrutiny of their agenda then that's their problem. I don't see this any differently than suggesting you should avoid challenging sexual harassment or physical abuse in the place of work in order to minimize friction. Certain "points of view" should encounter friction at all times and from all sides, because they are reprehensible.
Aperocky 7y ago
Nothing and everything. What's more important to life than family and friends? Do you talk about them at length at work? Just because something is of monumental importance to the society/world, doesn't mean you need to talk about it all the time, especially at work.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Can you imagine how soulless work would be if you couldn't talk about your family and friends? These are the things that make us people. We can't just put them in a box at 9am and take them back out at 5.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    There are small talks and talks that elicit a response. Small talks about family which mostly draws wows and wahs are totally fine, but you want work to be centered around the work itself and not get drawn into lengthy discussion about politics. At least do it during breaks. Work is not meant as a substitution of life, it can be incredibly fulfilling but it's still work.
    - freeone3000 7y ago
      It's eight or more hours of your day, five days a week. Work is not a substitution for life, it's a major part of it.
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    > soulless You mean I could get my work done and not have to feign interest when people blather on about their family and friends? One soul, coming up.
einhverfr 7y ago
Also if we can't discuss politics over disagreement in a civil way seeking to learn from each other even where we find the other points of view difficult, then all hope for a better future is lost. Nobody ever learns from mere agreement. Disagreement is a precondition to learning from other people.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Sex, politics and religion have long been held up as the bane of polite society. This is why polite society is pretty fucking boring and rarely achieves much of any value.

gtirloni 7y ago

At work? A lot of other things.

abeisgreat 7y ago
Not if your work directly impacts these things as Google's often does.
- the-pigeon 7y ago
  For profit companies should not choose sides. Google's only discussion of politics in the workplace should be on how to make their systems be as unbiased as possible.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    The problem with statements like this is that not choosing sides is exactly as political as choosing sides. There is no such thing as ignoring politics — it's an essential part of the human experience, so any organization must grapple with it.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      No it’s not. Where did this stupid notion come from that everything neatly fits into two sides
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Oh, I know this one! From the broken political system that forces the optimal play to be a contest of two parties.
      - BigBlueBanjo 7y ago
        People who think everything is political are usually authoritarians. They believe in order for progress to be made, you have to force or coerce people into doing the right thing.
- username90 7y ago
  The most political most Googlers work gets is what to call variable names. We decided to not use master/slave, so we are A-OK now! But seriously, I know a few roles have immense influence over peoples lives, but most of us just try to efficiently plumb data we don't see between black boxes we don't understand.
  - abeisgreat 7y ago
    Just because you can't see where the data you're plumbing touches the world doesn't mean it doesn't have impact. I work on one of the edges of those engineering efforts. On one side I see first hand how detached engineers at Google are from the things they build and on the other I see people's lives being defined by using those products / services. That impact is real and I think it's at a level that very few googlers respect because they're not lucky enough to be on an outside edge like me.
dvtrn 7y ago
Even if your place of work has a hand and a demonstrably relevant position in a lot of global political discussions?
- gtirloni 7y ago
  You can have proper workshops/apps/meetings to discuss these things and gather input from all employees in a way that doesn't disturb the regular day-to-day work. The problem is that discussing politics at any time in your workplace to people that have opposite views and/or don't want to discuss politics at that time is counterproductive.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    I think I can agree in the affirmative with the first sentence, not so much the second one, with the context of my original comment in mind. If your company is demonstrably involved in issues that affect global, heck or even local politics, speaking to those affairs is an imperative. Whether or not people enter those conversations with the intent on solving problems and actually discussing in earnest is where things get weird, admittedly.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  That's really the crux of the issue. I agree that people should probably leave most of their personal beliefs at home... unless it's something that directly related to what the company is doing. So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave? An important question, I think. It would seem some think they should, and some probably think they should do both. Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another. An attitude I find personally disheartening, but I'll stop there because these discussions never end well.

nafey 7y ago

What I believe Google would say: "Closing your JIRA ticket"

maxaf 7y ago

Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.

rollinDyno 7y ago
To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger social mission.
- madrox 7y ago
  That's the problem when you think you're "on a mission from God." You give yourself permission to do anything because this is sufficiently important. Maybe it is. I know know. That said, what I haven't heard is any good coming out of it.
  - maxaf 7y ago
    Human history is littered with holy wars. Unfortunately we're also really good at bulldozing away the resulting wreckage, which ironically feeds back into history's tendency to repeat itself.
- munk-a 7y ago
  That's an interesting point - especially when it comes to the urgency a lot of people feel when considering climate change. I feel like part of the partisan leak into the workplace might be due to the lack of responsible governance that most Americans are feeling right now - since the entities responsible for fixing the big problems are out to lunch everyone is feeling a need to try and help solve those problems themselves.
  - maxaf 7y ago
    Most of this political fervor is simple grandstanding. If these people really, truly cared about the issues they advocate, they'd have abandoned their cushy jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference. I fully agree that the American consumerist lifestyle has run its course, and has done tremendous damage to the planet. However, those who yell the most loudly about it should also be the ones to quit it first. Go live on a self-sustaining farm in Montana and show the rest of us how it's done. Until then, stop disrupting the office: people are trying to work in order to make ends meet.

jonbronson 7y ago

Precisely. These aren't "merely" politics. These are the issues that shape peoples lives, for now and for future generations. One of the greatest cons of all time was the casting of Climate Change as a "political" issue. It's our lives we're talking about. Our very existence.

Bostonian 7y ago
To what extent the earth is warming is a scientific question, but what if anything should be done about it is certainly a political issue.

big_chungus 7y ago

Well, that depends what you regard as important. Many of the things I'd guess you regard as important I don't, and vice-versa. Who decides? Why are you the arbiter of what's "obviously" important? That's a fallacious appeal to common knowledge.

TheGRS 7y ago
I suppose one would have to debate these topics to figure that out.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  A debate doesn't mean that the losing side is no longer to espouse its views.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

It's funny how there's always some weird overlap between "human rights and public policy" and "culture war over which cartoons are problematic or who was honored with a Google Doodle today".

cameronbrown 7y ago

It's taboo because it's human nature to have fixed opinions (which only change over extended periods of time) about your worldview, be it politics or religion. Few political arguments have outcomes beyond disagreement.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wutbrodo 7y ago

I think we pigeonhole "things that most people are too stupid and childish to discuss without losing their minds" as politics. There're a million critically important things that government does that people don't tie their identities to that we don't really count as "political discussions".

mark-r 7y ago

I think they just got sick of having their employees telling them what businesses they couldn't engage in. They may have had to make the restrictions overly broad to avoid tripping over some labor organization laws.

ars 7y ago

> I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.? Talk, when you have no ability to act, is just arguing and helps no one. What's more worth talk about? Things you can actually act upon.

Shivetya 7y ago

hyperbole doesn't make an argument so try it elsewhere. the simple matter is those subjects are not likely the issue at hand but instead of politically sensitive issues. worse when one side is more than willing to declare opposition to any position as racist or bigoted because their own presumptuous moral superiority there is no room for intelligent discourse

stcredzero 7y ago

I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.? Those are indeed important. Fundamentally so. This is also why sociopaths and scoundrels will try to wrap themselves in those flags to further their own ends. https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths Also, many of the taboo topics are very efficient in calling forth human group instincts and group-think behaviors. This makes the aggregate less intelligent and more prone to being led to concerted action. That is also precisely why scoundrels and sociopaths seek to be the ones out in front, waving the banners. This is not to say that all such leaders are sociopaths. Just that everyone should be aware that there are incentives which attract them. This is also why, in traditional culture, leaders can be held to high standards.

pharke 7y ago

Those topics are also the most likely to devolve into hostile confrontations because they are emotionally loaded and highly complex. No one person is going to be able to devise a solution to the major problems in those domains, let alone be able to hold that solution in their head and effectively argue it. This is why we have vastly complicated social and political structures for dealing with these things. It all has to be broken down into the simplest possible parts and handled in a case by case manner by whole institutions of people in order for us to even have a hope of approximating a correct solution.

sequoia 7y ago

What's more important to talk about than your immortal soul? The problem is when I think those not saved by Jesus will burn for eternity and you think religious people are the bane of advanced civilization, and there's no way to reconcile these views, this is a problem. It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord. Does this mean you and I cannot work together towards shared goals? I don't believe it does! We can each hold very strong and opposing views on some things, but if we both agree that e.g. we want our rivers to be cleaner, why shouldn't we work together on a river cleanup? Forcing divisive discussions in every context makes collaboration on those goals you do share difficult or impossible. There are very good reasons to compartmentalize political/religious feelings (and the two don't seem that different these days).

Diederich 7y ago
> It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord. In one of the companies I have worked, I participated in exactly the discussion you mentioned, on many occasions, and no discord was created. All involved remained friendly and effective co-workers. To my knowledge, this freedom of discussion was widespread.
- sequoia 7y ago
  Fair point. Personally, I'm also comfortable disagreeing with people strongly & still being friendly. Unfortunately this trait is not widespread. If you don't think so, I would ask why you think "Don't talk about politics or religion [at work, at the dinner table etc.]" has been such a common maxim for so long? (In case you're not from North America: this is a commonly understood practice in North America.)
  - Diederich 7y ago
    I agree with you.
1_person 7y ago
I see no reason why one should not be able to recognize a common desire and work to achieve it regardless on disagreement on other issues. However when a person's point of view is objectively fallacious (Evangelical Christians, national socialists) and advocates doing harm or passing fallacious moral judgement of a class of people (Heathens, hedonists, homosexuals, jews) and that class of people includes you I do not believe you should ever be expected to tolerate or abstain from challenging that point of view. If an individual is advocating harm to others and can't withstand scrutiny of their agenda then that's their problem. I don't see this any differently than suggesting you should avoid challenging sexual harassment or physical abuse in the place of work in order to minimize friction. Certain "points of view" should encounter friction at all times and from all sides, because they are reprehensible.

Aperocky 7y ago

Nothing and everything. What's more important to life than family and friends? Do you talk about them at length at work? Just because something is of monumental importance to the society/world, doesn't mean you need to talk about it all the time, especially at work.

freeone3000 7y ago
Can you imagine how soulless work would be if you couldn't talk about your family and friends? These are the things that make us people. We can't just put them in a box at 9am and take them back out at 5.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  There are small talks and talks that elicit a response. Small talks about family which mostly draws wows and wahs are totally fine, but you want work to be centered around the work itself and not get drawn into lengthy discussion about politics. At least do it during breaks. Work is not meant as a substitution of life, it can be incredibly fulfilling but it's still work.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    It's eight or more hours of your day, five days a week. Work is not a substitution for life, it's a major part of it.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > soulless You mean I could get my work done and not have to feign interest when people blather on about their family and friends? One soul, coming up.

einhverfr 7y ago

Also if we can't discuss politics over disagreement in a civil way seeking to learn from each other even where we find the other points of view difficult, then all hope for a better future is lost. Nobody ever learns from mere agreement. Disagreement is a precondition to learning from other people.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Sex, politics and religion have long been held up as the bane of polite society. This is why polite society is pretty fucking boring and rarely achieves much of any value.