5 ms·

Google is not a group of people who decided to associate based on their shared values. That was always bullshit, and I'm unsure why anyone took it seriously.

Google is not a group of people who decided to associate based on their shared values. That was always bullshit, and I'm unsure why anyone took it seriously. If you fell for it, that's on you. Google should never have talked about "pride" or "our shared values". It's very clear that they inherited that stuff from universities, where garbled nonsense about "safety," "this is our home," and "no place for hate" have become institutionalized. Mature companies led by adults know to avoid this minefield. All of that aside, the attitude evinced by this post is counterproductive. Politics is about persuasion. If you want to persuade (and not just preach to the converted), you have to understand the other perspective. If all you can do is dismiss people as "indefensible," you don't understand them, and you won't convince them. You'll come off as nasty, entitled, arrogant, and ideological. You know, the kind of person who commits code to push their political agenda, spies on their coworkers, or spams some lawyer they disapprove of with emails.

dom2 7y ago
I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? When you support money flowing to politicians who support policies like conversion camps, the message you are sending is clear. If Google or others want to convince politicians who support backwards policies to change their ways, they can still engage with them, but there is absolutely no need to financially support then.
- imustbeevil 7y ago
  > I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? That's a weird assumption to make. What I would assume is that the Senator has any other position that Google finds more profitable than an alternative Senator. It would be kind of crazy to think Google is directly supporting conversion therapy, or that anyone on this forum would.
  - dom2 7y ago
    These political donations have externalities beyond the single policy that a person, Google, or any company may be donating for. If Google absolutely had to donate to one of several politicians and this was the lesser evil, that would be understandable. This is not the case. Companies don't need to donate to have political influence: Apple doesn't and they do fine. Supporting a politician financially who also happens to support conversion camps in the end is still supporting all those policies, whether or not that was the initial intent.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  > I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rektide 7y ago
I'm radically unsure where this premise of refutation came from. Who are you refuting here? To my knowledge, the "ten things we know to be true" is the only "shared values" that have been stated, & it is more a way of operating guide than a system of what to believe in, a system of values, https://www.google.com/about/philosophy.html https://www.google.com/about/philosophy.html "Do no evil" for a while was about as universal a claim to shared-values as they could have, but that too was removed over 18 months ago. I disagree that Google should not have talked about pride, or shared values. To me, I think having a moral backbone would have been far preferable & instructive & guided them to a better place than the backbone-less philosophy of innovation that steers so far clear of the moral & value based philosophy of helping the world that would have constituted a real value system, that would have prevented them from throwing fealty dollars to such low-brow crass bastards of the the American political system, for corporatist experiency. I don't have much to register your anti-causes with. I don't see "safety" or "this is our home" or "no place for hate" as any particular rallying or anti-rallying cry. People who get off on anti-cause are at least as bad as those who would try to speak for something, for cause, to me, but perhaps I haven't seen the bad side of the cause, or the right side of the anti-cause. But to say that this is a minefield to be avoided, well, I think that's a petty view. One that deliberately wants to sabotage, blow up, subvert, excuse, free itself from facing the moral questions of our times. I think people ought be better than that. I'm sorry if it's a minefield, but corporations as philosophy-free zones is a bullshit cowardice pathetic excuse for having accountability. And anyone who would protest or speak against work like what this thread is, of pointing our moral cowardice in corporations, in pointing out either the malice or cowardice or cow-toe'ed-ness of the politicians a corporation backs: it's against what scant few basic principles companies like Google can offer, even in their relatively value-free stances. These posts do what Google purports to do: to make the factual information accessible & useful. I'm sorry that you want to hide some mask, that you feel this shows a need to convince. It does not. Most good people already believe what is shown here is bad. Very bad. Awfully bad. These are bad people being given money to. These posts aren't trying to argue that this is bad. They are trying to show the information. We- the good people, with hope & belief in one another, trust in the diversity & variety of humankind, are on our own when we judge these single-minded, particular biases that these politicians have espoused to be bad. You too should see that these politicians who have worked to deny others legitimacy are the ones holding radical & un-shared values against others. You too should see that it is political actors who deny others rights for who they are are the ones trying to convince, to sell, to dismiss, persuade. The good people of this planet want to accept, want to be free of these anti-accepting forces, free of these anti-persuaders. You have twisted what this thread is about. This thread is about revealing the persuaders, revealing those with biased, unaccepting, un-understanding, perhaps even "nasty, entitled, arrogant, & ideological" backgrounds for the limited, pathetic, incapable, unfeeling things they are. These politicians have been revealed. For what they are. And you protest it! You protest the mere revelation of fact! You are the biased one here. You are the one who backs exclusionary unaccepting values, that refuse to share with others. Damn. I was doing so well. I think you deserve this vilifcation, I think I have called you out right, or identified a cowardice or flaw in what drove you to your posting, but in discussing how this thread is one of revelation, against those who would not share, would opt not to coexist: that seems clear. Clear as day. Whatever your motives, the exclusionary & choosey, particular, non-universalized bias of these politicians is clear from their actions, and showing those actions and showing who the company is donating to is just a matter of fact. Your attempt to stir up moral quandary is beside the point. This is not about the companies values. This is about clear & radiant truth, about showing those politicians who make their agenda one that refuses others, refuses to share, & how corporations would back those who pick divisiveness & derision & degradation to win favor. That is as unshared a value as is possible, & one which ought be reported as the factual & actionable information that it is: and that is Google's still stated purpose. My apologies for going so so so far over the top, but I would truly love a a rebuttal, if you would be so kind as to manage it, amid my harsh cries.

dom2 7y ago

I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? When you support money flowing to politicians who support policies like conversion camps, the message you are sending is clear. If Google or others want to convince politicians who support backwards policies to change their ways, they can still engage with them, but there is absolutely no need to financially support then.

imustbeevil 7y ago
> I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? That's a weird assumption to make. What I would assume is that the Senator has any other position that Google finds more profitable than an alternative Senator. It would be kind of crazy to think Google is directly supporting conversion therapy, or that anyone on this forum would.
- dom2 7y ago
  These political donations have externalities beyond the single policy that a person, Google, or any company may be donating for. If Google absolutely had to donate to one of several politicians and this was the lesser evil, that would be understandable. This is not the case. Companies don't need to donate to have political influence: Apple doesn't and they do fine. Supporting a politician financially who also happens to support conversion camps in the end is still supporting all those policies, whether or not that was the initial intent.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dang 7y ago
> I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rektide 7y ago

I'm radically unsure where this premise of refutation came from. Who are you refuting here? To my knowledge, the "ten things we know to be true" is the only "shared values" that have been stated, & it is more a way of operating guide than a system of what to believe in, a system of values, https://www.google.com/about/philosophy.html https://www.google.com/about/philosophy.html "Do no evil" for a while was about as universal a claim to shared-values as they could have, but that too was removed over 18 months ago. I disagree that Google should not have talked about pride, or shared values. To me, I think having a moral backbone would have been far preferable & instructive & guided them to a better place than the backbone-less philosophy of innovation that steers so far clear of the moral & value based philosophy of helping the world that would have constituted a real value system, that would have prevented them from throwing fealty dollars to such low-brow crass bastards of the the American political system, for corporatist experiency. I don't have much to register your anti-causes with. I don't see "safety" or "this is our home" or "no place for hate" as any particular rallying or anti-rallying cry. People who get off on anti-cause are at least as bad as those who would try to speak for something, for cause, to me, but perhaps I haven't seen the bad side of the cause, or the right side of the anti-cause. But to say that this is a minefield to be avoided, well, I think that's a petty view. One that deliberately wants to sabotage, blow up, subvert, excuse, free itself from facing the moral questions of our times. I think people ought be better than that. I'm sorry if it's a minefield, but corporations as philosophy-free zones is a bullshit cowardice pathetic excuse for having accountability. And anyone who would protest or speak against work like what this thread is, of pointing our moral cowardice in corporations, in pointing out either the malice or cowardice or cow-toe'ed-ness of the politicians a corporation backs: it's against what scant few basic principles companies like Google can offer, even in their relatively value-free stances. These posts do what Google purports to do: to make the factual information accessible & useful. I'm sorry that you want to hide some mask, that you feel this shows a need to convince. It does not. Most good people already believe what is shown here is bad. Very bad. Awfully bad. These are bad people being given money to. These posts aren't trying to argue that this is bad. They are trying to show the information. We- the good people, with hope & belief in one another, trust in the diversity & variety of humankind, are on our own when we judge these single-minded, particular biases that these politicians have espoused to be bad. You too should see that these politicians who have worked to deny others legitimacy are the ones holding radical & un-shared values against others. You too should see that it is political actors who deny others rights for who they are are the ones trying to convince, to sell, to dismiss, persuade. The good people of this planet want to accept, want to be free of these anti-accepting forces, free of these anti-persuaders. You have twisted what this thread is about. This thread is about revealing the persuaders, revealing those with biased, unaccepting, un-understanding, perhaps even "nasty, entitled, arrogant, & ideological" backgrounds for the limited, pathetic, incapable, unfeeling things they are. These politicians have been revealed. For what they are. And you protest it! You protest the mere revelation of fact! You are the biased one here. You are the one who backs exclusionary unaccepting values, that refuse to share with others. Damn. I was doing so well. I think you deserve this vilifcation, I think I have called you out right, or identified a cowardice or flaw in what drove you to your posting, but in discussing how this thread is one of revelation, against those who would not share, would opt not to coexist: that seems clear. Clear as day. Whatever your motives, the exclusionary & choosey, particular, non-universalized bias of these politicians is clear from their actions, and showing those actions and showing who the company is donating to is just a matter of fact. Your attempt to stir up moral quandary is beside the point. This is not about the companies values. This is about clear & radiant truth, about showing those politicians who make their agenda one that refuses others, refuses to share, & how corporations would back those who pick divisiveness & derision & degradation to win favor. That is as unshared a value as is possible, & one which ought be reported as the factual & actionable information that it is: and that is Google's still stated purpose. My apologies for going so so so far over the top, but I would truly love a a rebuttal, if you would be so kind as to manage it, amid my harsh cries.