6 ms·

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 "com

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.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Except by virtue of being neutral/centrist/apolitical, you are in fact still making a political statement in favor of the status quo. I’m not commenting on Google allowing or disallowing. I don’t really care and to be honest, if my workplace has a discussion board internally I’d probably not talk politics on it anyway. What I will say though is I think it’s interesting that google found it appropriate to allow it when google itself was disrupting the status quo, and it now disallows it when it more or less has become the status quo.
  - mancerayder 7y ago
    He didn't say he had neutral views, he said he wanted a neutral work environment. The attempt to guilt people into rolling around in the mud, or perhaps 'resistance' as you call it, is exactly the mentality that's ruining political conversation for everyone else.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      But again, that presumes it's possible to detach politics from everyday life, work included. It isn't. You can pretend they aren't there, but before you just sign up for that, you might want to consider which groups of people benefit from you doing that. I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything. If anything, I'm putting forth the call to action to recognize that being apolitical hurts almost everyone, yourself included. You may be apolitical, but your boss probably isn't. Your landlord probably isn't. Your local politicians definitely aren't. The owner of your workplace almost certainly isn't, either. And all of those people have the capacity to make their lives better, by politicking in a way that will make your life worse. I don't care what side people want to get on. I just want them to know that whether they've chosen one or not, they are on one.
      - mancerayder 7y ago
        I'm tasked with keeping infrastructure up and running. I'm either doing it, or I'm not. If the company is unethical, I wouldn't sneak in and not do this work, would you? Assuming it's the power of influence you're after... What do you truly hope to influence, the Board? Shareholders? Good luck.
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.

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.
FussyZeus 7y ago
Except by virtue of being neutral/centrist/apolitical, you are in fact still making a political statement in favor of the status quo. I’m not commenting on Google allowing or disallowing. I don’t really care and to be honest, if my workplace has a discussion board internally I’d probably not talk politics on it anyway. What I will say though is I think it’s interesting that google found it appropriate to allow it when google itself was disrupting the status quo, and it now disallows it when it more or less has become the status quo.
- mancerayder 7y ago
  He didn't say he had neutral views, he said he wanted a neutral work environment. The attempt to guilt people into rolling around in the mud, or perhaps 'resistance' as you call it, is exactly the mentality that's ruining political conversation for everyone else.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    But again, that presumes it's possible to detach politics from everyday life, work included. It isn't. You can pretend they aren't there, but before you just sign up for that, you might want to consider which groups of people benefit from you doing that. I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything. If anything, I'm putting forth the call to action to recognize that being apolitical hurts almost everyone, yourself included. You may be apolitical, but your boss probably isn't. Your landlord probably isn't. Your local politicians definitely aren't. The owner of your workplace almost certainly isn't, either. And all of those people have the capacity to make their lives better, by politicking in a way that will make your life worse. I don't care what side people want to get on. I just want them to know that whether they've chosen one or not, they are on one.
    - mancerayder 7y ago
      I'm tasked with keeping infrastructure up and running. I'm either doing it, or I'm not. If the company is unethical, I wouldn't sneak in and not do this work, would you? Assuming it's the power of influence you're after... What do you truly hope to influence, the Board? Shareholders? Good luck.

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.