Republican engineer fired by Google hits back | Hacker News Reader

Republican engineer fired by Google hits back

wsj.com

38 pointstempsy34 comments

Why does google continue to have these internal message boards about non-work topics? What I’ve heard from friends at google is that discussion is dominated by a tiny, vocal minority with extreme views, much like a college campus. It seems like 99% of googlers and certainly the company would be better off if they just dropped the “bring your whole self to work” message and closed these forums.

Just like an Twitter flame war people are too worried about ending up on the wrong side of what is considered correct in whatever social group stumbles around, so you stay silent, and then the conversation is dominated by the idiots and NBC reports on it. 2019 is great.

Yes let's make work even more alienating. Hurray

Does closing the message boards make work more alienating? Or does their existence make work more alienating (for most of the workers)?

Just look up the definition of alienation. Parent poster suggested to not bring your whole self to work.

That's fine? Maybe just bring your work-self to work. And leave political self for non-work?

I don't bring my whole self to work and don't feel alienated in the slighest. I have fun, I can joke about neutral things with my colleagues, but unless I'm close friends with some of them, I don't touch sensitive subjects that might offend people in all possible ways. And doing it on a public forum seems like a recipe for disaster.

Nobody gets to bring their "whole self" to work. Not unless “theirself” never steps outside social protocol for an office. It's a con. They want your mental investment, but what extra leeway do they give you to be yourself beyond what you already had?

Being yourself especially doesn’t exist in tech. Everything is so non-conformist conformist. I can't even have a conversation as myself at work. My roommates work in the trades, how I talk to them at home would get me fired so fucking fast if I tried it at work.

Upthread, georgewfraser said:

> What I’ve heard from friends at google is that discussion is dominated by a tiny, vocal minority with extreme views, much like a college campus.

If I'm not part of the tiny, vocal minority with extreme views, then I feel like I can't bring my whole self to work. That's alienating, even by your definition. And it's alienating to far more people than it would be to make the tiny, vocal minority find some non-work forum on which to post their stuff.

I am so puzzled that this kind of forum can exist at work. My current position is also at a web company but any kind of non-biz chatter like above would quickly get self-policed out of existence.

> “I very much regret joining Google,” he says. “I figured it would be a good place to see intelligent arguments through."

Um, here I thought it was a place to get some work done, not have political arguments? I don't see why so many people bring politics into the workplace unnecessarily. I have very strong political feelings, and I just try to keep them to myself at work, and talk about them outside of work. Especially if other people voice opinions to the opposite.

Work is hard enough to get done with just normal feelings about one's work, let alone getting politics involved.

I know, right? I felt a lot of the "benefit of the doubt" I was extending this guy evaporate when I read that.

Mind, though, that your presumption is that they are walking in and bringing political opinions into a non-political square, when in fact he was bringing political opinions into a dedicated political square within Google.

It's the nature of work today. The lines between "work" and "life" have been blurred. The whole "burnout" phenomenon is a direct result of the fact that people are more emotionally invested in their work than ever, so it's not really fair to suggest that employees leave "politics" at home when society is prodding you to bring your whole self to work everyday.

Some companies or organizations are also brazenly and proudly political or religious. You could just not work there but then you lose out on work opportunity.

Whatever our personal philosophies or politics, I think it's obvious that the nature of technical work has changed in America. Google's campus is lifestyle-designed. It's meant to maximise the time engineers spend on campus, with meals, laundry, massages, snacks, and other amenities.

Is it any wonder that, even if employees try to create a mental/emotional strict separation between work and home life, they would be tempted to bring their personal beliefs into work with them? It's human nature and inevitable, and Google, Facebook, et al opened the Pandora's Box on this effect.

Do these thing happen at other companies where people spend 60+ hours at work? E.g. in Japan or financial companies like Goldman Sachs?

I think the point is that leftists at Google freely bring politics into the workplace as much as they like.

But when a conservative tries to participate in the conversation he gets bullied and fired.

This is a bit disingenuous when you consider that most controversial/onerous topics are not injected into the workplace by most of these 'leftist' startups. If they let you bring your dog into work, what is controversial about animal welfare? If they make you sort your waste 2 or 3 ways, what is so onerous about enabling recycling? If you're threatened by the sight of solar cells on rooftops, is that anyone's fault?

You won't find pro-immigration, abortion rights or even gun control topics displayed openly in workplaces (in most cases).

While conservatism isn't much about sensitivity, today's conservatives are quite sensitive and intolerant to progressive policies (wherever they may encounter it). While I am not strongly positioned either way, I find it quite sad that the Right has to simply deny even the very science of global warming despite the handwriting on the wall being what it is. This intolerance and sensitivity is often the root of their desire to be heard, and loudly. As a result, they don't mind being particularly expressive and indignant about 'proclaiming' their beliefs, which can includes posts on internal forums.

If you're (actually) fired for your beliefs and you're able to prove it, then you're more than welcome to access the various tort statutory laws that Liberals have provided you (by the way) and sue for 'wrongful termination'.

What shocks me about conservatives is how they don't see the hypocrisy of demanding the same 'tolerance' from liberals when it is intolerance that underlies the majority of their own beliefs. Conservatives claim the very bedrocks of civilization regardless of country: the military & patriotism, religion, and business. Yet, they spend these resources only for their own political advantage instead of that of the country as a whole. Witness tax cuts for the rich.

> topics are not injected into the workplace by most of these 'leftist' startups

You might be in the wrong thread. I was talking about Google.

It will be very hard for anyone outside of the people directly involved to have an informed opinion about this, simply because Google will never release their side of the story.

That being said, I have seen several people claiming "I was fired/removed/banned for having opinion X" and in MOST of those cases my view was that they were at a minimum being very insensitive on multiple occasions.

Engineers often seem to have a tendency to treat Internet debating as a sport, relentlessly pointing out small logical flaws or playing Devil's Advocate, and then to entrench themselves further when facing backlash. If you pair that with political topics (where other people can get very, very emotionally invested quickly) on a workplace message board it's a recipe for a hostile discussion.

> That being said, I have seen several people claiming "I was fired/removed/banned for having opinion X" and in MOST of those cases my view was that they were at a minimum being very insensitive on multiple occasions.

In the article it says that he wanted to buy lunch to talk about the deep thinker that circulated a memo saying women aren’t going to be as good as men in tech.

I’m just saying, don’t think he was let go because he was posting that he loves trickle down economics or small government. That there is no actual examples in the article of the type of thing he believes he was fired for doesn’t bode well either.

I wonder what he was actually saying on these boards. Sometimes people clothe fairly repugnant stuff in 'political free speech'. Being toxic in the workplace shouldn't be tolerated, even if the would-be bully happens to claim some political leaning or another. The fact that the most damning quote we saw called him a "toxic asshole" and not a "conservative asshole" or something seems to imply he was just a not so great human being.

For the record, and I regret having to say this, but I do enjoy debate and have a healthy respect for free speech etc, and I'm by no means a pro-Google or pro-any hegemony type.

Unfortunately, modern discussions tend to conflate dissenting opinions with toxicity, so that adjective isn't as informative as it could be otherwise.

Hard to say. If I'm mad at you because you're conservative, I can still call you "toxic" because it sounds worse. I can even justify it if, from my perspective, all conservatives are toxic by definition.

Note well: I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that someone choosing that word doesn't tell us much.

Sure, it just seems like if there were anything more damning the guy would likely want it front and center (unless there are legal terms around that sort of thing etc).

“I figured it would be a good place to see intelligent arguments through. It didn’t really turn out how I expected.”

When the urge gets irresistible, I post my "intelligent arguments" about politics to reddit, anonymously. Strangely, no one ever seems to change their mind! Odd, that. I'm under no illusion that this is healthy or productive, even less so that it will win me friends and accolades. It's hard to imagine the mindset of someone who thinks it would be a good idea to do this at work.

If you get along well with your coworkers otherwise, it might be you expect they would be reasonable conversants in a company-internal forum. It appears that assumption does not hold once some level of physical interaction is removed from the picture; certainly it can't be argued that anonymity is the factor, here.

I mean, I think the underlying issue this person has (and others, most likely) is the perception that it is "OK" to be very vocal about left-leaning views in the workplace but it is not okay to be the same about right-leaning ones.

The whole point is that it's unfair to those workers to have to "hide" in anonymous forums to express views that are held by half the country, especially if the workplace has made it clear there are no consequences (or that it's encouraged) to vocally express the views of the other side.

We don't know what he means by "right leaning views".

The one near example we had was that he told someone that she needed to be more resilient. This is obviously a bad idea.

Is resiliency not considered a virtue? Is an addition of resiliency not a net benefit, all other things being equal? Coming from a work/lifestyle culture where "Harden the F-- Up" is uttered almost daily, I'm not seeing how urging a coworker to upgrade their fortitude is a problem.

You know, free speech is a right in this nation. But, when I go to work I would leave my views of religions, politics and now guns at home. I just want to go to work, get things done and get the heck out. Heck, I don’t even want to stay after dark to socialize anymore. I am really concerned that if I say something stupid after a few drinks, I would be vilified like a sexist, antisocial or whatever the label is nowadays.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Free speech refers to the speaker and the government. It does not mean you are free from the personal or professional consequences of speech.

Stop thinking that this is some universal definition of free speech. Free speech can only fully be free speech if it's everywhere otherwise it should be called liberal speech.

Lookup the difference between freedom and liberty

Reply on news.ycombinator.com