3 ms·
Executives get away with more crass offenses all the time but even if they didn’t, you’re ignoring a key power imbalance that defines this struggle. What purpos
by anarchodev 7y ago
Executives get away with more crass offenses all the time but even if they didn’t, you’re ignoring a key power imbalance that defines this struggle. What purpose would it serve for an executive to post in this message board? They have plenty of recourse already if a bad hiring decision has been made.
I think we’re also conflating “personal” attacks with criticisms that just happen to be about one person in particular. The meme in the article is criticizing google for exposing their relationships to key actors in child imprisonment policies in the US (connection was exposed by hiring one of them). By this standard there’s no criticism you could make of the company unless it didn’t apply to anyone, which doesn’t sound very meaningful. The same criticism could be levied (with the same picture/meme text) if they decide to hire Mike Pence next year, will that also be considered an unacceptable personal attack?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoIt ought to be, yes. People shouldn't bully their coworkers over political disagreements, even if they're large or important political disagreements.
- anarchodev 7y agoMaybe a better exploratory question would be: what would have been an acceptable way to phrase that criticism, if you feel the substance was acceptable sans its obvious application to the most recent hiring decision?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoWhich criticism are we discussing here? The article describes a Matrix meme which Google allowed to stay up, and previous articles I've read suggest that Google regularly allows questions on hot-button issues when they don't call for specific personnel decisions.