3 ms·

You have made a false dichotomy of it I feel. I don't think there are two models, just various points on a spectrum of tolerance. I don't entirely disagree tha

by ehnto 5y ago

You have made a false dichotomy of it I feel. I don't think there are two models, just various points on a spectrum of tolerance. I don't entirely disagree that politics is not needed in the workplace, but people spend almost all their time at work now and so it has become their defacto social space. If you spend 8 hours a day there it is important to make sure it's comfortable. That increase in diversity is a direct result of talking about the issue of intolerance in the workplace, making it more comfortable for different people to work there. You can be a hard working closer and tolerant of others all the same.

redis_mlc 5y ago
> That increase in diversity is a direct result of talking about the issue of intolerance in the workplace, making it more comfortable for different people to work there. "Intolerance in the workplace" is pretty vague. > You can be a hard working closer and tolerant of others all the same. Nobody should be tolerant of Marxists and Critical Race Theorists. Half of the US population has sadly lost their way. Guess we need another World War to cure the rampant navel-gazing.
dkarras 5y ago
From the employer's perspective, there is one type of employee that can pretty much work in any environment given that they are paid - and there is another type that needs ALL the other coworkers doing things and acting in a particular way for them to feel safe and productive. I'm not even against their need to feel safe, included, heard, or their claimed victim status, ptsd, lack of representation, whatever they are concerned with at any point in time - but it is very hard and expensive to build and maintain an environment where they will prosper - very expensive too. A new drama every week, dealing with bad press from a resigned "activist" employee every other month. Even with sympathy towards those people, I probably wouldn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole when money and livelihood of all my employees are at stake. I'd probably just try to help their cause by other means but would not try to torture them in an environment where they'll inevitably suffer and be unproductive. Their utopia does not exist in planet earth (yet), is it reasonable to expect that to exist in a company working environment? From a certain perspective, more is wrong with the world than right, and it is impossible to provide an environment that is "right" when most of the world is wrong. When you are the employer, you take the implicit role of building miniature model of that world in their working environment and I reckon that is impossible, at the very least very very expensive.
- patrick451 5y ago
  > From the employer's perspective, there is one type of employee that can pretty much work in any environment given that they are paid - and there is another type that needs ALL the other coworkers doing things and acting in a particular way for them to feel safe and productive. I'm not even against their need to feel safe, included, heard, or their claimed victim status, ptsd, lack of representation, whatever they are concerned with at any point in time - but it is very hard and expensive to build and maintain an environment where they will prosper - very expensive too. This is why any smart employer should start aggressively filtering such candidates out of their hiring pipeline.
  - fancyfish 5y ago
    Even though this isn’t official guidance at my FAANG, I’ve started weeding out anyone who (as best as I can infer) cares about political activism. They are damaging to an organization. Even if they don’t start political interest groups at work, they will bring up political topics in casual conversation which will exclude certain people’s viewpoints. My stance is, we pay you to be an engineer, so I hire people devoted solely to engineering.
- me_again 5y ago
  I think you are leaving out the pretty expansive middle ground where everyone lives. The options are not "pretty much any environment where they get paid" and "woketopia". Do you expect female employees to put up with harassment because it's too expensive to improve the working environment? Should employees "just deal with" being yelled at by managers? I'll pass thanks, but I don't think that qualifies me as an activist.
dudul 5y ago
> people spend almost all their time at work now I see this claim made a lot every time the "politics in the workplace" conversation happens, but really? "Almost all their time"? Isn't a normal person supposed to work 8 hours a day, sleep 8/10hours at night and spent 8/6 hours doing something else? If my math is correct that's not "almost all their time". If some people are incapable of having a life outside of work, well balanced people shouldn't have to pay the price of their obsessions.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  I do not have an unbalanced life outside of work, not because of obsession (I only work 40 hours a week, roughly), but because I mainly spend my personal time recovering from the mental fatigue of work. I just don't have a desire to do much of anything until I've had a few days off and my creativity can be directed towards my own interests.
bendbro 5y ago
Diversity of culture between workplaces is collateral damage of diversity and inclusion efforts. All cultures are not compatible. Not everyone will not be comfortable in a particular culture. Not everyone will not be wanted in a particular culture. [0] The left call this immoral, believing that any exclusion or disparity is the result of circumstances that enslave humanity, from which humanity should be liberated [1]. The result of this thinking is the limiting and constricting of various liberties, and a push towards the formation of a soulless, foundationless, conglomerated monoculture. Instead of fighting to produce this horrible monoculture, we should accept that people don't get along, and then find a way to allow all cultures to thrive. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
- imiric 5y ago
  What I don't understand about this ideology is what the end goal is. Will the fight be over once every facet of society is equally distributed among everyone, effectively abolishing majorities? And which human attributes will we choose to make diverse? Today it's gender, race and ethnicity. Yet there are countless other attributes we can choose to select on where not every group will be represented equally, so why stop with these? This argument also ignores inherent imbalances in society, like the fact that professions are largely chosen by interest. The same male-female inequality that exists in tech also exists in nursing, construction, hairdressing, etc.[1] I hope that we can one day accept that this is OK and not the result of some huge conspiracy and systemic discrimination (not that this doesn't exist, but that it's not the main cause for the imbalance). [1]: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

by ehnto 5y ago

redis_mlc 5y ago

> That increase in diversity is a direct result of talking about the issue of intolerance in the workplace, making it more comfortable for different people to work there. "Intolerance in the workplace" is pretty vague. > You can be a hard working closer and tolerant of others all the same. Nobody should be tolerant of Marxists and Critical Race Theorists. Half of the US population has sadly lost their way. Guess we need another World War to cure the rampant navel-gazing.

dkarras 5y ago

From the employer's perspective, there is one type of employee that can pretty much work in any environment given that they are paid - and there is another type that needs ALL the other coworkers doing things and acting in a particular way for them to feel safe and productive. I'm not even against their need to feel safe, included, heard, or their claimed victim status, ptsd, lack of representation, whatever they are concerned with at any point in time - but it is very hard and expensive to build and maintain an environment where they will prosper - very expensive too. A new drama every week, dealing with bad press from a resigned "activist" employee every other month. Even with sympathy towards those people, I probably wouldn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole when money and livelihood of all my employees are at stake. I'd probably just try to help their cause by other means but would not try to torture them in an environment where they'll inevitably suffer and be unproductive. Their utopia does not exist in planet earth (yet), is it reasonable to expect that to exist in a company working environment? From a certain perspective, more is wrong with the world than right, and it is impossible to provide an environment that is "right" when most of the world is wrong. When you are the employer, you take the implicit role of building miniature model of that world in their working environment and I reckon that is impossible, at the very least very very expensive.

patrick451 5y ago
> From the employer's perspective, there is one type of employee that can pretty much work in any environment given that they are paid - and there is another type that needs ALL the other coworkers doing things and acting in a particular way for them to feel safe and productive. I'm not even against their need to feel safe, included, heard, or their claimed victim status, ptsd, lack of representation, whatever they are concerned with at any point in time - but it is very hard and expensive to build and maintain an environment where they will prosper - very expensive too. This is why any smart employer should start aggressively filtering such candidates out of their hiring pipeline.
- fancyfish 5y ago
  Even though this isn’t official guidance at my FAANG, I’ve started weeding out anyone who (as best as I can infer) cares about political activism. They are damaging to an organization. Even if they don’t start political interest groups at work, they will bring up political topics in casual conversation which will exclude certain people’s viewpoints. My stance is, we pay you to be an engineer, so I hire people devoted solely to engineering.
me_again 5y ago
I think you are leaving out the pretty expansive middle ground where everyone lives. The options are not "pretty much any environment where they get paid" and "woketopia". Do you expect female employees to put up with harassment because it's too expensive to improve the working environment? Should employees "just deal with" being yelled at by managers? I'll pass thanks, but I don't think that qualifies me as an activist.

dudul 5y ago

> people spend almost all their time at work now I see this claim made a lot every time the "politics in the workplace" conversation happens, but really? "Almost all their time"? Isn't a normal person supposed to work 8 hours a day, sleep 8/10hours at night and spent 8/6 hours doing something else? If my math is correct that's not "almost all their time". If some people are incapable of having a life outside of work, well balanced people shouldn't have to pay the price of their obsessions.

DangitBobby 5y ago
I do not have an unbalanced life outside of work, not because of obsession (I only work 40 hours a week, roughly), but because I mainly spend my personal time recovering from the mental fatigue of work. I just don't have a desire to do much of anything until I've had a few days off and my creativity can be directed towards my own interests.

bendbro 5y ago

Diversity of culture between workplaces is collateral damage of diversity and inclusion efforts. All cultures are not compatible. Not everyone will not be comfortable in a particular culture. Not everyone will not be wanted in a particular culture. [0] The left call this immoral, believing that any exclusion or disparity is the result of circumstances that enslave humanity, from which humanity should be liberated [1]. The result of this thinking is the limiting and constricting of various liberties, and a push towards the formation of a soulless, foundationless, conglomerated monoculture. Instead of fighting to produce this horrible monoculture, we should accept that people don't get along, and then find a way to allow all cultures to thrive. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

imiric 5y ago
What I don't understand about this ideology is what the end goal is. Will the fight be over once every facet of society is equally distributed among everyone, effectively abolishing majorities? And which human attributes will we choose to make diverse? Today it's gender, race and ethnicity. Yet there are countless other attributes we can choose to select on where not every group will be represented equally, so why stop with these? This argument also ignores inherent imbalances in society, like the fact that professions are largely chosen by interest. The same male-female inequality that exists in tech also exists in nursing, construction, hairdressing, etc.[1] I hope that we can one day accept that this is OK and not the result of some huge conspiracy and systemic discrimination (not that this doesn't exist, but that it's not the main cause for the imbalance). [1]: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm