11 ms·

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect. Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an example with. It is also not too far off from many views that I have personally seen, especially when you begin to imagine the legal changes involved to implement those views.

nailer 7y ago
> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. Do you think that's a good example of the kind of things Google staff debate about?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic, while at the same time not being something people here would actually debate, so as to not sidetrack the point.
  - nailer 7y ago
    > I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic It is very easy to dismiss a "death to homosexuals" discussion among Google employees as unrealistic. > so as to not sidetrack the point. Hrm, I understand that logic, but it seems like an attempt to frame disagreement with the current popular political view in the most extreme way. Maybe that's not what you intended, but since that is a commonly employed technique ("everyone who doesn't disagree with me is a nazi") it does seem that way.
  - defen 7y ago
    The problem with your selection is that it's interpreted as the most outlandishly fringe extreme religious/conservative viewpoint, and thus it has a political angle. I would have gone with something like the government being run by lizardmen aliens (which some people in the world claim to believe).
- Retric 7y ago
  When discussing politics in the abstract it’s useful not to talk about specifics to avoid a derail. Personally I would have gone with. Someone suggesting a person in group X should subsidized by group Y. When the person speaking in in group X and the listener is in group Y. Actually listing the groups as say income level, farmers, parents, elderly, ev drivers, or whatever is not actually helpful. That said you might have a reasonable debate on taxes, but that’s much harder when someone wants to send some group to prison etc.
tdb7893 7y ago
I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's identity like that, especially one held by some of their colleagues, should cross a line and they shouldn't be able to hide behind "conservative values".
- azffz 7y ago
  That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not publicly state it openly at work in the first place.
  - october_sky 7y ago
    Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.
    - my_username_is_ 7y ago
      There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though. If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.
    - tdb7893 7y ago
      Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people, if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing it collectively as individuals. Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical view more than a philosophical one
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Kalium 7y ago
Tolerance isn't considered a virtue because it's easy. Tolerance is a virtue because it's difficult. It requires us to put up with people who may adhere to worldviews we find utterly alien or hold views we find abhorrent. It's easy to come up with an example and find yourself thinking "It's unreasonable to tolerate that!". Instead, consider asking yourself why people a century ago might tolerate views you think of as perfectly reasonable today.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  Tolerance for tolerance's sake isn't useful though. The hypothetical Nazi / Hitler example shows up: if Hitler existed today, are we supposed to tolerate his views? Tolerance breaks down because morality kicks in: a good moral person tries to wipe out evil when they see evil. The problem is that we can't agree on what is, and isn't evil. Which is a problem when people increasingly believe the "other side" to be evil. (Abortion is murder vs Anti-choice are womanizers). Both sides want to wipe each other out, not necessarily kill them, but they want to politically negate the opponent's argument. In many cases, ideas, ideals, and philosophy are incompatible. That's just how the world works.
  - josteink 7y ago
    > are we supposed to tolerate his views? His views are his own. He should be free to express them. What we wouldn’t have to tolerate was his actions, because they clearly harmed others.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      > His views are his own. He should be free to express them. Hitler didn't do anything but talk and lead others. Hitler just inspired an entire country to attempt genocide, through inspiration ALONE. Hitler wasn't a man like Stalin (Stalin would personally execute people). Stalin "swung the axe", made sure his hands were as bloody as the people he led. Hitler in contrast, was a coward who ended up killing himself in a secure bunker as soon as the world turned against him. Words alone have huge effect on people. The words of a powerful man can alone be enough to cause issues.
clairity 7y ago
the best way to dispel such ugly beliefs is for the homophobe to get to personally know gay folks, so yes, at least civilty if not respect needs to be shown by the lgbt person toward the homophobe. compassion needs to go both ways, and someone has to offer their hand first. it's not fair to the lgbt person, but it's highly unlikely that the homophobe will make that first move.
InTheArena 7y ago
No one at google was calling for the death of their homosexual coworkers. This is the exact kind of polarization that googles own internal media has amplified which has led to a radical left that refuses any compromises with liberals and moderates and for conservatives who were marginalized becoming increasingly radicalized as a response. Putting the entire argument into the most extreme case is just another reflection of take no prisoners arguments that have ranged on both sides of the ideological debate. This is exactly why attacks on tolerance cannot have special exceptions. It becomes too easy to define the most extreme cases as being representative of the mainstream. Recent research has shown that both left and right constantly miss characterize the other. Unfortunately with the left that mischaracterization becomes more prevalent the more “educated” one becomes.
nostromo 7y ago
> Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an example with. It's not so extreme... I've actually experience this! I'm gay and worked with an orthodox jew in New York for many years. We got close enough to have honest conversations about how scripture literally says gay men should be put to death. For a long time he would talk his way around it. Eventually all he could say was, "it doesn't apply to you, you're not jewish" (ok, only murder gay jews, as if that makes it ok?) or "those laws won't apply until the third temple" (still, not ok!) But you know what? We still liked and respected each other and worked very well together. So, I suppose it's possible. I think I moderated his opinions a bit over time. That wouldn't have been possible if I would have berated him constantly and/or refused to work with him.
- wolco 7y ago
  Sounds like a typical story of how one changes. First it's everyone, then everyone but Mark, than everyone but people who remind me of Mark. than it's no one but Ben.
jimbokun 7y ago
The problem with this approach, is the belief that punishing the expression of a belief, extinguishes the belief itself. Looking at world politics right now, I don't think that approach is being very successful. It just fosters a narrative of oppression and persecution of those who want to rebel against the prevailing norms of discourse. > It is also not too far off from many views that I have personally seen, especially when you begin to imagine the legal changes involved to implement those views. I think it's also important to be careful to avoid hyperbole. It's easy to from "I don't support government run healthcare" to "WHY ARE YOU MURDERING ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE?" with no nuance.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779265.
d1zzy 7y ago
> I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect. But if politics are not allowed at work then you wouldn't KNOW what your coworker's opinion is on the subject. That's one of the main points of not discussing politics at work, it's hard enough to get many people in one place to agree on technical things, it's impossible to get them to agree on everything and as every one of us feels strongly about one issue or another sooner or later we'll find things about our coworkers that we strongly oppose and that would make working with them hard.
kgwgk 7y ago
> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. How should a Muslim man respect a gay colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality doesn't deserve a punishment? Probably neither will respect the other, but they'll have to live with that.

nailer 7y ago

> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. Do you think that's a good example of the kind of things Google staff debate about?

SkyBelow 7y ago
I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic, while at the same time not being something people here would actually debate, so as to not sidetrack the point.
- nailer 7y ago
  > I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic It is very easy to dismiss a "death to homosexuals" discussion among Google employees as unrealistic. > so as to not sidetrack the point. Hrm, I understand that logic, but it seems like an attempt to frame disagreement with the current popular political view in the most extreme way. Maybe that's not what you intended, but since that is a commonly employed technique ("everyone who doesn't disagree with me is a nazi") it does seem that way.
- defen 7y ago
  The problem with your selection is that it's interpreted as the most outlandishly fringe extreme religious/conservative viewpoint, and thus it has a political angle. I would have gone with something like the government being run by lizardmen aliens (which some people in the world claim to believe).
Retric 7y ago
When discussing politics in the abstract it’s useful not to talk about specifics to avoid a derail. Personally I would have gone with. Someone suggesting a person in group X should subsidized by group Y. When the person speaking in in group X and the listener is in group Y. Actually listing the groups as say income level, farmers, parents, elderly, ev drivers, or whatever is not actually helpful. That said you might have a reasonable debate on taxes, but that’s much harder when someone wants to send some group to prison etc.

tdb7893 7y ago

I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's identity like that, especially one held by some of their colleagues, should cross a line and they shouldn't be able to hide behind "conservative values".

azffz 7y ago
That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not publicly state it openly at work in the first place.
- october_sky 7y ago
  Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.
  - my_username_is_ 7y ago
    There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though. If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.
  - tdb7893 7y ago
    Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people, if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing it collectively as individuals. Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical view more than a philosophical one

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Kalium 7y ago

Tolerance isn't considered a virtue because it's easy. Tolerance is a virtue because it's difficult. It requires us to put up with people who may adhere to worldviews we find utterly alien or hold views we find abhorrent. It's easy to come up with an example and find yourself thinking "It's unreasonable to tolerate that!". Instead, consider asking yourself why people a century ago might tolerate views you think of as perfectly reasonable today.

dragontamer 7y ago
Tolerance for tolerance's sake isn't useful though. The hypothetical Nazi / Hitler example shows up: if Hitler existed today, are we supposed to tolerate his views? Tolerance breaks down because morality kicks in: a good moral person tries to wipe out evil when they see evil. The problem is that we can't agree on what is, and isn't evil. Which is a problem when people increasingly believe the "other side" to be evil. (Abortion is murder vs Anti-choice are womanizers). Both sides want to wipe each other out, not necessarily kill them, but they want to politically negate the opponent's argument. In many cases, ideas, ideals, and philosophy are incompatible. That's just how the world works.
- josteink 7y ago
  > are we supposed to tolerate his views? His views are his own. He should be free to express them. What we wouldn’t have to tolerate was his actions, because they clearly harmed others.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > His views are his own. He should be free to express them. Hitler didn't do anything but talk and lead others. Hitler just inspired an entire country to attempt genocide, through inspiration ALONE. Hitler wasn't a man like Stalin (Stalin would personally execute people). Stalin "swung the axe", made sure his hands were as bloody as the people he led. Hitler in contrast, was a coward who ended up killing himself in a secure bunker as soon as the world turned against him. Words alone have huge effect on people. The words of a powerful man can alone be enough to cause issues.

clairity 7y ago

the best way to dispel such ugly beliefs is for the homophobe to get to personally know gay folks, so yes, at least civilty if not respect needs to be shown by the lgbt person toward the homophobe. compassion needs to go both ways, and someone has to offer their hand first. it's not fair to the lgbt person, but it's highly unlikely that the homophobe will make that first move.

InTheArena 7y ago

No one at google was calling for the death of their homosexual coworkers. This is the exact kind of polarization that googles own internal media has amplified which has led to a radical left that refuses any compromises with liberals and moderates and for conservatives who were marginalized becoming increasingly radicalized as a response. Putting the entire argument into the most extreme case is just another reflection of take no prisoners arguments that have ranged on both sides of the ideological debate. This is exactly why attacks on tolerance cannot have special exceptions. It becomes too easy to define the most extreme cases as being representative of the mainstream. Recent research has shown that both left and right constantly miss characterize the other. Unfortunately with the left that mischaracterization becomes more prevalent the more “educated” one becomes.

nostromo 7y ago

> Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an example with. It's not so extreme... I've actually experience this! I'm gay and worked with an orthodox jew in New York for many years. We got close enough to have honest conversations about how scripture literally says gay men should be put to death. For a long time he would talk his way around it. Eventually all he could say was, "it doesn't apply to you, you're not jewish" (ok, only murder gay jews, as if that makes it ok?) or "those laws won't apply until the third temple" (still, not ok!) But you know what? We still liked and respected each other and worked very well together. So, I suppose it's possible. I think I moderated his opinions a bit over time. That wouldn't have been possible if I would have berated him constantly and/or refused to work with him.

wolco 7y ago
Sounds like a typical story of how one changes. First it's everyone, then everyone but Mark, than everyone but people who remind me of Mark. than it's no one but Ben.

jimbokun 7y ago

The problem with this approach, is the belief that punishing the expression of a belief, extinguishes the belief itself. Looking at world politics right now, I don't think that approach is being very successful. It just fosters a narrative of oppression and persecution of those who want to rebel against the prevailing norms of discourse. > It is also not too far off from many views that I have personally seen, especially when you begin to imagine the legal changes involved to implement those views. I think it's also important to be careful to avoid hyperbole. It's easy to from "I don't support government run healthcare" to "WHY ARE YOU MURDERING ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE?" with no nuance.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779265.

d1zzy 7y ago

> I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect. But if politics are not allowed at work then you wouldn't KNOW what your coworker's opinion is on the subject. That's one of the main points of not discussing politics at work, it's hard enough to get many people in one place to agree on technical things, it's impossible to get them to agree on everything and as every one of us feels strongly about one issue or another sooner or later we'll find things about our coworkers that we strongly oppose and that would make working with them hard.

kgwgk 7y ago

> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. How should a Muslim man respect a gay colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality doesn't deserve a punishment? Probably neither will respect the other, but they'll have to live with that.