7 ms·

Everything is political, and politics affect everything. If you think there are no politics in something it's likely that the politics involved in it are not cl

Everything is political, and politics affect everything. If you think there are no politics in something it's likely that the politics involved in it are not close to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Identity isn't political, until you have one that isn't an accepted norm. Sexual orientation isn't political, until people want to deny you insurance over yours. Race isn't political, until people refuse to sell you houses because of it. And so on. "Keep politics out of $thing" is the purest expression of privilege. Doesn't make you a bad person or anything, but it's worth keeping in mind. Shifting back to topic some: this idea that Google has had for years about platforms and now about it's internal one, that you can somehow keep the ugly elements of our society out and just have a nice, clean, advertiser and marketer-freindly area (ala YouTube) has permeated everything they've made. The problem is any place that people gather and collaborate will, eventually, get political. It can't not. As a species we have dragged politics into everything since long before we tricked silicon chips into thinking. I don't know why people keep thinking the Internet can be different, but it can't.

magashna 7y ago
If you demanded the "privilege" of discussing politics at work, I'd promptly not hire/fire you.
- t0astbread 7y ago
  The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. * edit: changed "competition" to "opposition"
  - magashna 7y ago
    Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.
    - t0astbread 7y ago
      Of course I don't want total mayhem to happen but workers should have the ability to talk about issues at their workplace or raise concerns about the work they're doing and the resulting discussion will probably be political. Shutting down political discussion entirely (100%) will prevent employees from raising concerns.
    - TheGRS 7y ago
      I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion. If you believe diversity is not a worthy topic of discussion or debate at the workplace, well, therein lies the political divide. Silencing political discussion is then its own form of getting a leg up in that debate.
      - lacampbell 7y ago
        I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion. What if the opposite happened, and political discussion resulted in people arguing for less diversity? The status quo might seem pretty appealing at that point.
        FussyZeus 7y ago
        What exactly is this point you keep trying to make all over this thread? Accept the status quo and don't talk too much, or it might get worse? What on Earth kind of philosophy is that?
        lacampbell 7y ago
        I thought my point was obvious, but I suppose you need to meet your audience half way. I suspect people want to discuss politics at work if they feel their politics matches the politics around them. What they really want is a bit of a circlejerk or (at worst) a mild debate within narrow confines of what they consider acceptable. If they thought most people disagreed with them, or that they were a political minority, they'd want politics off the table. In a post above you said "Keep politics out of $thing" is the purest expression of privilege. You could not be more wrong. "Let me discuss politics in $thing" is the privilege of someone who wants to ruin apolitical situations for the people that disagree with them - who they suspect are in a minority.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    It does not silence anyone, it just means that their speech needs to take place outside the workplace. In my experience, most people who complain that curbing political discussion in the workplace amounts to silencing them have views that are well in line with the status quo at the company.
    - t0astbread 7y ago
      I meant "silencing" in general. Of course you're free to talk about what you want in your free time. In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        > In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work. And again, the only people I've seen making this argument have ethics and hold values that are in line with the company's values. I've never seen a liberal at a conservative company call for more political discussion, or vice versa. It's always been conservatives in conservative companies or liberal in liberal companies making this argument. People who hold views contrary to the company mostly stay quiet, because making their views known results in ostracism and other negative consequences. I think the primary motivation is that people whose views are in line with the company enjoy the situation of voicing their positions while being immune to challenge because people who disagree with them are pressured into silence. It produces a gratifying sense for the people in th majority, but comes at the expense of people in the minority. For that reason, there's good cause to not allow political discussion in the workplace.
        t0astbread 7y ago
        Interesting POV but you could apply it in the opposite way as well: As management, I could issue a "political ban", then start changing corporate policy and my employees couldn't say anything against it. Without a ban, they could at least spark internal debate.
  - lacampbell 7y ago
    The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it. Would you accept both sides of it being allowed to speak freely in tech companies, or just the side you are on?
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it. That is not true “by definition”. It would be true invariably (but still not by definition unless the conditions were also) if political variation were unidimensional, linear, and unbounded in actual (not merely potential) range.
      - lacampbell 7y ago
        It's pretty clear that the main, salient, tribal divide is between left and right. But I will agree to disagree there. My key point is that if you open up the floor to politics so people can try and change the status quo, you open up the possibilities that people will want to change the status quo in a way that makes it even further away from where you think it should be. When people advocate political discussion at work because they are against the status quo, I don't think that's a scenario they consider.
- ixtli 7y ago
  If you consider the ability to discuss your conditions a privilege for a worker then I'm extremely happy I don't work or live anywhere near you.
ixtli 7y ago
Excellent comment. I agree with the parent's notion that google is trying to force their employees not to point out the bad things about their conditions, but this notion that there was ever a time where politics were absent is 1) ahistorical 2) reactionary. Politics is what happens when two or more people try to discuss an observation or explain a thought.
paulddraper 7y ago
You point out the truth: Everything controversial is political. Political aka controversial topics should be avoided, unless they are relevant to work. For example, unless you work at a real estate agency, it would be a poor idea to discuss federal or state law for racial guarantees around the sale of houses. (Not that you can't discuss them; certainty do. But your workplace will make a poor forum.)

magashna 7y ago

If you demanded the "privilege" of discussing politics at work, I'd promptly not hire/fire you.

t0astbread 7y ago
The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. * edit: changed "competition" to "opposition"
- magashna 7y ago
  Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.
  - t0astbread 7y ago
    Of course I don't want total mayhem to happen but workers should have the ability to talk about issues at their workplace or raise concerns about the work they're doing and the resulting discussion will probably be political. Shutting down political discussion entirely (100%) will prevent employees from raising concerns.
  - TheGRS 7y ago
    I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion. If you believe diversity is not a worthy topic of discussion or debate at the workplace, well, therein lies the political divide. Silencing political discussion is then its own form of getting a leg up in that debate.
    - lacampbell 7y ago
      I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion. What if the opposite happened, and political discussion resulted in people arguing for less diversity? The status quo might seem pretty appealing at that point.
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        What exactly is this point you keep trying to make all over this thread? Accept the status quo and don't talk too much, or it might get worse? What on Earth kind of philosophy is that?
        lacampbell 7y ago
        I thought my point was obvious, but I suppose you need to meet your audience half way. I suspect people want to discuss politics at work if they feel their politics matches the politics around them. What they really want is a bit of a circlejerk or (at worst) a mild debate within narrow confines of what they consider acceptable. If they thought most people disagreed with them, or that they were a political minority, they'd want politics off the table. In a post above you said "Keep politics out of $thing" is the purest expression of privilege. You could not be more wrong. "Let me discuss politics in $thing" is the privilege of someone who wants to ruin apolitical situations for the people that disagree with them - who they suspect are in a minority.
- manfredo 7y ago
  It does not silence anyone, it just means that their speech needs to take place outside the workplace. In my experience, most people who complain that curbing political discussion in the workplace amounts to silencing them have views that are well in line with the status quo at the company.
  - t0astbread 7y ago
    I meant "silencing" in general. Of course you're free to talk about what you want in your free time. In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work. And again, the only people I've seen making this argument have ethics and hold values that are in line with the company's values. I've never seen a liberal at a conservative company call for more political discussion, or vice versa. It's always been conservatives in conservative companies or liberal in liberal companies making this argument. People who hold views contrary to the company mostly stay quiet, because making their views known results in ostracism and other negative consequences. I think the primary motivation is that people whose views are in line with the company enjoy the situation of voicing their positions while being immune to challenge because people who disagree with them are pressured into silence. It produces a gratifying sense for the people in th majority, but comes at the expense of people in the minority. For that reason, there's good cause to not allow political discussion in the workplace.
      - t0astbread 7y ago
        Interesting POV but you could apply it in the opposite way as well: As management, I could issue a "political ban", then start changing corporate policy and my employees couldn't say anything against it. Without a ban, they could at least spark internal debate.
- lacampbell 7y ago
  The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it. Would you accept both sides of it being allowed to speak freely in tech companies, or just the side you are on?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it. That is not true “by definition”. It would be true invariably (but still not by definition unless the conditions were also) if political variation were unidimensional, linear, and unbounded in actual (not merely potential) range.
    - lacampbell 7y ago
      It's pretty clear that the main, salient, tribal divide is between left and right. But I will agree to disagree there. My key point is that if you open up the floor to politics so people can try and change the status quo, you open up the possibilities that people will want to change the status quo in a way that makes it even further away from where you think it should be. When people advocate political discussion at work because they are against the status quo, I don't think that's a scenario they consider.
ixtli 7y ago
If you consider the ability to discuss your conditions a privilege for a worker then I'm extremely happy I don't work or live anywhere near you.

ixtli 7y ago

Excellent comment. I agree with the parent's notion that google is trying to force their employees not to point out the bad things about their conditions, but this notion that there was ever a time where politics were absent is 1) ahistorical 2) reactionary. Politics is what happens when two or more people try to discuss an observation or explain a thought.

paulddraper 7y ago

You point out the truth: Everything controversial is political. Political aka controversial topics should be avoided, unless they are relevant to work. For example, unless you work at a real estate agency, it would be a poor idea to discuss federal or state law for racial guarantees around the sale of houses. (Not that you can't discuss them; certainty do. But your workplace will make a poor forum.)