Great perspective. As a Northern European having dealt with American company ownership I don't think the main problem in Google's case was political correctness but rather a general American problem with how free speech is defined in the US. Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms. This shows up clearly with respect to stating an opinion at a US company. There is no protection of free speech on private property in the US. I first encountered this when out company got bought by an American one and they i sisted that religion and politics should not be discussed at work. It surprised them that such a demand was illegal in Norway. Private property does not trumph everything else as it often seems to do in the US.
While americans are free to utter quite inflamatory speech in the public, I find that American culture seems to discourage any sort of controversial topic in polite company.
That applies to conservatives and liberals alike in the US. Discussing religion among conservatives in the US seems taboo. While liberals are not very open to having PC opinions challenged.
I agree with you. I'm from India, living in the US, for quite some time I thoroughly enjoyed the FoS and FoE concepts exercised in the public (IMO, India is nowhere close to such freedom), but the levels of political correctness among peers seems to be a little too suffocating, which is exactly the thing I miss from my Indian experience.
It's like the moment you try to have a conversation about some serious topic, you feel like you are receiving youtube comments in person.
Only recently, I realized this requirement for PC is why most social talking in the US tend to be about sport (NFL, NHL, NBA), TV (Game of Thrones or some reality shows) or podcasts.
Dare to speak about a social issue or challenge a solution that's supposed to be addressing the issue, you'll be at the receiving end of a verbal lynch mob.
The cynic in me feels like it's an engineered phenomenon to promote effective political apathy in the population while Balkanizing the exhausted general public with elite-approved wedge issues to make them feel like they're engaging politically even though actual political topics like war, class inequality, education etc are out of bound and the incumbent political elite and media conglomerates are beneficiaries.
From speaking with Indian colleagues I got the impression that talking about politics is the most common water cooler topic, is that true everywhere? In the end I got bored hearing about Modi all the time.
I believe whatever your political belief is, you'll feel much freer to talk about it at work in India, than in US.
If you hear only Modi idolization, it can be boring. But if it is critiques of his policies (good/bad) you may feel it's a paradigm shift in progress in the worlds largest democracy.
As much as I think the standard of living in Europe is better than in the US (having lived both places for a significant amount of time), I still prefer a constitution that limits the powers of the government instead of a constitution that gives the government more powers "to protect". As long as the government is not interfering with my freedom of speech, I am happy to deal with individuals or companies myself without the government protecting my "free speech". It's called human interaction and there are zero guarantees that someone will like what you are saying or have to listen to you or even honor your right to say something.
> Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms.
Not to be adversarial, but this isn't true. Some positive rights, like contract enforcement, are implied/expressed in the US Constitution. Other positive rights (the right to public education, for example) are varyingly guaranteed by individual states in the union, in their constitutions and otherwise.
To be clear, a private company in the US cannot stop you from discussing anything at work but reserves the right to fire you at will, including for discussions it deems unproductive. Discussing politics in polite company in the US is indeed discouraged by culture. I personally think that's a good thing as people on opposite sides of the spectrum often can't agree on a basic set of facts, which makes discussions pointless. Do supporters of far right parties in Scandinavian countries often discuss politics with supporters of left wing parties at dinner ?
Sometimes the point of the conversations is reminding each other that we're decent and intelligent humans. Giving up on engaging because you haven't converted people is giving up too soon. Sometimes the changed mind is in how we value political opponents, not whether we agree with them.
> To be clear, a private company in the US cannot stop you from discussing anything at work but reserves the right to fire you at will, including for discussions it deems unproductive.
There is zero difference in practice. If I'm fired and can't come to work anymore, the discussion has been stopped, no? Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something.
You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum. It's just a private place of business. You can do what you want but employment is at will. By all means, you should be free to discuss whatever you like, but a company is perfectly free to fire you so you have more time to continue your discussions elsewhere
> You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum
I am? I never claimed any such thing.
My question is clear, no? Is there any practical difference between employers (supposedly) not being able to restrict your speech at work, but being able to fire you for whatever they want?
They can't restrict your speech in general,but at work they can and should do whatever they want. Practically, there is a difference. Unless they are willing to fire you, they can't stop you - get the difference ? For example, if you are so valuable that they are not willing to fire you, then they can't stop you. And if you are not, perhaps you should concentrate on work at work
I get your point now. Thanks. I was thinking about this in terms of the average employee. If the boss says you shouldn't talk about something and you want to keep your job, most people will begrudgingly do what they think they need to.
I understand that in the USA you are usually either "left" or "right", but in the EU there are a many "center" parties. Would this not make a substantial difference?
If you put two opposite extremists of moderate intelligence together to talk, you will probably not hear a great conversation. (This is not only true for politics.)
Democratic Party and Republican Party in the US are coalitions of different types of people. We are talking about discussing politics when people strongly disagree being pointless. Presumably, supporters of different center parties in Europe don't disagree that much
In America, we are protected from free speech restrictions by the government. The First Amendment is Constitutional law. Google as a corporation is free to fire an employee based on his speech.
May I ask you about which regulation forbids the behavior You have described? Are you sure it was a directly constitution, not some employment regulations?
While americans are free to utter quite inflamatory speech in the public, I find that American culture seems to discourage any sort of controversial topic in polite company.
That applies to conservatives and liberals alike in the US. Discussing religion among conservatives in the US seems taboo. While liberals are not very open to having PC opinions challenged.