4 ms·

I don't think anyone is surprised by this struggle. I have noticed in my life that there are people who operate on a principle that is sometimes called out as

I don't think anyone is surprised by this struggle. I have noticed in my life that there are people who operate on a principle that is sometimes called out as "It's not illegal if you don't get caught." Clearly that statement isn't literally true. The essence of the colloquialism is that rules are "arbitrary" and following them, when you don't have to fear the consequence of breaking them because you are unlikely to get caught violating them, is for "chumps." (sorry, another colloquialism). What is lost on people is that people who don't follow rules erode trust. Especially when they could have easily followed a rule and didn't anyway. That trust erodes and is difficult if not impossible to recover. And not surprisingly those same people who are so happy to have "gotten away with it" have no idea that at some point in the future they are going to need that trust and it won't be there.

jariel 7y ago
This is not about people skirting the rules, this is a poignantly political concern. "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Temporarily halting travel from a list of countries designated by the Obama administration as 'dangerous' - specifically because there's a degree of lawlessness and/or the governments can't/won't cooperate with background checks etc. has very reasonable arguments supporting it. (FYI the nations were Libya/Yemen/Syria/Somalia/Sudan/Iraq - all of which have dysfunctional governments unable to provide reliable identity information - and Iran, which has other problems). Note that Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Indonesia, Saudi, Oman, Pakistan etc. etc. and the vast majority of states with many Muslim citizens were not affected. Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. If Googlers are going to be discontent about an issue like this then I'm afraid it's game over for their peace - because they are effectively internalising American political discord. Google's direct participation in China etc. is another issue entirely, much more salient as it directly reflects 'what Google is doing' - but even this can be very complicated. Google is essentially 'choosing' a very specific political ethos which is problematic in itself because most of us tend to confound our own version of morality with that of others in a very intolerant manner.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  > "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Yes it is. And that issue is that the person did something in a previous job which many employees found repugnant. But the trust issue, is that the employees also don't trust that Google has the integrity to hire someone who did that, without understanding the whys of it. Or being sensitive to both their existing and new employee on the issue. If I were in Google management, and I had the trust of the people I managed, I could explain to them the reasoning that went into the hire; The skills that came with the candidate, the business need, the qualities of the candidate. And the sensitivity around their previous job choices and how they made those choices (most people do what the boss tells them to do) and what was expected of them at a place like Google. And the people who trusted me would expect me to hold the new hire to those standards and to fire them if they didn't live up to them. I would be able to lean on that trust and say, "Hey, we need to give this guy a chance to prove he can do the right thing and we and he both understand he is held to a higher standard here." Folks I managed wouldn't trust me if they had found out that I had allowed a sexual harasser to work for me after I knew that they had a problem. That is because they would lose trust in me saying that I would hold people to a certain standard. That is the difference in a "only if you get caught" situational morality play. Someone with principles and integrity will take the necessary action, even if it is painful, even when they could "get away with it because nobody else knows." It is a good litmus test. That test being to evaluate how you respond to people who do the right thing even when no one is looking, and to people who do the right thing only after the need to do it comes to light through some other path. In my experience, I trust people who do the right thing even if no one is watching way more than I trust the opportunists.
- sagarm 7y ago
  > Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. A different administration could have implemented a policy that limited travel from certain countries without backlash. This one started by -- without warning -- revoking the right to re-enter the country for all legal visa holders from these countries on 1/27/2017, a week after the inauguration, INCLUDING GREEN CARDS.[1] That's a permanent residency visa. People were stranded away from their jobs, homes, families. I was a green card holder not so long ago, and had family in the states on green cards. I felt real fear after the Muslim ban was announced on 1/27/2017. The action seemed calculated to cause as much harm to ordinary people as it could. Policy can be debated, but it's not the policy that is at issue here. It's the disregard bordering on malice. This was just one of many examples, from pardoning Joe Arpaio[2] and separating asylum-seeking families with no plan for re-uniting them,[3] to going looking for decades old citizenships to revoke[4]. I understand that we're too politically weak for anger to work, but I'm only human. It's galling to be told we're the intolerant ones in this situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-card_holders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca... [2] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Backgroun... . Today, some Latinios in Texas feel compelled to carry around proof of citizenship: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carrying-passports/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carry... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trum... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citizenship-immigration-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citi...
blazespin 7y ago
It's kind of ironic that the reply to the parent is dead. It's almost an exact reflection of exactly what he's talking about here on hacker news.
- banmeagaindan2 7y ago
  The moderators at HN have banned every single prominent right winger. If you are right wing and have not been banned - it is just a matter of time. I know some people tried everything to stay inside the rules and they failed. I don't know that this pattern is the fault of Dan and Scott directly - I think there is something deeper at work which goes beyond the political pattern recognition of the people who talk here. I won't jump into the topic here but I am going to iterate - there exist three powerful factions in our political system - the left, the right and the liberals. I believe if we don't hang together we will hang separately. For one political philosophy to have a monopoly is the last thing we need. It is as moronic as one sex winning the War of the Sexes. Look at how economists are now reconsidering the position on global trade - positions that seem incontrovertible get walked back in time - do we want to slow down that mechanism?
  - ahbyb 7y ago
    I don't know how/why it happened, but most users here are left-wing now. This means that, if you post a right-wing point of view, you are likely to attract lots of responses. Posts that attract lots of responses are always seen as flamebait, and flamebait is flagged. Many flags will get you labelled as a troll and banned. Whether this is on purpose (a system used by the mods to keep the site left-wing) or not (just a consequence of the times we live in + a desire by the mods not to have flames all day) is another matter.
    - igorkraw 7y ago
      Can you mail me a full version of what you are trying to say here please? As a European, HN seems pretty right wing to me, so if you have examples of statements which you feel get flagged/banned while not deserving so in a noncensored setting (my mail which can be found in my profile) I'd be grateful

jariel 7y ago

This is not about people skirting the rules, this is a poignantly political concern. "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Temporarily halting travel from a list of countries designated by the Obama administration as 'dangerous' - specifically because there's a degree of lawlessness and/or the governments can't/won't cooperate with background checks etc. has very reasonable arguments supporting it. (FYI the nations were Libya/Yemen/Syria/Somalia/Sudan/Iraq - all of which have dysfunctional governments unable to provide reliable identity information - and Iran, which has other problems). Note that Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Indonesia, Saudi, Oman, Pakistan etc. etc. and the vast majority of states with many Muslim citizens were not affected. Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. If Googlers are going to be discontent about an issue like this then I'm afraid it's game over for their peace - because they are effectively internalising American political discord. Google's direct participation in China etc. is another issue entirely, much more salient as it directly reflects 'what Google is doing' - but even this can be very complicated. Google is essentially 'choosing' a very specific political ethos which is problematic in itself because most of us tend to confound our own version of morality with that of others in a very intolerant manner.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
> "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Yes it is. And that issue is that the person did something in a previous job which many employees found repugnant. But the trust issue, is that the employees also don't trust that Google has the integrity to hire someone who did that, without understanding the whys of it. Or being sensitive to both their existing and new employee on the issue. If I were in Google management, and I had the trust of the people I managed, I could explain to them the reasoning that went into the hire; The skills that came with the candidate, the business need, the qualities of the candidate. And the sensitivity around their previous job choices and how they made those choices (most people do what the boss tells them to do) and what was expected of them at a place like Google. And the people who trusted me would expect me to hold the new hire to those standards and to fire them if they didn't live up to them. I would be able to lean on that trust and say, "Hey, we need to give this guy a chance to prove he can do the right thing and we and he both understand he is held to a higher standard here." Folks I managed wouldn't trust me if they had found out that I had allowed a sexual harasser to work for me after I knew that they had a problem. That is because they would lose trust in me saying that I would hold people to a certain standard. That is the difference in a "only if you get caught" situational morality play. Someone with principles and integrity will take the necessary action, even if it is painful, even when they could "get away with it because nobody else knows." It is a good litmus test. That test being to evaluate how you respond to people who do the right thing even when no one is looking, and to people who do the right thing only after the need to do it comes to light through some other path. In my experience, I trust people who do the right thing even if no one is watching way more than I trust the opportunists.
sagarm 7y ago
> Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. A different administration could have implemented a policy that limited travel from certain countries without backlash. This one started by -- without warning -- revoking the right to re-enter the country for all legal visa holders from these countries on 1/27/2017, a week after the inauguration, INCLUDING GREEN CARDS.[1] That's a permanent residency visa. People were stranded away from their jobs, homes, families. I was a green card holder not so long ago, and had family in the states on green cards. I felt real fear after the Muslim ban was announced on 1/27/2017. The action seemed calculated to cause as much harm to ordinary people as it could. Policy can be debated, but it's not the policy that is at issue here. It's the disregard bordering on malice. This was just one of many examples, from pardoning Joe Arpaio[2] and separating asylum-seeking families with no plan for re-uniting them,[3] to going looking for decades old citizenships to revoke[4]. I understand that we're too politically weak for anger to work, but I'm only human. It's galling to be told we're the intolerant ones in this situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-card_holders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca... [2] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Backgroun... . Today, some Latinios in Texas feel compelled to carry around proof of citizenship: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carrying-passports/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carry... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trum... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citizenship-immigration-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citi...

blazespin 7y ago

It's kind of ironic that the reply to the parent is dead. It's almost an exact reflection of exactly what he's talking about here on hacker news.

banmeagaindan2 7y ago
The moderators at HN have banned every single prominent right winger. If you are right wing and have not been banned - it is just a matter of time. I know some people tried everything to stay inside the rules and they failed. I don't know that this pattern is the fault of Dan and Scott directly - I think there is something deeper at work which goes beyond the political pattern recognition of the people who talk here. I won't jump into the topic here but I am going to iterate - there exist three powerful factions in our political system - the left, the right and the liberals. I believe if we don't hang together we will hang separately. For one political philosophy to have a monopoly is the last thing we need. It is as moronic as one sex winning the War of the Sexes. Look at how economists are now reconsidering the position on global trade - positions that seem incontrovertible get walked back in time - do we want to slow down that mechanism?
- ahbyb 7y ago
  I don't know how/why it happened, but most users here are left-wing now. This means that, if you post a right-wing point of view, you are likely to attract lots of responses. Posts that attract lots of responses are always seen as flamebait, and flamebait is flagged. Many flags will get you labelled as a troll and banned. Whether this is on purpose (a system used by the mods to keep the site left-wing) or not (just a consequence of the times we live in + a desire by the mods not to have flames all day) is another matter.
  - igorkraw 7y ago
    Can you mail me a full version of what you are trying to say here please? As a European, HN seems pretty right wing to me, so if you have examples of statements which you feel get flagged/banned while not deserving so in a noncensored setting (my mail which can be found in my profile) I'd be grateful