4 ms·

> There is a time and a place for "constructive discussion" of certain topics and that place is apparently not Google I'd agree with you if he wasn't discussin

> There is a time and a place for "constructive discussion" of certain topics and that place is apparently not Google I'd agree with you if he wasn't discussing it in direct reference to how Google approached things like hiring from a strategic perspective. However what he discussed was in the context of how google approaches something. Secondly from what I've heard Google provided a space for precisely these kinds of discussions, so suggesting he should have known better than to discuss seems pretty unfair to me. Even if what he said was wrong, wrong, wrong, it really seems to me like he was trying to engage in good faith and people didn't respond to it in good faith at all

krageon 7y ago
> hiring from a strategic perspective There is a reason people who make actual strategic decisions speak as if they are eels covered in oil and it is to avoid situations like the one this person found themselves in. > Google provided a space for precisely these kinds of discussions, so suggesting he should have known better than to discuss seems pretty unfair to me. Yes, corporations embellish the truth (or lie, if you want to be that way). At this point, you need to understand this - especially if you work for a corporation that does as many questionable things as Google does. Everyone should be free to make their own decisions of course, this person decided to make an ill-advised argument at work and the consequence was that he cannot work there anymore. > it really seems to me like he was trying to engage in good faith Regardless of whether or not I believe this is true, "engaging in good faith" is not a shield against poor decisions.