>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
But even then there's a difference; NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL. If Google employees were using their position to push some agenda the company did not agree with and had nothing to do with then I'd agree.
It's certainly within Google's rights to take a "shut up and work" position, but I don't imagine it will work out well for them in the long run.
NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL.
Oh yes, they absolutely are.
Miami Dolphin's player Kenny Stills directly protested his team owner's involvement and affiliation with a charity donating funds to the Trump administration.
Seattle Seahawks player Earl Thomas, in addition to protesting criminal justice inequalities, directly protested his team and how the league was, at the time, addressing and handling player safety, right before he himself got injured and gave his coach the finger while being carted off the field. He has since been traded.
Well, yeah... of course there are instances of that. None of those are examples represent "social change". When you talk about protests in the NFL in the context of this thread, anyone who doesn't live under a rock is going to think of taking a knee during the anthem.
C'mon, helmet disputes? In what way is that relevant to your quote here?
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
I don't know what to tell you, then, if you really don't think two players putting their careers on the line, 1 by directly challenging and publicly calling out the organization that pays his salary for their relationship to the sitting President isn't political.
You claimed players weren't protesting the actions of the NFL.
I gave you three examples of it. Two of them squarely political, one over connections to the president, the other over criminal justice reform.
Please stop moving the goalposts.
None of those are examples represent "social change".
I'd argue the recent attention the league has been placing on player safety and the conversations emerging about brain injuries in sports represents a pretty important social change.
Are you arguing just to argue?
No and I'd appreciate a better characterization of my viewpoints on the topic, than a reductionist accusation of arguing for sport simply in the presence of your apparent disagreement. We can disagree how valuable these topics are to a larger political dynamic, but I'm not going to engage if this is how you choose to label my opposing viewpoint.
We're talking about speaking out on political/social issues at work.
My position is that I'm fine with it (and I think Google should support it to some extent) assuming that it is relevant to the actions of the employer or working conditions.
You bring up the NFL. The exact quote is
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
Obviously people are going to assume you're talking about what began with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem.
I point out how that is different because it does not directly relate to the NFL.
You then bring up three examples of 'protests' (because they're not even protests, they're internal disputes):
>Kenny Stills and Trump donations
Agreed, this is relevant.
>Antonio Brown and helmet guideline policies.
We're talking about helmets now and this is somehow a "social issue" (It's not. Really, it's not.)
>Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett, in addition to protesting criminal justice inequalities, directly protested his team and how the league was, at the time, addressing and handling player safety
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. One is relevant, one is not.
Honestly at this point I think you're either confused or a troll.
So not only are you taking statements and removing them from the necessary context to understand WHY I drew the comparison I did, you’re continuing to launch personal attacks in place of forming a more cogent disagreement.
Wow you went through quite a few edits before the reply link popped up for me.
I didn't take anything out of context. The entire reply was
>So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
>An important question, I think. It would seem some think they should, and some probably think they should do both.
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
>An attitude I find personally disheartening, but I'll stop there because these discussions never end well.
That changes exactly... nothing. You're impossible to talk to. The funny thing is, I don't even think we fundamentally disagree on anything material here.
The bit you had about your prediction of how "this wouldn't end well" is a "prophecy" as you put it, but one of the self fulfilling types. Have a good one.
But even then there's a difference; NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL. If Google employees were using their position to push some agenda the company did not agree with and had nothing to do with then I'd agree.
It's certainly within Google's rights to take a "shut up and work" position, but I don't imagine it will work out well for them in the long run.