9 ms·

I don't mean any offense, but it has been my experience that people who can afford to "put politics aside", so to speak, are people from demographics who didn't

by aluren 8y ago

I don't mean any offense, but it has been my experience that people who can afford to "put politics aside", so to speak, are people from demographics who didn't have politics "happen" to them. When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you are a woman and a significant chunk of people believe you have no business starting a career or working in tech or people don't believe you when you claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's hard to treat "politics" as an abstract debate where free-thinking intellectuals joust in the marketplace of ideas. In these contexts, you actually live "politics" - every day, from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. You can't opt out of it. I am taking these examples because they resonate best with what are considered "political" subjects in the West, but in more gruesome contexts, such as the situation of Syria, "politics" is whether you are pro-Assad, pro-rebel, which rebel group you are part of, etc. You can see how silly (at best) or insulting (at worst) it can be to try and dismiss politics when they are actually a matter of life or death. Whenever there is a struggle, whenever there is an imbalance of power perceived by some to be unfair, there is politics. If you do not perceive that imbalance, it means you are on the better end of it, and your lack of stand is simply apathy for the status quo. I don't seek to judge you for that, but hopefully you may understand that some people are unhappy with the status quo and wish that it change, and that's why they're getting political.

majos 8y ago
To add to some good points, people from various minority groups may be particularly keen on getting formal institutional buy-in (e.g. mandatory diversity meetings) because they have not been well-served by informally letting stuff play out in the past. There is a line somewhere here, but it's not unreasonable for affected parties to pursue bureaucratic solutions.
- Kalium 8y ago
  Imagine a white man lecturing a room that's mostly people of color or women about the importance of including all people as equal peers in discussions. Toss in a few incredibly loaded questions with Very Obvious Right Answers to round it out. It's obviously just me, but I have a difficult time imagining anyone being well-served by that particular "bureaucratic solution". Which, caricature though it might be, is also an accurate representation of a lived experience.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zapita 8y ago
I can’t agree enough with your comment. The act of defining what and isn’t “political” - is itself a political act. It used to be unacceptably “political” in the majority of Anerican businesses to be against racial segregation. Now it’s the other way around. Whether you agree with that change or not, you can’t deny that the boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable discourse at work have changed over time. When you’re bringing up a topic or opinion at work that makes others uncomfortable, you’re trying to move that boundary, which is a political. When you’re complaining that the topic is “too political” and doesn’t belong in the workplace, you’re trying to keep the boundary where it is, which is also a political act.
- zaarn 8y ago
  I would disagree, if you don't bring up any politics at all then you don't move the boundaries as the boundaries do not exist. There is no minimum level of acceptable politics to move any boundary. In that case, defining "political" is no longer a political act. On the other hand you can also simply ban all tribal issues, ie the ones that cause coworkers to go at eachothers throats. This would be minorly political but the workplace atmosphere would improve greatly.
- sdrinf 8y ago
  This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me". Going down this route, you are forcing me to take a position on issues I don't nearly feel having sufficient amount of data, or nuance; nor motivated to acquire them, because giving a shit is a rapidly depletable resource, and I have my own life, and my own stuff to take care of. Please do not take the position of neutrality away from me. Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine, regardless of coincidence of wants.
  - zapita 8y ago
    In way of a reply, I will juxtapose two quotes from your post above. I think it preserves context, but please tell me if you think I left out something important. Quote 1: > This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me" Quote 2: > Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine
haberman 8y ago
I understand your position. But too often people who have legitimate gripes with society (like you say) are quick to classify legitimate disagreement with an attack on their identity. Disagreement over a company's diversity policies (for example) is not inherently an attack on anyone's personhood, but it is frequently interpreted as one, and with great rancor. One definition of power that is sometimes given: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." If the climate around things such as diversity policies effectively suppresses dissent, then the advocates of such policies have real power, whether or not they psychologically perceive it.
- lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
  What does that even mean? Of course your job has power over your employment that's tautological. And given how expensive hiring people is there's a market interest in making sure "free thinkers" don't drive entire groups away in their vain attempt to pretend it's the 19th century. If you feel you have a right to bull others and to deny that is to restrict your ability to "dissent"; if you feel that you have the right to spread false information (women aren't welcome in tech, any given race isn't welcome, any given sexuality isn't welcome, etc"; then you should perhaps sit down and remember your company is going to exercise its free speech and kick you too the curb. The cost of giving you a "safe space to dissent" isn't worth reducing the hiring pool. Free market baby, get fucking used to it.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    That's fine to believe this, but don't pretend like the person you are responding to is "privileged". That is what the person was arguing against. Yes, a company can fire you for basically any reason, even of it is because you wore a blue shirt or voted for the wrong person. But don't pretend that workers are "privileged" or the people in power in this situation.
    - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
      What Im against is these morons that think they're entitled to a space to excercise their bigotry despite the obvious capital costs of it. It's not a question of privilege it's a question of what is your value system. Do you believe in organizational power of free markets? If so you are by definition for these types of tolerance programs. Corporate social responsibility isn't charity; it's just good business sense. Unless you're a conman preying on fear, bigotry is categorically bad for business.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>I am taking these examples because they resonate best with what are considered "political" subjects in the West, but in more gruesome contexts, such as the situation of Syria, "politics" is whether you are pro-Assad, pro-rebel, which rebel group you are part of, etc. You can see how silly (at best) or insulting (at worst) it can be to try and dismiss politics when they are actually a matter of life or death. Speaking as, as I am, an Israeli citizen, I have to say: having people yell at you to get bombed and die because you can't opt out of politics is actually pretty unpleasant. I can't imagine Syrian exiles like it much either.
WallWextra 8y ago
People's politics are mostly determined by where they live, and maybe their age. If you insist on fighting over politics, you should at least recognize that's what you're fighting over. It's not about life and death or oppression, it's just about where you're from. And you're just fighting with people who live somewhere else than you. People's actual concrete opinions on issues change with time, with their social circle, etc. The issues are not as important as people think they are, and there are lots of life and death issues which don't elicit churlish behavior the way politics does.
mce1123 8y ago
The politics that's happening to you, if you're in a western republic or democracy, is one that created and maintains unprecedented safety and freedom otherwise alien to human existence.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't post generic ideological comments to HN. They just lead further off topic and deep into flames. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - fox404 8y ago
    Whoops. That you would condemn a perfectly reasonable comment like that speaks volumes about your character and the political leanings of whomever is paying for your coffee.
    - dang 8y ago
      It's routine moderation and has nothing to do with which politics are being trumpeted—only with the dumbing-down effects of generic comments on the internet. The internet message board is not a medium that can handle grandiose rhetoric without breaking down. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20generic https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
      - fox404 8y ago
        The internet will break down if someone makes a grandiose statement? Uh huh. We need to get you a mirror. If your bias can’t be called into question, your competency must then be. I personally do not find a reminder of what actual human oppression looks like throughout the world in a discussion on why white male re-education courses should be mandated in the workplace (and the irony certainly doesn’t escape me). Ignoring that fact betrays the underlying entitlement of the claim.
felix_nagaand 8y ago
The people who put politics aside may have had politics from both leading sides happen to them. I'm utterly disillusioned with both parties and have leanings that go in all directions. Many people just don't care enough to understand the failings of their side because it's safe in their community of equally deluded people.
jeromebaek 8y ago
You need to get a megaphone. Everyone needs to hear this.
ibeckermayer 8y ago
"When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you are a woman and a significant chunk of people believe you have no business starting a career or working in tech or people don't believe you when you claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's hard to treat "politics" as an abstract debate where free-thinking intellectuals joust in the marketplace of ideas. In these contexts, you actually live "politics" - every day, from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. You can't opt out of it." This is an absurd dramatization. Really, what percentage of people at Facebook do you think believe that stuff? 0.0001%, or 0.00001%? Later in the post you indict apathy for the status quo, but this sort of left-leaning dramatic nonsense is as status quo as it gets.
- jhanschoo 8y ago
  > Really, what percentage of people at Facebook do you think believe that stuff? The very act of filtering against it at recruitment and when it occurs in the workplace /is/ "politics". And post-Weinstein scandal it's disingenuous to think that the workplace can't have such a toxic culture. Just the other day a Riot employee's post about Riot's uncomfortable "bro culture" was discussed on HN.
fox404 8y ago
It’s just great that you have an entire spiel devoted to justifying how people should get indoctrinated into your political beliefs in the work place. Make no mistake, people like you (eventually) cause many more problems in this world than you would like to self righteously pretend you solve. To every person who is unprejudiced, not politically inclined, and is forced to take part in your rallies, there is nearly nothing separating you from your reactionary counterparts. I’ll go even further to suggest that the prevalent attitude among your ilk implicating those who are not actively involved in your political movement are somehow culpable is enough to make evangelicals seem like the side to choose moving into the rest of this century.
badrabbit 8y ago
Wrong,you're being presumptuous. I would not be 'tolerated' in most workplaces either 60+ years ago. Even now I face difficulties. Please don't be presumptuous. One of the most offensive things I experienced in a liberal workplace was being treated differently(for my benefit) because of the 'group' I belonged to. You show up to work to do a job not to struggle in politics. I should be accepted as a human and a coworker,not as a member of whatever group I belong to. You have the right to earn a living and feed yourself and family because you are human and you have the skills and qualifications for the job. Your membership to some socio-political group neither qualifies nor disqualifies you.
complexmango 8y ago
Having politics ‘happen’ to you is exactly the reason to put advocacy aside at work. Because hopefully it helps you empathize with people who have had ‘different’ politics ‘happen’ to them. E.g. There’s a lot of Asian Americans from impoverished immigrant backgrounds who experience reverse affirmative action at American universities. They may still vote liberal, but for very different reasons as people pursuing social justice. The issues are hardly black and white, and a workplace environment where people are forced to pick sides is inherently unhealthy, not to mention anything but diverse.
philwelch 8y ago
> When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you are a woman and a significant chunk of people believe you have no business starting a career or working in tech or people don't believe you when you claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's hard to treat "politics" as an abstract debate where free-thinking intellectuals joust in the marketplace of ideas. In these contexts, you actually live "politics" - every day, from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. You can't opt out of it. I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere. You know what's more dangerous than treating politics as an abstract debate? Treating it as a constant life-and-death struggle where enemies must be destroyed before they destroy you. The ideas you're talking about aren't even the ideas being expressed by anyone of importance: they're straw men arguments that propagandists falsely accuse people of perpetuating via "dog-whistles" so that you ignore and dismiss what they're actually saying.
- mike10010100 8y ago
  > I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere. Probably because none of them apply to you. > The ideas you're talking about aren't even the ideas being expressed by anyone of importance You need only look at the president of the United States (or the GOP running for governor in Florida) to see that these ideas are expressed by a ton of people who have power.
- methodover 8y ago
  > I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere. Animus against minorities is real. It's not made up. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't real. Is this animus experienced by every member of every minority for every waking moment? No, that was a bit of an exaggeration, sure. But the animus is definitely not zero, like you suggest. You might benefit from educating yourself about feminism, race relations, and gay rights.
  - 8y ago

by aluren 8y ago

majos 8y ago

To add to some good points, people from various minority groups may be particularly keen on getting formal institutional buy-in (e.g. mandatory diversity meetings) because they have not been well-served by informally letting stuff play out in the past. There is a line somewhere here, but it's not unreasonable for affected parties to pursue bureaucratic solutions.

Kalium 8y ago
Imagine a white man lecturing a room that's mostly people of color or women about the importance of including all people as equal peers in discussions. Toss in a few incredibly loaded questions with Very Obvious Right Answers to round it out. It's obviously just me, but I have a difficult time imagining anyone being well-served by that particular "bureaucratic solution". Which, caricature though it might be, is also an accurate representation of a lived experience.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zapita 8y ago

I can’t agree enough with your comment. The act of defining what and isn’t “political” - is itself a political act. It used to be unacceptably “political” in the majority of Anerican businesses to be against racial segregation. Now it’s the other way around. Whether you agree with that change or not, you can’t deny that the boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable discourse at work have changed over time. When you’re bringing up a topic or opinion at work that makes others uncomfortable, you’re trying to move that boundary, which is a political. When you’re complaining that the topic is “too political” and doesn’t belong in the workplace, you’re trying to keep the boundary where it is, which is also a political act.

zaarn 8y ago
I would disagree, if you don't bring up any politics at all then you don't move the boundaries as the boundaries do not exist. There is no minimum level of acceptable politics to move any boundary. In that case, defining "political" is no longer a political act. On the other hand you can also simply ban all tribal issues, ie the ones that cause coworkers to go at eachothers throats. This would be minorly political but the workplace atmosphere would improve greatly.
sdrinf 8y ago
This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me". Going down this route, you are forcing me to take a position on issues I don't nearly feel having sufficient amount of data, or nuance; nor motivated to acquire them, because giving a shit is a rapidly depletable resource, and I have my own life, and my own stuff to take care of. Please do not take the position of neutrality away from me. Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine, regardless of coincidence of wants.
- zapita 8y ago
  In way of a reply, I will juxtapose two quotes from your post above. I think it preserves context, but please tell me if you think I left out something important. Quote 1: > This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me" Quote 2: > Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine

haberman 8y ago

I understand your position. But too often people who have legitimate gripes with society (like you say) are quick to classify legitimate disagreement with an attack on their identity. Disagreement over a company's diversity policies (for example) is not inherently an attack on anyone's personhood, but it is frequently interpreted as one, and with great rancor. One definition of power that is sometimes given: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." If the climate around things such as diversity policies effectively suppresses dissent, then the advocates of such policies have real power, whether or not they psychologically perceive it.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
What does that even mean? Of course your job has power over your employment that's tautological. And given how expensive hiring people is there's a market interest in making sure "free thinkers" don't drive entire groups away in their vain attempt to pretend it's the 19th century. If you feel you have a right to bull others and to deny that is to restrict your ability to "dissent"; if you feel that you have the right to spread false information (women aren't welcome in tech, any given race isn't welcome, any given sexuality isn't welcome, etc"; then you should perhaps sit down and remember your company is going to exercise its free speech and kick you too the curb. The cost of giving you a "safe space to dissent" isn't worth reducing the hiring pool. Free market baby, get fucking used to it.
- stale2002 8y ago
  That's fine to believe this, but don't pretend like the person you are responding to is "privileged". That is what the person was arguing against. Yes, a company can fire you for basically any reason, even of it is because you wore a blue shirt or voted for the wrong person. But don't pretend that workers are "privileged" or the people in power in this situation.
  - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
    What Im against is these morons that think they're entitled to a space to excercise their bigotry despite the obvious capital costs of it. It's not a question of privilege it's a question of what is your value system. Do you believe in organizational power of free markets? If so you are by definition for these types of tolerance programs. Corporate social responsibility isn't charity; it's just good business sense. Unless you're a conman preying on fear, bigotry is categorically bad for business.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

>I am taking these examples because they resonate best with what are considered "political" subjects in the West, but in more gruesome contexts, such as the situation of Syria, "politics" is whether you are pro-Assad, pro-rebel, which rebel group you are part of, etc. You can see how silly (at best) or insulting (at worst) it can be to try and dismiss politics when they are actually a matter of life or death. Speaking as, as I am, an Israeli citizen, I have to say: having people yell at you to get bombed and die because you can't opt out of politics is actually pretty unpleasant. I can't imagine Syrian exiles like it much either.

WallWextra 8y ago

People's politics are mostly determined by where they live, and maybe their age. If you insist on fighting over politics, you should at least recognize that's what you're fighting over. It's not about life and death or oppression, it's just about where you're from. And you're just fighting with people who live somewhere else than you. People's actual concrete opinions on issues change with time, with their social circle, etc. The issues are not as important as people think they are, and there are lots of life and death issues which don't elicit churlish behavior the way politics does.

mce1123 8y ago

The politics that's happening to you, if you're in a western republic or democracy, is one that created and maintains unprecedented safety and freedom otherwise alien to human existence.

dang 8y ago
Please don't post generic ideological comments to HN. They just lead further off topic and deep into flames. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fox404 8y ago
  Whoops. That you would condemn a perfectly reasonable comment like that speaks volumes about your character and the political leanings of whomever is paying for your coffee.
  - dang 8y ago
    It's routine moderation and has nothing to do with which politics are being trumpeted—only with the dumbing-down effects of generic comments on the internet. The internet message board is not a medium that can handle grandiose rhetoric without breaking down. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20generic https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
    - fox404 8y ago
      The internet will break down if someone makes a grandiose statement? Uh huh. We need to get you a mirror. If your bias can’t be called into question, your competency must then be. I personally do not find a reminder of what actual human oppression looks like throughout the world in a discussion on why white male re-education courses should be mandated in the workplace (and the irony certainly doesn’t escape me). Ignoring that fact betrays the underlying entitlement of the claim.

felix_nagaand 8y ago

The people who put politics aside may have had politics from both leading sides happen to them. I'm utterly disillusioned with both parties and have leanings that go in all directions. Many people just don't care enough to understand the failings of their side because it's safe in their community of equally deluded people.

jeromebaek 8y ago

You need to get a megaphone. Everyone needs to hear this.

ibeckermayer 8y ago

"When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you are a woman and a significant chunk of people believe you have no business starting a career or working in tech or people don't believe you when you claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's hard to treat "politics" as an abstract debate where free-thinking intellectuals joust in the marketplace of ideas. In these contexts, you actually live "politics" - every day, from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. You can't opt out of it." This is an absurd dramatization. Really, what percentage of people at Facebook do you think believe that stuff? 0.0001%, or 0.00001%? Later in the post you indict apathy for the status quo, but this sort of left-leaning dramatic nonsense is as status quo as it gets.

jhanschoo 8y ago
> Really, what percentage of people at Facebook do you think believe that stuff? The very act of filtering against it at recruitment and when it occurs in the workplace /is/ "politics". And post-Weinstein scandal it's disingenuous to think that the workplace can't have such a toxic culture. Just the other day a Riot employee's post about Riot's uncomfortable "bro culture" was discussed on HN.

fox404 8y ago

It’s just great that you have an entire spiel devoted to justifying how people should get indoctrinated into your political beliefs in the work place. Make no mistake, people like you (eventually) cause many more problems in this world than you would like to self righteously pretend you solve. To every person who is unprejudiced, not politically inclined, and is forced to take part in your rallies, there is nearly nothing separating you from your reactionary counterparts. I’ll go even further to suggest that the prevalent attitude among your ilk implicating those who are not actively involved in your political movement are somehow culpable is enough to make evangelicals seem like the side to choose moving into the rest of this century.

badrabbit 8y ago

Wrong,you're being presumptuous. I would not be 'tolerated' in most workplaces either 60+ years ago. Even now I face difficulties. Please don't be presumptuous. One of the most offensive things I experienced in a liberal workplace was being treated differently(for my benefit) because of the 'group' I belonged to. You show up to work to do a job not to struggle in politics. I should be accepted as a human and a coworker,not as a member of whatever group I belong to. You have the right to earn a living and feed yourself and family because you are human and you have the skills and qualifications for the job. Your membership to some socio-political group neither qualifies nor disqualifies you.

complexmango 8y ago

Having politics ‘happen’ to you is exactly the reason to put advocacy aside at work. Because hopefully it helps you empathize with people who have had ‘different’ politics ‘happen’ to them. E.g. There’s a lot of Asian Americans from impoverished immigrant backgrounds who experience reverse affirmative action at American universities. They may still vote liberal, but for very different reasons as people pursuing social justice. The issues are hardly black and white, and a workplace environment where people are forced to pick sides is inherently unhealthy, not to mention anything but diverse.

philwelch 8y ago

> When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you are a woman and a significant chunk of people believe you have no business starting a career or working in tech or people don't believe you when you claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's hard to treat "politics" as an abstract debate where free-thinking intellectuals joust in the marketplace of ideas. In these contexts, you actually live "politics" - every day, from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. You can't opt out of it. I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere. You know what's more dangerous than treating politics as an abstract debate? Treating it as a constant life-and-death struggle where enemies must be destroyed before they destroy you. The ideas you're talking about aren't even the ideas being expressed by anyone of importance: they're straw men arguments that propagandists falsely accuse people of perpetuating via "dog-whistles" so that you ignore and dismiss what they're actually saying.

mike10010100 8y ago
> I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere. Probably because none of them apply to you. > The ideas you're talking about aren't even the ideas being expressed by anyone of importance You need only look at the president of the United States (or the GOP running for governor in Florida) to see that these ideas are expressed by a ton of people who have power.
methodover 8y ago
> I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere. Animus against minorities is real. It's not made up. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't real. Is this animus experienced by every member of every minority for every waking moment? No, that was a bit of an exaggeration, sure. But the animus is definitely not zero, like you suggest. You might benefit from educating yourself about feminism, race relations, and gay rights.
- 8y ago