Ask HN: What happened to our willingness to discuss opposing views
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 "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber".
I'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'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?
5 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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."
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."
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Pkilgore,
Discussion is a two way street. It involves one talking and another responding. What I am advocating is for honest, open discussion. All I said was that we can have a discussion without judgment. You and I may not agree on something but I am not going to judge you for having an opinion that may be different from my own.
>We have to learn 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."
And hence the open discussion. To me, and maybe I see things with rose colored glasses, but honest entails truthful which could involved heated, passionate, calm, even frenzied discussion. It could involve telling me I am wrong, it could involve agreeing. That allows us to understand where each other is coming from and could involve me or you having a change in position. I am in no way saying I have control over your response or feelings about my stance just as you have no control over my interpretation of yours.
>Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and your response was "that this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so.....But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim."
I think you have wholly misunderstood my statement. I welcome your response, in whatever form you may find appropriate. What I said was that at the end of the day (after the discussion, which may sometimes be heated as passionate discussions sometimes are), we may have to face facts and that may be that you and I (as your example showed) may stand on opposite sides of the issue. We have openly discussed the issue.
You are correct that change is difficult. Nobody is advocating that a listener must be respectful of an idea they find abhorrent as you stated. I am simply saying that after the discussion is over, I am simply saying that response to the idea that is disrespectful is wholly different than slurs etc that are disrespectful or degrading to the person on the opposite side. I have spent my career fighting for the rights of marginalized persons (the disabled) but my experience is that you gain more ground from listening, responding, and then working to find common ground in order to make some progress. And, yes, sometimes that common ground is the tiniest of slivers, but once it is found, change can occur. If I stay on my side of the street and you on yours, hurling words across the void gets neither of us closer to a better place. YMMV.
Discussion is a two way street. It involves one talking and another responding. What I am advocating is for honest, open discussion. All I said was that we can have a discussion without judgment. You and I may not agree on something but I am not going to judge you for having an opinion that may be different from my own.
>We have to learn 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."
And hence the open discussion. To me, and maybe I see things with rose colored glasses, but honest entails truthful which could involved heated, passionate, calm, even frenzied discussion. It could involve telling me I am wrong, it could involve agreeing. That allows us to understand where each other is coming from and could involve me or you having a change in position. I am in no way saying I have control over your response or feelings about my stance just as you have no control over my interpretation of yours.
>Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and your response was "that this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so.....But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim."
I think you have wholly misunderstood my statement. I welcome your response, in whatever form you may find appropriate. What I said was that at the end of the day (after the discussion, which may sometimes be heated as passionate discussions sometimes are), we may have to face facts and that may be that you and I (as your example showed) may stand on opposite sides of the issue. We have openly discussed the issue.
You are correct that change is difficult. Nobody is advocating that a listener must be respectful of an idea they find abhorrent as you stated. I am simply saying that after the discussion is over, I am simply saying that response to the idea that is disrespectful is wholly different than slurs etc that are disrespectful or degrading to the person on the opposite side. I have spent my career fighting for the rights of marginalized persons (the disabled) but my experience is that you gain more ground from listening, responding, and then working to find common ground in order to make some progress. And, yes, sometimes that common ground is the tiniest of slivers, but once it is found, change can occur. If I stay on my side of the street and you on yours, hurling words across the void gets neither of us closer to a better place. YMMV.
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.
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.
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?
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?