10 ms·

Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the cu

Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo. He made the mistake of not organising with others and building power as a group that challenges the status quo. This is why unionising is important: a demand from a mass worker movement that can pose a real threat to the status quo is the only demand that has a chance of being met.

jakebasile 9y ago
> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. Even though their opinions might almost completely agree with what their peers think, it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food. edit: I can no longer delete this, but I would if I could. I'm not defending nor condemning any partisan stance. I am not stating my own opinion on any matter at hand. I'm giving what I think could be a reason for someone not wanting to be politically active.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  To a point, there is a reason why I don't wear on my sleeve some of my beliefs be them political, social, economical, or whatever. Morally, ethically, fill-in-the-blank, there is a variety of spectrums I am happy to hold my tongue on until my personal limit is reached. Yes, it varies on any given range. I'm not sure it's fair. No, it's not consistent because I'm Human; don't sue me. > "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself I agree. I don't know why this is necessarily wrong. Maybe I like the current political stance, whatever that is. If any one of us thinks it's wrong, we can act and speak and accept accordingly.
  - jakebasile 9y ago
    I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo. These things don't follow. They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      Perhaps ‘implicitly support’ is the better phrase to use than support. But: “Qui tacet consentiret”
    - edmccard 9y ago
      >I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo What do you think about the notion of "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept?" >They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up. That would make sense under some fantastical rule that exlcuded speech (or silence) from being political whenever "risk" is involved; but deciding to speak or be silent based on a risk/reward tradeoff is still a political decision.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- eropple 9y ago
  > it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food This does not square with reality as I've experienced it. Hell, I've worked with someone who thought von Mises had a point--and he'd argue with you about it. Loudly, in public, and in written formats. There are receipts. And yet somehow, despite the mustachio-twirling machinations of the "orthodoxy", he's still thriving in the industry. Promoted regularly, big fat stock-option grants, the works. Despite not being anything special technically, just another guy. Somehow, disagreeing but not being an odious prick about it seems to go okay, and he's certainly not the only well-paid-and-respected person I know in the industry with loony views. (He's the only one I know who I like, but that's another thing.) But I left a catch in there. There's that "being an odious prick about it" part, isn't there? There's the "writing manifestos impugning your coworkers based on their gender" part, there's the "throwing money at political factions bent on making the lives of your coworkers worse" part. Yeah, that's going to get people mad. That might make people not want to work with you. But why should they? When you're an active threat to their well-being, of course they want to see the back of you. And it sure sounds like you're mixing that up with "deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy".
  - jakebasile 9y ago
    > And it sure sounds like you're mixing that up with "deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy". You're just proving my point with your insinuation that when I explain why some people might not be comfortable sharing their political views in their workplace that I am somehow condoning whatever negative political ideology you disagree with. I have said absolutely nothing of my own politics.
    - eropple 9y ago
      Qui tacet consentire videtur. You're up on your Latin, I assume. And your history, the history that gives you grounds to make these sweeping (and they are sweeping) statements you're making about the nature of work and society and how very apolitical one should be there. This stuff was, after all, figured out thousands of years ago. Shame we keep thinking it's all so novel, but, yanno. Anyway, for those less up on these things: it's been settled in political spheres for millenia that silence, when you can speak and choose not to, is assent--is support of the status quo. And the status quo is profoundly fucked for a whole lot of people, notably a whole lot of people I care about. Ennobling that silence, and that support, because of fear of mustachio-twirling nonexistent entities? Sorry, my dude, but I know where your car is parked.
- wpietri 9y ago
  > No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. Support of the status quo is a political choice. There is no neutral. Also, the option to "stay out of politics" is something not afforded to everybody. As a financially comfortable white guy with in-demand skills, I can do it. But if you are on the sharp end of any of America's ingrained biases, you may not be able to. See, for example, all the women now able to come forward about workplace harassment. Their speaking out, their striving for workplaces where they are free of abuse: those are inevitably political actions. So too is ignoring or resisting that movement.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    I don’t care about sports. Does that mean I support the latest Super Bowl winner? Not everyone can afford not to care about sports. Does that mean I have to care about sports?
    - confounded 9y ago
      Your argument only makes sense if you view politics as optional entertainment and identity-decoration. While this is increasingly the character of American politics, this is not what politics is about. Politics is ultimately a contest over resources (financial, social, etc). Whether or not you get them determines whether you’ll have a short life of misery or a long life of luxury. Politics is the contest over who gets them, framed as who deserves them. If you have no interest in this contest, then either you have the luxury of little incentive to change it, or you genuinely believe that the current system is fair and equitable. I’m yet to meet another human (of any political leaning) in the latter category. It is difficult to reconcile saying that you care about other humans, but you don’t care about politics. The same cannot be said of the Super Bowl.
      - burntsushi 9y ago
        You (and probably others) have dramatically shifted the goalposts here. It went from "not wanting to voice political opinions in the work place" to "not caring about politics." Those two things are drastically different and cannot and should not be considered the same.
Mountain_Skies 9y ago
Has there ever been a study on the effectiveness of "you're either with us or against us"? My sense is that forcing everyone to pick a side, even if by declaring the silent or fence sitters as an opponent by default, brings one's side a short term increase in supporters as those who are fearful of being seen as the enemy are pushed into tepid support while the vast majority who had been keeping their heads down either openly become the opposition or continue to keep their heads down while silently agreeing with the opposition out of resentment for those who forced them into making a choice.
- js8 9y ago
  Interesting question. I don't want to claim I have an answer, but I am reminded of an experiment that Bob Altemeyer mentions in his book https://theauthoritarians.org/ https://theauthoritarians.org/. They tried some United Nations simulations with people who he calls authoritarians (of which one trait could be described as subscribing to either with us or against us mentality), and the result was always a total nuclear war.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  I think you're making a false equivalence, to a degree. No one has said that you're "with us or against us". The point is more that "if you remain silent, you stand on the side of the oppressor" Here's an MLK quote better to that effect: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
jpttsn 9y ago
Would you also say that “not being religious is a religion in itself?” Or that “not being sick is a disease in itself?” Maybe there are games I’m just not interested in playing. There are many different ways to frame the human experience. “Democrats v. Republicans” is only one.
- pjc50 9y ago
  "not being religious is a religion in itself?" Possibly. It's certainly possible to experience "religious discrimination" as a result of not being religious. The right to be non-religious is essentially a political one. > “Democrats v. Republicans” is only one. That's an extremely narrow view of what politics is. I can't blame you for that because a lot of people want to jam everything down to that narrow view, but there are plenty of things in politics other than factionalism.
- fletom 9y ago
  Politics is not a game or a religious belief. It is a literal matter of life and death for millions of people who have very little power. (Hint: not tech workers.)
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    You have the right to advocate for these people. You do not have the right to use the tech industry as your personal tool for doing so or to shame people who have other priorities.
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      But again, these two things are connected. IBM is in the tech industry, wouldn't you say? It had ties with the Nazi regime during the Holocaust [0], taking advantage of the crimes of Germany for profit. There were many companies at the time which did so. Your work is directly linked with exploitation and oppression of people around the world, in almost every industry. The tech industry is directly linked to child slavery in the Congo, mining Cobalt for hardware. And tech players have a big role in worker's rights in the US too, think about Uber drivers. There's every reason why tech workers should use their united power to do something about these issues. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
zimpenfish 9y ago
> James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo. No, he was "made an example of" because he made working with him untenable when he said 30% of the company weren't capable and only there due to quota filling and tried to justify that with utter bullshit non-science (showing up his critical thinking skills as non-existent - not good in a software engineer context.)

jakebasile 9y ago

> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you. No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. Even though their opinions might almost completely agree with what their peers think, it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food. edit: I can no longer delete this, but I would if I could. I'm not defending nor condemning any partisan stance. I am not stating my own opinion on any matter at hand. I'm giving what I think could be a reason for someone not wanting to be politically active.

drdeadringer 9y ago
To a point, there is a reason why I don't wear on my sleeve some of my beliefs be them political, social, economical, or whatever. Morally, ethically, fill-in-the-blank, there is a variety of spectrums I am happy to hold my tongue on until my personal limit is reached. Yes, it varies on any given range. I'm not sure it's fair. No, it's not consistent because I'm Human; don't sue me. > "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself I agree. I don't know why this is necessarily wrong. Maybe I like the current political stance, whatever that is. If any one of us thinks it's wrong, we can act and speak and accept accordingly.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo. These things don't follow. They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    Perhaps ‘implicitly support’ is the better phrase to use than support. But: “Qui tacet consentiret”
  - edmccard 9y ago
    >I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo What do you think about the notion of "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept?" >They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up. That would make sense under some fantastical rule that exlcuded speech (or silence) from being political whenever "risk" is involved; but deciding to speak or be silent based on a risk/reward tradeoff is still a political decision.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
eropple 9y ago
> it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food This does not square with reality as I've experienced it. Hell, I've worked with someone who thought von Mises had a point--and he'd argue with you about it. Loudly, in public, and in written formats. There are receipts. And yet somehow, despite the mustachio-twirling machinations of the "orthodoxy", he's still thriving in the industry. Promoted regularly, big fat stock-option grants, the works. Despite not being anything special technically, just another guy. Somehow, disagreeing but not being an odious prick about it seems to go okay, and he's certainly not the only well-paid-and-respected person I know in the industry with loony views. (He's the only one I know who I like, but that's another thing.) But I left a catch in there. There's that "being an odious prick about it" part, isn't there? There's the "writing manifestos impugning your coworkers based on their gender" part, there's the "throwing money at political factions bent on making the lives of your coworkers worse" part. Yeah, that's going to get people mad. That might make people not want to work with you. But why should they? When you're an active threat to their well-being, of course they want to see the back of you. And it sure sounds like you're mixing that up with "deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy".
- jakebasile 9y ago
  > And it sure sounds like you're mixing that up with "deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy". You're just proving my point with your insinuation that when I explain why some people might not be comfortable sharing their political views in their workplace that I am somehow condoning whatever negative political ideology you disagree with. I have said absolutely nothing of my own politics.
  - eropple 9y ago
    Qui tacet consentire videtur. You're up on your Latin, I assume. And your history, the history that gives you grounds to make these sweeping (and they are sweeping) statements you're making about the nature of work and society and how very apolitical one should be there. This stuff was, after all, figured out thousands of years ago. Shame we keep thinking it's all so novel, but, yanno. Anyway, for those less up on these things: it's been settled in political spheres for millenia that silence, when you can speak and choose not to, is assent--is support of the status quo. And the status quo is profoundly fucked for a whole lot of people, notably a whole lot of people I care about. Ennobling that silence, and that support, because of fear of mustachio-twirling nonexistent entities? Sorry, my dude, but I know where your car is parked.
wpietri 9y ago
> No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. Support of the status quo is a political choice. There is no neutral. Also, the option to "stay out of politics" is something not afforded to everybody. As a financially comfortable white guy with in-demand skills, I can do it. But if you are on the sharp end of any of America's ingrained biases, you may not be able to. See, for example, all the women now able to come forward about workplace harassment. Their speaking out, their striving for workplaces where they are free of abuse: those are inevitably political actions. So too is ignoring or resisting that movement.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jpttsn 9y ago
  I don’t care about sports. Does that mean I support the latest Super Bowl winner? Not everyone can afford not to care about sports. Does that mean I have to care about sports?
  - confounded 9y ago
    Your argument only makes sense if you view politics as optional entertainment and identity-decoration. While this is increasingly the character of American politics, this is not what politics is about. Politics is ultimately a contest over resources (financial, social, etc). Whether or not you get them determines whether you’ll have a short life of misery or a long life of luxury. Politics is the contest over who gets them, framed as who deserves them. If you have no interest in this contest, then either you have the luxury of little incentive to change it, or you genuinely believe that the current system is fair and equitable. I’m yet to meet another human (of any political leaning) in the latter category. It is difficult to reconcile saying that you care about other humans, but you don’t care about politics. The same cannot be said of the Super Bowl.
    - burntsushi 9y ago
      You (and probably others) have dramatically shifted the goalposts here. It went from "not wanting to voice political opinions in the work place" to "not caring about politics." Those two things are drastically different and cannot and should not be considered the same.

Mountain_Skies 9y ago

Has there ever been a study on the effectiveness of "you're either with us or against us"? My sense is that forcing everyone to pick a side, even if by declaring the silent or fence sitters as an opponent by default, brings one's side a short term increase in supporters as those who are fearful of being seen as the enemy are pushed into tepid support while the vast majority who had been keeping their heads down either openly become the opposition or continue to keep their heads down while silently agreeing with the opposition out of resentment for those who forced them into making a choice.

js8 9y ago
Interesting question. I don't want to claim I have an answer, but I am reminded of an experiment that Bob Altemeyer mentions in his book https://theauthoritarians.org/ https://theauthoritarians.org/. They tried some United Nations simulations with people who he calls authoritarians (of which one trait could be described as subscribing to either with us or against us mentality), and the result was always a total nuclear war.
kiliantics 9y ago
I think you're making a false equivalence, to a degree. No one has said that you're "with us or against us". The point is more that "if you remain silent, you stand on the side of the oppressor" Here's an MLK quote better to that effect: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

jpttsn 9y ago

Would you also say that “not being religious is a religion in itself?” Or that “not being sick is a disease in itself?” Maybe there are games I’m just not interested in playing. There are many different ways to frame the human experience. “Democrats v. Republicans” is only one.

pjc50 9y ago
"not being religious is a religion in itself?" Possibly. It's certainly possible to experience "religious discrimination" as a result of not being religious. The right to be non-religious is essentially a political one. > “Democrats v. Republicans” is only one. That's an extremely narrow view of what politics is. I can't blame you for that because a lot of people want to jam everything down to that narrow view, but there are plenty of things in politics other than factionalism.
fletom 9y ago
Politics is not a game or a religious belief. It is a literal matter of life and death for millions of people who have very little power. (Hint: not tech workers.)
- quotemstr 9y ago
  You have the right to advocate for these people. You do not have the right to use the tech industry as your personal tool for doing so or to shame people who have other priorities.
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    But again, these two things are connected. IBM is in the tech industry, wouldn't you say? It had ties with the Nazi regime during the Holocaust [0], taking advantage of the crimes of Germany for profit. There were many companies at the time which did so. Your work is directly linked with exploitation and oppression of people around the world, in almost every industry. The tech industry is directly linked to child slavery in the Congo, mining Cobalt for hardware. And tech players have a big role in worker's rights in the US too, think about Uber drivers. There's every reason why tech workers should use their united power to do something about these issues. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

zimpenfish 9y ago

> James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo. No, he was "made an example of" because he made working with him untenable when he said 30% of the company weren't capable and only there due to quota filling and tried to justify that with utter bullshit non-science (showing up his critical thinking skills as non-existent - not good in a software engineer context.)