9 ms·

Your argument only makes sense if you view politics as optional entertainment and identity-decoration. While this is increasingly the character of American pol

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.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Not voicing a political opinion is distinct from not being political. Spending 40+ hours a week supporting the status quo while helping maintain the norm that "political" opinions (that is, ones that take issue with the status quo) shouldn't be voiced is unavoidably a political act. It may be a reasonable one, and I'm not taking issue with people who do it. I just object to taking about it in a way that pretends that it isn't also political.
  - burntsushi 9y ago
    Pardon me while I refuse to indulge in your war over definitions. Meanwhile, the meaning of the phrase "I don't talk politics at work" is perfectly clear.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      Sure. And if xupypd had said that originally, maybe it would have been clearer. But what he said was it'd be "wise to separate work and politics". That's not possible.
      - burntsushi 9y ago
        It is possible: don't talk about it. It's only impossible if you see the world in black and white.
        wpietri 9y ago
        You're the one seeing it a polarized way, your imaginary perfect separation between work and politics. Consider, for example, unionization. In our culture, it's seen as heavily "political" right now. Consider the actions that trigger unionization: stewards of capital using their bargaining power to disadvantage laborers. That too is political, but is often treated as if it weren't. There are places where the opposite applies: unionization is seen as normal, and therefore apolitical, while the power of capital is seen as strongly political. What makes something accepted in some places and not in others? That too is politics. You're being political right now by trying to control what is even classified as political.
        burntsushi 9y ago
        You completely missed my point. My point is that you're language lawyering by co-opting words by interpreting them in their loosest possible sense, even when it's clear the original arbiter of those words didn't invoke the word in the loosest possible sense. If you see the world in black and white, then this form of language lawyering make sense. This language lawyering of yours is a straw man in disguise. You build up a claim that nobody is making ("I literally never ever participate in politics even though politics actually means 'every possible interaction with society'") but that everyone would agree is absurd. So... you win, I guess? Meanwhile, when I talk to people in real life and say, "I don't discuss politics at work" or "I try to keep work and politics separate" they know exactly what I mean. But on HN? Forget about it. Language lawyers are here to ruin the day! So what does "I try to keep work and politics separate" actually mean then? Well, you've shown an apparent attachment to the word "politics" to mean "literally every possible action" so I obviously can't use that word to explain it to you. And of course, many people might interpret the phrase slightly differently, but if I had to take a reasonable shot at it, I might say, "I try not to discuss current events in the same terms that politicians or pundits discuss them" or perhaps, "I try not to discuss perceived contentious or controversial issues at work" or perhaps "I try not to discuss my voting preferences at work" or perhaps "I try not to evangelize political candidates at work" or perhaps ... Well, I'm hoping you get the idea by now. So why the heck do people say "politics" instead? Because it's pithy and vague, but somehow, some way, most folks seem capable of reasonably interpreting the statement to mean roughly some variant of what I said above. You know what's unreasonable though? Interpreting the statement to mean something that is trivially nonsensical.
- confounded 9y ago
  To accommodate the apparent desire for sports analogies, my intention was to play the ball, not the man from the parent into it's own very deliberately planted goal posts. WRT the discussion above the parent, I'd say that the two opposing posts are are actually in agreement: > "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. > ... not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. If you accept that we have power to impact the real world in our professional lives as technologists, then these are perfectly compatible descriptions of the same stance. I should say, I myself am at least partially in this camp. I firmly re-orient many discussions at work when I deem them to be unproductive, and pretty often this is because they drift into partisan 'badge-flashing'. But, I'm not shy about speaking up about things at work where the actions of the company affect the balance of power out there in the real world and real people's lives. These decisions are important, if if they're going to be made, the impact of them should be discussed explicitly. This often means breaking the (political!) spell that user and investor interests are inherently aligned, for example. Admittedly, this may be something which is probably felt more by people at large consumer Internet companies, as opposed to the technology/software industry as a whole.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jpttsn 9y ago
So since politics is important, not caring mean I support the winner? You make a strong case for caring about politics. But I’m not convinced why low interest in an argument puts me on either side of it. I’m sure a sports fan could make an eloquent case for caring about sports. But I don’t think they would say I’m anyone’s supporter by virtue of not watching the game.
- wpietri 9y ago
  If you could be mostly uninvolved in the game, sure. Move to the country, grow your own food, etc. But you participate on a daily basis. You're doing it right now. It's like somebody saying they have nothing to do with engines when they drive a car every day. They may not know how the car works, and they may have low interest in raising the hood since it has always worked for them. But refusing to look at the machinery doesn't mean it isn't there.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    I’m saying I can hardly support a regime by virtue of not caring about politics. A new born child doesn’t understand and can’t care about politics. Would you say this child supports the ruling party? Never mind whether politics affects the child or vice versa.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      You can say that, but you're wrong. A newborn child takes no actions and makes no statements. It is utterly dependent, contributing nothing. Is that you? It's perfectly reasonable to say that you are happy enough with the status quo to support it. It's also reasonable to be afraid enough of the status quo to refuse to be in visible opposition to it. What's unreasonable is to be a beneficiary of and contributor to an intricate system of economy and authority and then act like it has nothing to do with you.
      - jpttsn 9y ago
        Luckily, I never claim politics has nothing to do with me. Politics, sanitation, planetary orbits all affect me, and I contribute. But I don’t necessarily care about them all. Your central thesis, that there “is no neutral”, is unworkable. Examples that fly in the face of it abound. Carve out the special cases, like you did for children, and there will be nothing left.

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.

wpietri 9y ago
Not voicing a political opinion is distinct from not being political. Spending 40+ hours a week supporting the status quo while helping maintain the norm that "political" opinions (that is, ones that take issue with the status quo) shouldn't be voiced is unavoidably a political act. It may be a reasonable one, and I'm not taking issue with people who do it. I just object to taking about it in a way that pretends that it isn't also political.
- burntsushi 9y ago
  Pardon me while I refuse to indulge in your war over definitions. Meanwhile, the meaning of the phrase "I don't talk politics at work" is perfectly clear.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Sure. And if xupypd had said that originally, maybe it would have been clearer. But what he said was it'd be "wise to separate work and politics". That's not possible.
    - burntsushi 9y ago
      It is possible: don't talk about it. It's only impossible if you see the world in black and white.
      - wpietri 9y ago
        You're the one seeing it a polarized way, your imaginary perfect separation between work and politics. Consider, for example, unionization. In our culture, it's seen as heavily "political" right now. Consider the actions that trigger unionization: stewards of capital using their bargaining power to disadvantage laborers. That too is political, but is often treated as if it weren't. There are places where the opposite applies: unionization is seen as normal, and therefore apolitical, while the power of capital is seen as strongly political. What makes something accepted in some places and not in others? That too is politics. You're being political right now by trying to control what is even classified as political.
        burntsushi 9y ago
        You completely missed my point. My point is that you're language lawyering by co-opting words by interpreting them in their loosest possible sense, even when it's clear the original arbiter of those words didn't invoke the word in the loosest possible sense. If you see the world in black and white, then this form of language lawyering make sense. This language lawyering of yours is a straw man in disguise. You build up a claim that nobody is making ("I literally never ever participate in politics even though politics actually means 'every possible interaction with society'") but that everyone would agree is absurd. So... you win, I guess? Meanwhile, when I talk to people in real life and say, "I don't discuss politics at work" or "I try to keep work and politics separate" they know exactly what I mean. But on HN? Forget about it. Language lawyers are here to ruin the day! So what does "I try to keep work and politics separate" actually mean then? Well, you've shown an apparent attachment to the word "politics" to mean "literally every possible action" so I obviously can't use that word to explain it to you. And of course, many people might interpret the phrase slightly differently, but if I had to take a reasonable shot at it, I might say, "I try not to discuss current events in the same terms that politicians or pundits discuss them" or perhaps, "I try not to discuss perceived contentious or controversial issues at work" or perhaps "I try not to discuss my voting preferences at work" or perhaps "I try not to evangelize political candidates at work" or perhaps ... Well, I'm hoping you get the idea by now. So why the heck do people say "politics" instead? Because it's pithy and vague, but somehow, some way, most folks seem capable of reasonably interpreting the statement to mean roughly some variant of what I said above. You know what's unreasonable though? Interpreting the statement to mean something that is trivially nonsensical.
confounded 9y ago
To accommodate the apparent desire for sports analogies, my intention was to play the ball, not the man from the parent into it's own very deliberately planted goal posts. WRT the discussion above the parent, I'd say that the two opposing posts are are actually in agreement: > "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. > ... not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions. If you accept that we have power to impact the real world in our professional lives as technologists, then these are perfectly compatible descriptions of the same stance. I should say, I myself am at least partially in this camp. I firmly re-orient many discussions at work when I deem them to be unproductive, and pretty often this is because they drift into partisan 'badge-flashing'. But, I'm not shy about speaking up about things at work where the actions of the company affect the balance of power out there in the real world and real people's lives. These decisions are important, if if they're going to be made, the impact of them should be discussed explicitly. This often means breaking the (political!) spell that user and investor interests are inherently aligned, for example. Admittedly, this may be something which is probably felt more by people at large consumer Internet companies, as opposed to the technology/software industry as a whole.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jpttsn 9y ago

So since politics is important, not caring mean I support the winner? You make a strong case for caring about politics. But I’m not convinced why low interest in an argument puts me on either side of it. I’m sure a sports fan could make an eloquent case for caring about sports. But I don’t think they would say I’m anyone’s supporter by virtue of not watching the game.

wpietri 9y ago
If you could be mostly uninvolved in the game, sure. Move to the country, grow your own food, etc. But you participate on a daily basis. You're doing it right now. It's like somebody saying they have nothing to do with engines when they drive a car every day. They may not know how the car works, and they may have low interest in raising the hood since it has always worked for them. But refusing to look at the machinery doesn't mean it isn't there.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  I’m saying I can hardly support a regime by virtue of not caring about politics. A new born child doesn’t understand and can’t care about politics. Would you say this child supports the ruling party? Never mind whether politics affects the child or vice versa.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    You can say that, but you're wrong. A newborn child takes no actions and makes no statements. It is utterly dependent, contributing nothing. Is that you? It's perfectly reasonable to say that you are happy enough with the status quo to support it. It's also reasonable to be afraid enough of the status quo to refuse to be in visible opposition to it. What's unreasonable is to be a beneficiary of and contributor to an intricate system of economy and authority and then act like it has nothing to do with you.
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      Luckily, I never claim politics has nothing to do with me. Politics, sanitation, planetary orbits all affect me, and I contribute. But I don’t necessarily care about them all. Your central thesis, that there “is no neutral”, is unworkable. Examples that fly in the face of it abound. Carve out the special cases, like you did for children, and there will be nothing left.