The problem is that what constitutes politics? Guns shouldn't be political, who you have sex with shouldn't be political...but in our current climate, they are both considered political.
..and no debating? Most people at Google are shades of left. It sounds like they are just trying to drown out dissenting views once again.
Everything is political, and politics affect everything. If you think there are no politics in something it's likely that the politics involved in it are not close to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Identity isn't political, until you have one that isn't an accepted norm. Sexual orientation isn't political, until people want to deny you insurance over yours. Race isn't political, until people refuse to sell you houses because of it. And so on.
"Keep politics out of $thing" is the purest expression of privilege. Doesn't make you a bad person or anything, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Shifting back to topic some: this idea that Google has had for years about platforms and now about it's internal one, that you can somehow keep the ugly elements of our society out and just have a nice, clean, advertiser and marketer-freindly area (ala YouTube) has permeated everything they've made. The problem is any place that people gather and collaborate will, eventually, get political. It can't not. As a species we have dragged politics into everything since long before we tricked silicon chips into thinking. I don't know why people keep thinking the Internet can be different, but it can't.
It does not silence anyone, it just means that their speech needs to take place outside the workplace.
In my experience, most people who complain that curbing political discussion in the workplace amounts to silencing them have views that are well in line with the status quo at the company.
> In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.
And again, the only people I've seen making this argument have ethics and hold values that are in line with the company's values. I've never seen a liberal at a conservative company call for more political discussion, or vice versa. It's always been conservatives in conservative companies or liberal in liberal companies making this argument. People who hold views contrary to the company mostly stay quiet, because making their views known results in ostracism and other negative consequences.
I think the primary motivation is that people whose views are in line with the company enjoy the situation of voicing their positions while being immune to challenge because people who disagree with them are pressured into silence. It produces a gratifying sense for the people in th majority, but comes at the expense of people in the minority. For that reason, there's good cause to not allow political discussion in the workplace.
Interesting POV but you could apply it in the opposite way as well: As management, I could issue a "political ban", then start changing corporate policy and my employees couldn't say anything against it. Without a ban, they could at least spark internal debate.
You're still missing the point: without a ban, there rarely is any internal debate because only the prevailing company opinion gets a voice. Changing company policy doesn't alter this dynamic. If a company shifts from being liberal to conservative all that means is that conservatives get to use the company as their soapbox instead.
It's better to just not let anyone use the company as a soapbox at all. If they have disagreements about the culture of the company, there are plenty of reporters looking for a scoop.
Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.
Except by virtue of being neutral/centrist/apolitical, you are in fact still making a political statement in favor of the status quo.
I’m not commenting on Google allowing or disallowing. I don’t really care and to be honest, if my workplace has a discussion board internally I’d probably not talk politics on it anyway. What I will say though is I think it’s interesting that google found it appropriate to allow it when google itself was disrupting the status quo, and it now disallows it when it more or less has become the status quo.
He didn't say he had neutral views, he said he wanted a neutral work environment.
The attempt to guilt people into rolling around in the mud, or perhaps 'resistance' as you call it, is exactly the mentality that's ruining political conversation for everyone else.
But again, that presumes it's possible to detach politics from everyday life, work included. It isn't. You can pretend they aren't there, but before you just sign up for that, you might want to consider which groups of people benefit from you doing that.
I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything. If anything, I'm putting forth the call to action to recognize that being apolitical hurts almost everyone, yourself included. You may be apolitical, but your boss probably isn't. Your landlord probably isn't. Your local politicians definitely aren't. The owner of your workplace almost certainly isn't, either. And all of those people have the capacity to make their lives better, by politicking in a way that will make your life worse.
I don't care what side people want to get on. I just want them to know that whether they've chosen one or not, they are on one.
I'm tasked with keeping infrastructure up and running. I'm either doing it, or I'm not. If the company is unethical, I wouldn't sneak in and not do this work, would you?
Assuming it's the power of influence you're after... What do you truly hope to influence, the Board? Shareholders? Good luck.
I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion.
If you believe diversity is not a worthy topic of discussion or debate at the workplace, well, therein lies the political divide. Silencing political discussion is then its own form of getting a leg up in that debate.
I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion.
What if the opposite happened, and political discussion resulted in people arguing for less diversity?
The status quo might seem pretty appealing at that point.
What exactly is this point you keep trying to make all over this thread? Accept the status quo and don't talk too much, or it might get worse? What on Earth kind of philosophy is that?
Of course I don't want total mayhem to happen but workers should have the ability to talk about issues at their workplace or raise concerns about the work they're doing and the resulting discussion will probably be political. Shutting down political discussion entirely (100%) will prevent employees from raising concerns.
> By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it.
That is not true “by definition”. It would be true invariably (but still not by definition unless the conditions were also) if political variation were unidimensional, linear, and unbounded in actual (not merely potential) range.
It's pretty clear that the main, salient, tribal divide is between left and right. But I will agree to disagree there.
My key point is that if you open up the floor to politics so people can try and change the status quo, you open up the possibilities that people will want to change the status quo in a way that makes it even further away from where you think it should be.
When people advocate political discussion at work because they are against the status quo, I don't think that's a scenario they consider.
You point out the truth: Everything controversial is political.
Political aka controversial topics should be avoided, unless they are relevant to work.
For example, unless you work at a real estate agency, it would be a poor idea to discuss federal or state law for racial guarantees around the sale of houses.
(Not that you can't discuss them; certainty do. But your workplace will make a poor forum.)
Excellent comment. I agree with the parent's notion that google is trying to force their employees not to point out the bad things about their conditions, but this notion that there was ever a time where politics were absent is 1) ahistorical 2) reactionary. Politics is what happens when two or more people try to discuss an observation or explain a thought.
Your attempt to argue this is somehow vague or a slippery slope is silly - most workplaces seem to have not a tremendous amount of trouble with this, even though it is not rigorously defined.
Agreed. I am transgender, lesbian, asexual and polyromantic, and none of these things have I ever had so much as a discussion about at my office, nor have they sparked any 'political' discussion. (I work at one of the major 5 banks in Canada).
Serious question, how does being lesbian (sexual attraction description) go along with being asaxual, which I understand to mean the lack of sexual attraction to others?
"lesbian" is not a "sexual attraction" description, it is an "attraction description" for which one possible dimension of attraction can be sexual. Same-sex attraction is no more exclusively about a desire for intercourse than opposite sex attraction. It's entirely possible to have a romantic attraction of any kind without also feeling a desire to engage in intercourse.
I shudder to think about your love life, if you solely define your relationships on sexuality alone. Sexuality is a step from an emotional state to a physical expression of that, of course outside of prostitution and casual hook-ups. And I don't mean that in a negative way, I just...feel sorry for you.
I'm a trans lesbian as well. I've had discussions about it at work. When coming out, I asked my coworkers to use she/her pronouns. I might mention my partner, or I mention to my manager that I'm going to need to leave work at X for electrolysis. I consider my being trans as an "open secret", where I won't open conversations with it, but I will mention it when I find it naturally relevant to the conversation. This works well for me because I have the privilege of passing as cis.
All of these are regular everyday things for me, but I've had people tell me that even asking for basic respect is "disagreeing with their political opinion". The real problem is where the line is drawn, or whether a line can even be drawn.
I'm baffled by the level of ignorance in these comments, I'm used to a far higher awareness and intelligence in HN comments.
The comments about being dependent on one's sexuality, or 'making it up,' and thusly being prepared to accept being mocked, are particularly disturbing.
The inability to separate a romantic and sexual nature is more so just surprising.
I wish more people realized this. I think many perceive more issues where there are simply usually not, because of increased access to information. Most people don't really care what you are or who you vote for as long as you show up, are pleasant, and do your job well. Capitalism is, in many ways, the great equalizer: money is green no matter who holds it.
no but the way we talk about it is. we typically use vocabulary to describe orientation that is relative to gender identity. that is, a person who is attracted to men is gay if they identify as a man or straight if they identify as a woman.
that said, "transgender lesbian" shouldn't be too hard to parse unless you've been living under a rock for the last fifteen years.
If they are such a snowflake that they can’t handle a homosexual relationship then that’s their problem. In today’s society, outside of a few regressive companies, most employees know that they would just have to get over it.
On the other hand, if someone asked me what I did on the weekend, I wouldn’t mention that I took part in (hypothetically) “Black Lives Matter” (highly political) or even was walking down the street proselytizing and trying to convince people to make God the head of their lives (highly religious) or that I was in the woods running around with Confederate flags trying to relive the glory of the Civil War (trust me, won’t ever happen.)
Sexuality has always been an open topic at work. People talk about their kids. Display pictures of their family. Bring their spouse to the Christmas party.
It's only recently that people can talk about their non-heterosexual relationships at work. In 1995, mentioning your lesbian partner would've been overtly political and, in certain workplaces, is STILL called "political" and can get you fired [1].
of course not. I'm just making the point that a lot of folks might go their entire lives without working in such a stuffy environment as the modern office. and yet, life goes on.
The unfortunate reality is that there are no closed systems in nature. Nothing can be completely firewalled off from politics, power, game theory, status, memetics, social dynamics, tribal value-signaling, etc.
The best we can probably hope for is localized, fuzzy consensus on taboos. We might all decide it's inappropriate to criticize sexual behaviors, or bring up religion in polite company; but it's probably fine if someone has strong feelings about adding a stoplight to 3rd & Main, or increasing funding to national parks.
You should look up the history of the introduction of Arabic numerals to Europe (particularly the use of the numeral zero in accounting) or "illegal numbers" and reconsider your point of view.
The article doesn't have a copy of the policy, but it seems to be about political debates that are unrelated to your actual job? (The latest news story, for example.)
But since Google operates internationally and is involved in so many things, I assume any given political issue is probably job-related somewhere at Google.
Guns are political (in the US at least) because the Second Amendment gives them special status as being necessary for the defense of a free state, and thanks to the NRA, that status is firmly entrenched as part of right-wing partisan identity. Sex is political because of Christianity and its influence leading to the criminalization of LGBTQ people and behavior. Neither is a symptom of our current political climate, they've both been deeply political for centuries.
..and no debating? Most people at Google are shades of left. It sounds like they are just trying to drown out dissenting views once again.