13 ms·

I turned down an offer from Google (cloud) because I didn't want to work for a company that was so focused on politics internally. This was just after they fire

by acruns 7y ago

I turned down an offer from Google (cloud) because I didn't want to work for a company that was so focused on politics internally. This was just after they fired Damore, not that I agree or disagree with his opinion, but because Google seems promote internal fighting. That type of culture doesn't appeal to me.

paggle 7y ago
You should consider Microsoft and Apple... employees there don't really care too much about these things
- techie128 7y ago
  Microsoft and Apple employees might care. However, workplace is not an appropriate forum to fight over politics or other non-work related topics. More importantly, it is important to maintain professionalism and focus on the job you've been hired to do. You can be an activist in your spare time. You may also not like your coworkers due to their political views but we live in a diverse world. Acknowledge that and work with them regardless of their political leanings.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Some politics isn't work-related. Some is, especially when a company has 100,000 people. I think, perhaps, it is easy for people to forget that when some Googlers fought against the Dragonfly project, it's because they have friends and loved ones who are Chinese expats under threat from China's government (meanwhile, some Googlers are Chinese citizens). When some Googlers fought against project Maven, they were only two or three degrees of separation from people who had lost loved ones as "collateral damage" in US drone strikes during the "war on terror." I think one of the most interesting questions is whether a 100,000 person multinational can survive without a hard "Don't question leadership" culture in a world with simultaneously this easy flow of communication and people and this much inequality and conflict.
    - golemiprague 7y ago
      I am sure some of them also have friends and family in the various American security forces who would have benefited from those projects, not to mention many other Americans protected by those security forces. This is exactly the point, in a big company there are many people with various interests, if you want to lean to a certain political side you will always alienate a lot of people so better just to keep politics out of it as much as possible
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    It's also possible to like someone even if you don't like their views. There's one former coworker in particular that comes to mind whose views on politics made my eyes roll nearly to the back of my head, but he wasn't a bad person. He was still a decent guy with interesting hobbies who would probably be there for you if you needed him. I find odious people in general hold a wide variety of beliefs across the entire political spectrum.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Stirring up political arguments with your officemates is one thing. Objecting to your employers (and thus, potentially, you) building censorship systems for oppressive regimes is something entirely different.
  - narrator 7y ago
    Google is a major media company now in that decisions they make about content influence political and social thought. That power leads to it becoming a target of politics and political activists.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Funny you mention it, because I currently am working at one of those two, and for my next gig am seriously looking at the other one in the pair. Note: I love my current team and project, but nothing is permanent, and it is always good to be on the lookout for the next thing, in case things go sour or if you want to switch things up. Overall, I agree with you, but it isn't that employees there don't care. It just honestly feels like the overall group of employees at Apple/MSFT is truly more diverse (not just in terms of race and such, but in terms of socioeconomic upbringing, culture, and diversity of thought), hence why they are used to being respectful of other people's views (even if they totally disagree with those) and not succumbing to the monoculture kind of thought, because it would be almost impossible to have a monoculture there in the first place. There are definitely a few small enclaves like that at Google as well, but it feels more like a giant monoculture with some small enclaves, while I get the inverse feeling about Apple/MSFT (a giant diverse non-monoculture group, with a few small enclaves of monoculture). Anecdotally, I have many friends working at all 3 of those (Apple/MSFT+Google), and they (independently of each other) brought up the same point when conversations got there.
daenz 7y ago
>not that I agree or disagree with his opinion You just outed yourself. I wish I was joking, but anything other than instant condemnation of what he wrote gets you labelled.
- ngngngng 7y ago
  You phrased this funny, and I think that's why you're getting downvotes since the sarcasm wasn't obvious. You're right though, what we just saw with the linux foundations tone policing and the Lindsay Shepherd situation absolutely confirm this. There is a very effective group of activists that can make life hell for you if you don't hate the same things as them with the same fervor.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    The downside to becoming wildly successful and influential in a culture is you begin to come under far more scrutiny from that culture.
  - sagichmal 7y ago
    This is a deeply disingenuous interpretation of events, to the extent of being a lie. Damore, Woods, and that other dude who went on a misogynist Twitter tirade for a full day, were all deliberate assholes in public. There were consequences for that. This is just and correct.
    - lwb 7y ago
      Found one!
    - baked_ziti 7y ago
      Which part is a lie?
      - Aeolun 7y ago
        All the parts that do not fit in their worldview, naturally.
bitwize 7y ago
I worked there as a contractor in 2014, well before the Damore flap, and while it wasn't as overt as it is now, I could certainly taste it in the air.
- umeshunni 7y ago
  Trump became president in 2016 and that's when the "anyone who disagrees with me is a sexist/racist/homophobe..." etc became the default political modus operandi of many west coast liberal activist types
  - amznthrowaway4 7y ago
    and when "anybody who thinks that it's okay for there to be consequences for racism / sexism / other bigotry is a worthless California leftist and should be ignored" became the default modus operandi of many right-wing extremists. and when essentially everyone in the right wing decided that their feelings were more important than facts.
    - bitwize 7y ago
      > and when "anybody who thinks that it's okay for there to be consequences for racism / sexism / other bigotry is a worthless California leftist and should be ignored" became the default modus operandi of many right-wing extremists. That was always the MO of right-wing extremists. But after Trump's election is when people whose views were once considered moderate-left to moderate-right suddenly became "far-right", "alt-right", or "Nazis". I think it stems from a mentality that someone else pointed out: not wanting to discuss the matter is tacit support for the status quo. A.k.a. "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." A.k.a. "Until they are free they are part of the System, and that System is the enemy." If you aren't anti-racist or anti-sexist enough, you must be racist or sexist.
      - amznthrowaway4 7y ago
        Has your life or career been negatively impacted by any of this? Because as near as I can tell you're repeating a propagandistic narrative that is intended to keep normal conservatives aligned with white nationalists and other bigots. The idea being that somehow liberals are attacking all of you, so that you'll be more bothered by the liberal attacks than by the fact that you're actively supporting white nationalist leaders.
rpmisms 7y ago
Dude, it's OK to say you agree with him. He was well-intentioned, and was trying to fix an actual problem, that spaces created by men aren't necessarily as welcoming to women. That's not wrong, even if you disagree with his approach. He was crucified because he dared to suggest that differences exist between men and women in any meaningful way.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  More than that, he was crucified for things he didn’t say, because nearly every blog and media outlet ran complete lies as their headline.
- cloverich 7y ago
  I only passively followed the Damore fiasco and out of curiosity went and read his memo[1] just now. "that spaces created by men aren't necessarily as welcoming to women" doesn't feel like the major theme of his piece. The major theme feels like "practices that specifically promote women and non-white races are discriminatory, unfair, and it is hurting Google". I"m quite sure he was treated unfairly, but I don't think your characterization of his piece is consistent with its content. [1]: https://firedfortruth.com/ https://firedfortruth.com/
utopcell 7y ago
Google is promoting internal fighting ? That's the most baseless accusation I can think of and is miles apart from my personal experience.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  It's funny how he knew this from outside Google.
emodendroket 7y ago
I don't care if you work for the stodgiest workplace in America, nobody is going to react well to you blasting out an e-mail missive saying diversity (as traditionally understood, since he tries to redefine it to mean something else) is a crock. Google is not an outlier here.
viburnum 7y ago
The dude said whole classes of people were genetically inferior. That makes employee evaluations impossible. He had to go.
- rainyMammoth 7y ago
  This is not what he said at all. He said that the interests of men are different than the interests of women. You are blindly repeating what blogs and other activists reported he said. Go read his memo.
  - viburnum 7y ago
    The dude is an out and proud bigot. He made his choice.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    Didn't he specifically claim that science shows women are more neurotic than men?

by acruns 7y ago

paggle 7y ago

You should consider Microsoft and Apple... employees there don't really care too much about these things

techie128 7y ago
Microsoft and Apple employees might care. However, workplace is not an appropriate forum to fight over politics or other non-work related topics. More importantly, it is important to maintain professionalism and focus on the job you've been hired to do. You can be an activist in your spare time. You may also not like your coworkers due to their political views but we live in a diverse world. Acknowledge that and work with them regardless of their political leanings.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Some politics isn't work-related. Some is, especially when a company has 100,000 people. I think, perhaps, it is easy for people to forget that when some Googlers fought against the Dragonfly project, it's because they have friends and loved ones who are Chinese expats under threat from China's government (meanwhile, some Googlers are Chinese citizens). When some Googlers fought against project Maven, they were only two or three degrees of separation from people who had lost loved ones as "collateral damage" in US drone strikes during the "war on terror." I think one of the most interesting questions is whether a 100,000 person multinational can survive without a hard "Don't question leadership" culture in a world with simultaneously this easy flow of communication and people and this much inequality and conflict.
  - golemiprague 7y ago
    I am sure some of them also have friends and family in the various American security forces who would have benefited from those projects, not to mention many other Americans protected by those security forces. This is exactly the point, in a big company there are many people with various interests, if you want to lean to a certain political side you will always alienate a lot of people so better just to keep politics out of it as much as possible
- nkrisc 7y ago
  It's also possible to like someone even if you don't like their views. There's one former coworker in particular that comes to mind whose views on politics made my eyes roll nearly to the back of my head, but he wasn't a bad person. He was still a decent guy with interesting hobbies who would probably be there for you if you needed him. I find odious people in general hold a wide variety of beliefs across the entire political spectrum.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Stirring up political arguments with your officemates is one thing. Objecting to your employers (and thus, potentially, you) building censorship systems for oppressive regimes is something entirely different.
- narrator 7y ago
  Google is a major media company now in that decisions they make about content influence political and social thought. That power leads to it becoming a target of politics and political activists.
filoleg 7y ago
Funny you mention it, because I currently am working at one of those two, and for my next gig am seriously looking at the other one in the pair. Note: I love my current team and project, but nothing is permanent, and it is always good to be on the lookout for the next thing, in case things go sour or if you want to switch things up. Overall, I agree with you, but it isn't that employees there don't care. It just honestly feels like the overall group of employees at Apple/MSFT is truly more diverse (not just in terms of race and such, but in terms of socioeconomic upbringing, culture, and diversity of thought), hence why they are used to being respectful of other people's views (even if they totally disagree with those) and not succumbing to the monoculture kind of thought, because it would be almost impossible to have a monoculture there in the first place. There are definitely a few small enclaves like that at Google as well, but it feels more like a giant monoculture with some small enclaves, while I get the inverse feeling about Apple/MSFT (a giant diverse non-monoculture group, with a few small enclaves of monoculture). Anecdotally, I have many friends working at all 3 of those (Apple/MSFT+Google), and they (independently of each other) brought up the same point when conversations got there.

daenz 7y ago

>not that I agree or disagree with his opinion You just outed yourself. I wish I was joking, but anything other than instant condemnation of what he wrote gets you labelled.

ngngngng 7y ago
You phrased this funny, and I think that's why you're getting downvotes since the sarcasm wasn't obvious. You're right though, what we just saw with the linux foundations tone policing and the Lindsay Shepherd situation absolutely confirm this. There is a very effective group of activists that can make life hell for you if you don't hate the same things as them with the same fervor.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  The downside to becoming wildly successful and influential in a culture is you begin to come under far more scrutiny from that culture.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  This is a deeply disingenuous interpretation of events, to the extent of being a lie. Damore, Woods, and that other dude who went on a misogynist Twitter tirade for a full day, were all deliberate assholes in public. There were consequences for that. This is just and correct.
  - lwb 7y ago
    Found one!
  - baked_ziti 7y ago
    Which part is a lie?
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      All the parts that do not fit in their worldview, naturally.

bitwize 7y ago

I worked there as a contractor in 2014, well before the Damore flap, and while it wasn't as overt as it is now, I could certainly taste it in the air.

umeshunni 7y ago
Trump became president in 2016 and that's when the "anyone who disagrees with me is a sexist/racist/homophobe..." etc became the default political modus operandi of many west coast liberal activist types
- amznthrowaway4 7y ago
  and when "anybody who thinks that it's okay for there to be consequences for racism / sexism / other bigotry is a worthless California leftist and should be ignored" became the default modus operandi of many right-wing extremists. and when essentially everyone in the right wing decided that their feelings were more important than facts.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    > and when "anybody who thinks that it's okay for there to be consequences for racism / sexism / other bigotry is a worthless California leftist and should be ignored" became the default modus operandi of many right-wing extremists. That was always the MO of right-wing extremists. But after Trump's election is when people whose views were once considered moderate-left to moderate-right suddenly became "far-right", "alt-right", or "Nazis". I think it stems from a mentality that someone else pointed out: not wanting to discuss the matter is tacit support for the status quo. A.k.a. "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." A.k.a. "Until they are free they are part of the System, and that System is the enemy." If you aren't anti-racist or anti-sexist enough, you must be racist or sexist.
    - amznthrowaway4 7y ago
      Has your life or career been negatively impacted by any of this? Because as near as I can tell you're repeating a propagandistic narrative that is intended to keep normal conservatives aligned with white nationalists and other bigots. The idea being that somehow liberals are attacking all of you, so that you'll be more bothered by the liberal attacks than by the fact that you're actively supporting white nationalist leaders.

rpmisms 7y ago

Dude, it's OK to say you agree with him. He was well-intentioned, and was trying to fix an actual problem, that spaces created by men aren't necessarily as welcoming to women. That's not wrong, even if you disagree with his approach. He was crucified because he dared to suggest that differences exist between men and women in any meaningful way.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
More than that, he was crucified for things he didn’t say, because nearly every blog and media outlet ran complete lies as their headline.
cloverich 7y ago
I only passively followed the Damore fiasco and out of curiosity went and read his memo[1] just now. "that spaces created by men aren't necessarily as welcoming to women" doesn't feel like the major theme of his piece. The major theme feels like "practices that specifically promote women and non-white races are discriminatory, unfair, and it is hurting Google". I"m quite sure he was treated unfairly, but I don't think your characterization of his piece is consistent with its content. [1]: https://firedfortruth.com/ https://firedfortruth.com/

utopcell 7y ago

Google is promoting internal fighting ? That's the most baseless accusation I can think of and is miles apart from my personal experience.

mav3rick 7y ago
It's funny how he knew this from outside Google.

emodendroket 7y ago

I don't care if you work for the stodgiest workplace in America, nobody is going to react well to you blasting out an e-mail missive saying diversity (as traditionally understood, since he tries to redefine it to mean something else) is a crock. Google is not an outlier here.

viburnum 7y ago

The dude said whole classes of people were genetically inferior. That makes employee evaluations impossible. He had to go.

rainyMammoth 7y ago
This is not what he said at all. He said that the interests of men are different than the interests of women. You are blindly repeating what blogs and other activists reported he said. Go read his memo.
- viburnum 7y ago
  The dude is an out and proud bigot. He made his choice.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Didn't he specifically claim that science shows women are more neurotic than men?