
Ask HN: What happened to our willingness to discuss opposing views - bobstaples
I generally consider my political views to be in line with the (left-leaning) views of sillicon valley, mostly because opinions are formed by trying to understand what the other is saying and adapting the opinion when it turns out the other view makes more sense. At least that is what I used to think, before a now ex googler _internally_ published &quot;Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber&quot;.
I&#x27;ve seen so many people (on HN and elsewhere) forming damning opinions on the piece by repeating misinterpretations of the statement instead of actually reading the document. I don&#x27;t fully agree with the document and do believe that some parts are a bit poorly worded, but I do not understand why this cannot be the starting point of an interesting discussion instead of a fire(both symbolic and literal). With him being fired I think this will only get worse, because there will certainly be people who think that he makes at least some valid points. Now instead of openly discussing this and thinking about what is right and what is wrong, they will no longer re-evaluate their opinion by discussing it due to fear of being fired.
When did we start dismissing people we disagree with in such a tasteless manner? Or am I just interpreting this whole situation incorrectly?
======
zanethomas
From my earliest days programming, 1975, through to the early 1990s
differences of opinion were common in offices. The first gulf war, for
example, was a hot topic.

For 15 years I was off running my own small software business and consulting
after that.

When I returned to an office in 2005 I was surprised to find that all
political/social discussions had vanished.

Now the silence has been replaced with intolerance. I don't know why that
happened, but I do know it could signal the beginning of the end of the
America I grew up in. When peaceful disagreement is disallowed disagreements
will eventually be expressed in less than peaceful ways.

------
pkilgore
The irony here is incredible, given what the entire nation (much less tech) is
discussing this right now. Inside Google, outside Google. The discussion is
happening. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

It appears what you are in fact arguing is that there should be no
___consequences_ __for speech. That has never, in the entirety of human
history, been true (certainly not in a corporate context). From Athens
sentencing Aristotle to death for expressing an unpopular idea, through Todd
Aiken losing an election, to getting fired from Google today for writing a
manifesto--Speech has consequences. The speaker bears the burden of accepting
those consequences (good or bad), and making the determination that the
audience to whom she is speaking will inflict consequences.

I, for example, do not discuss political/religious things with one of my
supervisors, because I know it will not end well. She tries, and so I smile
and nod and leave quickly. That does not mean I do not have the right to
speak. I simply weigh the consequences given the circumstances and act
accordingly. Outside of work--even to other coworkers--the calculus is
different, and I act differently.

This is how it has always been. If you can provide examples otherwise, I'll be
happy to address them.

~~~
Powerofmene
I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free
speech. I know that in a thread I commented on someone assumed I was saying
the same. I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open
discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc.

And you are correct that speech has consequences; it can make you feel like
you are walking on air and can hurt more than a physical blow. I think what he
is saying is that we have to learn how to listen without judging and respond
without casting aspersions. Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree. No
two people are alike.

~~~
pkilgore
> I think what he is saying is that we can have a respectful open discussion
> that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc.

We can. You and I __are probably about to do it. My point is simply that there
often are people--their perception being their reality--for whom snap
judgments and an invective response is the reasonable, if not respectful
response to others ' speech. Note, for much of human history (and current
history, see Russia and Venezuela), an acceptable response has actually been
violent/rights restricting.

Invective in response to speech is desirable in its efficiency, should a
critical mass feel the same. We can't be having reasonable conversations every
time someone has a socially abhorrent thought and brings it up for discussion
(no matter how often it's been addressed before). Ain't nobody got time for
that. Better a hundred people shouting "fuck you, racist."

Over time what becomes so socially abhorrent to discuss in mixed, public
company changes. Whether this is a good or bad thing is besides the point. It
has always been this way, and to pretend otherwise is silly. If you want to
change the status quo, it takes a lot of fucking work. You will likely deal
with quite a bit of push back (because EVERYONE who has done this, has). That
push back is a feature of civil society, not a bug. If your idea is good
enough, it will probably end up overcoming the initial consequences (by the
way, that outcome is still in the cards here!).

> we have to learn how to listen without judging

Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not
allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't
have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do. Period.

> Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree.

But this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech,
including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so. The fact that my
response might be hostile to your idea is a good indication we might end up
agreeing to disagree. But your speech does not gain the privilege of being
immune to my criticism in the interim.

> I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free
> speech. . . . I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open
> discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc.

(Tl;dr) Which leads me to my point. Even if you don't realize it, you are. By
demanding that the listener be respectful to an idea they find abhorrent, you
are asking for immunity from the most obvious consequence of abhorrent speech
--complete and total disrespect (and an appropriately verbalized response)
from the listener.

 __I use the word "you" and "I" here as shorthand...I'm not trying to make
this personal it's just easier than typing "some third person blah blah."

~~~
zanethomas
>By demanding that the listener be respectful to >an idea they find abhorrent

They could have stopped reading at any point, no need to be respectful by
finishing.

Please see my comment above about the way things used to be in America. Yes,
there were sometimes overly-heated disagreements, the Vietnam war comes to
mind, but generally speaking political disagreements didn't devolve into
calling others Nazis or threatening their ability to work. That sort of
extreme partisanship can only result in unpleasant consequences.

~~~
pkilgore
> They could have stopped reading at any point, no need to be respectful by
> finishing.

Now you are advocating for freedom from consequences of speech by enforced
ignorance.

> Please see my comment above about the way things used to be in America

Color me shocked the world was so agreeable when there was less diversity in
people with power and the conflict was not about their essential worth based
on unalterable traits of gender and race.

> generally speaking political disagreements didn't devolve into calling
> others Nazis

It doesn't now either, excluding the anonymity provided by the internet. I've
had a lot of conversations about politics where me and the counterparty
disagreed, I cannot recall one instance where someone called someone a Nazi to
their face. Twitter is not reality.

> That sort of extreme partisanship can only result in unpleasant
> consequences.

Even accepting your premise...unpleasant for whom? Change is never pleasant.

------
Powerofmene
I think you are on point. I, too, have found that the ability to have open,
honest, respectful discussions to have all but vanished. I do not have to
agree with a person to respect their right to that viewpoint. Sometimes we
just have to agree to disagree.

The world stops progressing at the intersection of openness and intolerance.
Some people are great at praising their viewpoint in a way that gets the point
across and that does not reflect judgment or offensive statements. Others are
not as gifted in this ability. We are all different, but would we really want
it any other way. Without our differences we would not have many of the
products, inventions, technological advancements, etc that we have today. I do
not want to have discussions with somebody just like me. I want to be
continually learning and it takes interacting with people who have differing
skills and viewpoints than myself.

I personally posted that I did not agree with everything he wrote or some of
the statements that he advanced as fact, but that I will always defend his
right to exercise his right of free speech. My concern was not over whether
Google had the right to terminate his employment, as that was up to Google,
but that my concern was the long term effect such actions would have on an
open environment which professes to allow one to exercise an opinion. The
response I received was free speech does not protect one from being fired when
my post had nothing to do with Google's legal right to terminate him or even
whether they should or should not have done so. The response was "Really, this
point is unbelievably obvious. Do you also go around crusading for the rights
of foul mouthed mechanics and surly waiters who get fired for their speech?".

Given this person made an assumption about who I am, I will give you a brief
statement. I am first and foremost a woman. I am a mom and one of my children
was diagnosed with a sub-70 IQ and autisim. My child has been called many
things and such labels have never offended me. I simply view such statements
as an indication of the speakers lack of knowledge, understanding and or
sensitivity. I do not get mad, nor let it ruin my day. In this country we are
afforded the right to free speech. They are free to say what they feel and I
am free to respond verbally in the manner in which I feel is appropriate. I am
not afraid to speak my mind or to confront difficult situations or
discussions, I simply choose to be the bigger person.

In short, I respect the rights of others and bring to any discussion
respectful challenges and dialogue when I feel it is warranted. Sadly, I have
learned over the last 10 years or so that I cannot expect others to do the
same.

------
Selmak
I agree with what you are saying.

I cannot see why this chap deserved such backlash and hatred from the
community, especially one that has always made a point of ensuring things are
open and people have a right to a well constructed opinion.

I think he probably got sacked due to Google worrying more about backlash from
its working majority, however, isn't that part of what a progressive ideology
works against?

