29 ms·

Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you di

• voxl 7y ago
  Preach. Politics being silenced in a work place is so short sighted and dumb. We should strive for a world where disagreement is not the end of a good working relationship, not one where crypto-politics is the new normal in the workplace. Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional.
  • big_chungus 7y ago
    Would you please clarify what you mean by, "Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional?" Here's the problem: at least in SV, you're going to be restricted to a sub-set of very narrow beliefs which are acceptable to express. I may hold a personal belief that, say, trans-sexuality is not a "real thing" or ought not to be treated with surgery. Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? You may believe my belief is just too "in-tolerant" or "bigoted" to be expressed, but who are you to be the arbiter thereof? Now let's take the other side of the coin. If you work in the energy industry, heavy manufacturing, etc., you probably couldn't express support for trans-sexuals without having problems. On the other hand, you'd likely have no issue saying you didn't believe in such a thing. I know someone in energy who wore a rainbow flag pin during one gay month a few years ago; he wasn't fired, but many of his superiors became noticeably cold toward him and he left after realizing he probably couldn't move up at that company. Again, why ought that to be the case? The biggest issue is that when people start talking politics, you are expected to participate. Some one looks over and says, "Hey Big Chungus, what do you think?" In such a situation, I cannot reasonably say, "Oh, I have no opinion." Certain issues are simply so partisan that such a response, even in the rare circumstance that it is true, will anger both sides and damage me. So, I avoid talking politics at work and try to work at places where others do the same. People I work with generally never know my politics. I am more than happy to bloviate about political stuff with friends and family, or to go be mad online after work. At work, it is best to stay non-partisan.
    • pjc50 7y ago
      > Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? Should you be able to comfortably express that to your trans co-worker, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them? That's why this is not a symmetrical issue.
      • big_chungus 7y ago
        What if you have a co-worker who is an Arab immigrant and does not believe in trans-sexuality due to his cultural and religious background? Should he be able to express that? Why or why not? Ought the trans-sexual to be able to express his beliefs if it makes said co-worker uncomfortable? When two deeply-held elements of personal identity are in conflict, the only way to resolve it is for both sides to keep silent or for a third party to insert himself and pick the side in which he believes. In either case, you are telling someone he must change who he is. The alternative is to simply not discuss such matters at work. And yes, I believe both sides have the right to express their beliefs and that the comfort of neither trumps the right of the other to speak. I just think time, place, and manner are generally reasonable constraints.
        • CompanionCuuube 7y ago
          Yes, not discussing it doesn't mean you can't accommodate them. Just because you don't discuss religion in the office doesn't prevent you from having halal/kosher meal options. Not discussing transgender issues doesn't prevent you from having a gender neutral bathroom.
      • manigandham 7y ago
        The absolute answer is yes. You have a right to say it. Nobody is owed comfort. However this clearly won't lead to a productive workplace, which is why it's not a good idea to allow these discussions. There are plenty of other restrictions within a private company to create the best conditions for the work they're paying you for. It's perfectly reasonable.
• sonotathrowaway 7y ago
  I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 - Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]
  • luckydata 7y ago
    One thing I learned: if you can hope for something in life that never disappoints, then you can count on the white moderate to disappoint you every time.
    • war1025 7y ago
      Care to elaborate?
  • rolltiide 7y ago
    had me in the first half
    • dang 7y ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21078125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21078125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20722525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20722525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20599451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20599451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20140962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20140962
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• jedberg 7y ago
  As a wealthy white male, I couldn't agree more. For people like me, politics is a choice. But as my female friends of color often remind me, politics is not a choice for them.
  • earthscienceman 7y ago
    Which actually really boils down to what the word "white male privilege" really means. If you think politics is annoying, then it's because you're privileged enough for it to not matter. ^^^ privileged white male
    • icelancer 7y ago
      >> If you think politics is annoying, then it's because you're privileged enough for it to not matter. I felt this way as a poor minority. This statement people keep bandying about that white people are forced to repeat lest they seem racist is absurd.
    • ggreer 7y ago
      I've worked at a company that heavily encouraged discussion of politics at work, and it was a nightmare. The things management sponsored (at the request of employees) included: - A women-only Slack channel. - Women-only events, such as a free screening of Wonder Woman. The men at the company were expected to work during that time. - An "ally skills workshop"[1], which attempted to indoctrinate us with an explicitly racist and sexist ideology. - A Diversity Council that had the explicit goal of increasing the number of non-white non-men in engineering. One time when I was invited to a meeting of the council, I said that their goal should be to eliminate bias in the hiring process (such as by blinding resumes, replacing phone screens with text-only mediums, etc). I was taken aside and chastised for my statements. If I had actually said my opinions, I have no doubt I would have been fired for my beliefs. If that's what happens when people are encouraged to bring their politics to work (especially in SF), I will gladly take the "no politics" option. 1. Slides from the workshop: https://files.frameshiftconsulting.com/Ally%20Skills%20Workshop%20slides.pdf https://files.frameshiftconsulting.com/Ally%20Skills%20Works... Edit: the slides have been updated since I last saw them. The slides presented to me were closer to this version from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170911021528/https://files.frameshiftconsulting.com/Ally%20Skills%20Workshop%20slides.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170911021528/https://files.fra... Though even that version is more toned down than what I saw.
• djsumdog 7y ago
  Have you seen problems with people in any of these groups unable to talk about these issues? I had a project owner once who had a manager not get along with her at all. "Is it because you're a woman," I asked her. She said, "No, I don't think that's it." .. and he did get along with another woman; one of our Functional Analysis. Sometimes person x doesn't like person y because .. they don't like person y. They don't think person y is effective or useful or good at his or her job, not because y is an Asian, or woman, or trans or Mexican. ... or it could be and the person is a victim of bigotry and doesn't know it. I know it's anecdotal, but I've worked in a lot of different places, in 3 different countries, and in my experience, I think it's the opposite. I think people are afraid to say anything remotely non-left or criticize any minority employee or say anything that could remotely be inferred as problematic.
• alkonaut 7y ago
  Absolutely right. Saying “don’t talk politics at work” seems to assume that politics is something that goes on on the outside. A stream of news on divisive topics. In reality, politics happens everywhere and you can’t really avoid talking about it. “Don’t talk about politics not relevant for the workplace” could be reasonable (most poltics is after all not related).
  • galaxyLogic 7y ago
    To me this (news not your comment) sounds like a very slippery slope. What happened to freedom of speech? And who is to decide what is "political" what is not? As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.
    • RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
      > As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected. Speech that isn’t offensive usually doesn’t need protection.
      • galaxyLogic 7y ago
        Isn't that the case here? A company is suppressing all speech about politics?
      • manfredo 7y ago
        What happens when people start taking offense at opposition to affirmative action? Or take offense at disapproving of putting biological males with male genitalia that self identity women in women's prisons? And conversely, plenty of conservatives take offense at gay marriage. Whose offence counts?
      • pcnix 7y ago
        This is akin to the idea that you don't need privacy unless you have something to hide. Freedom of speech is important, but at the same time, so is the responsibility of a person to his team and community to maintain a minimum level of politeness and empathy. That entails understanding that some people are affected by some political issues significantly more than others, and that it might be intimately tied to their working situation. A person's privilege to speak out about issues facing them in the course of their work is to be protected, irrespective of it being offensive.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• imgabe 7y ago
  To me "don't discuss politics at work" would apply to management as well and imply that people should only be hired or fired for performance based reasons and not because of their sexuality, race, or gender.
• ahbyb 7y ago
  Nobody is saying "don't get involved in politics", just "don't bring it to work".
• yourbandsucks 7y ago
  If it were the case that these things were never mentioned, and anytime they were brought up, people were silenced, I'd totally agree with your point here. But we're getting wall-to-wall coverage of basically those exact issues, all the time, with only one point of view endorsed. It's uninclusive to anybody who thinks differently in terms of methods or priorities.
  • commandlinefan 7y ago
    And the people who are suggesting that it’s somehow a “privileged” position to be able to suggest that politics and work don’t mix are being incredibly disingenuous about this point. The people whose viewpoints are least welcome in the modern workplace - traditionalists - are both the ones who would benefit _most_ from finally being able to get in a word in edgewise in workplace political discussions and also the ones who are calling for a professional rather than political workplace.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive. Around 40% of voters support Donald Trump in some way. Are you sure you really want to discuss politics at work? Do you want someone wearing a MAGA hat explaining to everyone why immigration is too high? Because that is what real political discussion will involve. In fact, I suspect many people who are advocating for politics at work, actually only want people whom they agree with to be able discuss policies that they generally agree with. So for me, as long as the company does not prevent political activity outside of work, I am happy to have work be a neutral zone where people from opposite ends of the political spectrum can just work together on how to make money for the business.
  • crispinb 7y ago
    > Are you sure you really want to discuss politics at work It would really depend on the individual Trump supporter whether I would want to discuss politics with them or not. However I don't think whether I 'want' the discussion has anything to do with anything. Discussion of communal affairs is basic to humans, and my 'wanting' has nothing to do with others' need and right to continue to be human. An employer does not own people (even during their hours of employment), and this kind of clause would be illegal in any reasonable polity. Obnoxious behaviour, forcing of one's opinion (or neurotic need to discuss) on others, etc, is another matter and prevalent enough in plenty of areas quite outside of politics. The only simple authoritarian solution to that would be to ban conversation altogether.
  • danmg 7y ago
    It's like having prayer in school. It might seem like a good idea on its surface to some, but then you have to decide whose prayer. In Engel v. Vitale many religious groups actually filed amicus briefs against having public school start their day with a prayer because to be nearly universally acceptable, it had to be designed by a committee to be as bland and unobjectionable as possible. Likewise, anything publicly debated at work has to be inherently bland and without class consciousness, as that calls into question relationship between the workers, the professional management classes and the reigning neoliberal order. The only approved topics will ones that distract from class consciousness and divide the workers into factions that render them unable to operate cohesively.
• crispinb 7y ago
  Completely agree. Besides which it's a hopelessly medieval master-slave attitude to employment - the notion that they're not paying for time, expertise or work, but rather taking temporary ownership of subjects. I would have nothing to do with Gitlab knowing this, as employee or customer.
• joey_bob 7y ago
  "I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work." Can you clarify the meaning? As it reads to me, if one belongs to a marginalized group, one would suffer disproportionately from making such a statement. I'm not quite clear on the semantics I suppose. On another note, anecdotally, how many people have had a work relationship or project suffer due to discussion of politics at work, or alternatively, improve? (This being a reason not to discuss, it would be beneficial to sample for how likely it is to occur negatively.)
• weberc2 7y ago
  These are the _only_ kinds of politics that are acceptable in many workplaces. We have diversity departments and minority groups and women's groups and consultancies and recruiting agencies advertise their ability to find minority candidates. People are afraid to publicly question these policies. > Education: Too political to discuss the fact that schools are trying to balance their admissions in the face of very uneven opportunities amongst their applicants. Never mind the fact that school admissions were never fair to begin with. Women outnumber men in universities and pretty much throughout the pipeline (EDIT: to clarify, I mean the broader education pipeline, not the tech subset thereof). This whole post is so disconnected from my experience and any experience I've heard about that it feels like it's from inverse universe.
• opportune 7y ago
  I absolutely agree that politics is everywhere and picking and choosing which type of political discussion is allowed is itself political, (I’ve also never been convinced that URMs in tech isn’t primarily a pipeline problem but ofc wouldn’t want to shut off debate on that) I guess the difference in what is allowed is between “positive” vs “negative” politics. By that I don’t mean positive politics is absolutely the best whereas negative is stuff I disagree with, but saying “We want to empower marginalized groups” is positive and doesn’t bother that much people who.. don’t think it’s necessary, because it’s not a political position you can disagreee with per se. But negative politics might be something like “we are going to ban X because we find it abhorrent” whether X is racist stuff, antivaxx stuff, or LGBTQ stuff you are directly prohibiting beliefs. Note that I don’t necessarily agree that positive vs negative (or, un-disagreeable vs actively disagreeing) is exactly where you should draw the line where politics is allowed, but I’m just trying to rationalize and say maybe it’s not inherently hypocritical.
  • joshdover 7y ago
    I also agree with the parent comment here, but wanted to shed some light on your input. The problem with your "negative" vs "positive" distinction is that it's quite subjective and not at all clear cut. > “We want to empower marginalized groups” is positive and doesn’t bother that much people who.. don’t think it’s necessary, because it’s not a political position you can disagreee with per se There are groups who have very big problems with this statement per se. See the numerous court cases over the past decade challenging affirmative action in university admissions. Many view helping one group as oppressing another (a view I find quite misinformed given the inequities in our society, but not completely irrational, given bad priors). Maybe what you're trying to get at is progressive politics vs. oppressive politics. This distinction I can understand more clearly, however when you choose to oppress a group that is oppressing others, maybe this is justified? For instance, banning ISIS from access to Twitter seems like a pretty morally sound decision to me as an American. Given that, is there really a difference between banning ISIS and banning white supremacists who discuss violence? Or Presidents who promote violence against journalists? What's the moral outcome of NOT banning any of these groups? Any choice, including choosing not to act, is morally liable. I think Gitlab's stance here is quite morally lazy, if not wrong.
• xeonoex 7y ago
  To me, there is a big difference between discussing politics and preaching politics. I do want my company to tell me not to discuss politics with coworkers who are willing to discuss it. Not dicussing politics, especially with people who have a difference of opinion, is what leads to rage filled echochambers that are so common now. However, I do not want people preaching politics unsolicited at work though. I think politics being a taboo topic is an attempt to keep workers in order and ignore any political or environmental impact that their own company might have.
• to11mtm 7y ago
  > I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. My counterpoint would be that it takes a certain level of privilege to be able to discuss politics at work. Or, to be more specific, anything other than the job you are working. (And, of course, the things your employer can't legally stop you from talking about.) Or, to put my point more specifically: Almost all of the discussion I have seen ignores that most of these problems are, at their root, class based problems. I suppose what is more saddening from a humanist standpoint is the way the extremists on both sides wish to eventually put the other under their heel. That said, touching specifically on my personal experiences in Education, the issue is that any Metric based solution will likely run up against Goodhart's law sooner or later. While what I witnessed in Academia was probably far from the norm, I doubt it was rare.
• XPKBandMaidCzun 7y ago
  > I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. Having a discussion is hard. While you come to this well-intended, participants bring their own life experiences and hardships. They may not agree on the starting point of the conversation: How is "marginalized' and "privileged" is defined? Some may not take that perspective on the above issues, and people with these characteristics may not consider themselves part of the "group", they may believe overcoming hardship by the way of grit and merit being the ideal. People with these characteristics who don't consider themselves part of the "groups" may find the rhetoric being used patronizing, they don't want to be treated special or different, they want to be recognized for their contribution to the collective. That's where role models come from, to some. They may disagree on what "empathy" means. Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and bring our unique stories and experiences to the table. The definition of "inclusiveness". To some, the qualm isn't the subject, it's how some people who cite these groups disregard the larger collective or group they're apart of (e.g. their team, their workplace). The definition of "discussion". There are stories of people being fired for merely citing agreed upon academic social/psychological research. Some sense viewpoint discrimination - fear of being sanctioned for stating their perspective - or to even say they're hurt by the topic's inferences.
  • SkyBelow 7y ago
    >Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and their own unique stories. Let me give you a real world example. In the US, the average white person goes to a better funded school than the average minority. That is a form of privilege. I personally am white, but went to a majority black school that is extremely underfunded and around an 80% below poverty level. I (and all others attending my school) missed out on numerous opportunities that other schools provided. But when people see me, they immediately stereotype me as having gone to a better funded school. This is an assumption they make about me based on my race, and which some use against me (thinking me privileged in relation to school system). When applying to college, many colleges use race to assume a level of hardship and then adjust admission standards based on hardship. Someone who goes to a very underfunded school won't score as high on the SAT as they would have if they had gone to a better school. Yet because of my race, the assumption is made that such reasoning does not apply to me.
• yodsanklai 7y ago
  Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace. Some employees are uncomfortable with discussing politics at work as it may create unnecessary tensions. Those who like debating about politics can always gather after work. I don't see what it has to with a level of privileges. That being said, I also don't like being told what type of conversations I'm allowed to have.
  • detaro 7y ago
    Companies (including Gitlab) have public statements about these things. Discrimination being illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and attempting to address it (or defending current practices) then also quickly becomes political. One of many areas where politics can easily leak into normal operations of a company.
  • midnighttoker3 7y ago
    Because someone in such a group might have a workplace issue that they believe should be addressed and pertains to treatment of that group.
  • MrRadar 7y ago
    > Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? Because what if you are an LGBT person and such things materially affect you? What happens when you bring your same-sex spouse to a company party? What happens if you realize you were born the wrong gender and decide to (publicly) transition? Suddenly you are not just "discussing" politics, your very identity is political (and that distinction is something imposed by society on you). Also note that in the US not every state has laws against LGBT discrimination. There's currently a lawsuit before the SCOTUS to decide if the existing federal ban on "sex discrimination" also applies to sexuality and gender identity but with the current composition of the court it's likely to be decided that those categories are not protected under the law.
  • slg 7y ago
    >Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace. Because the discrimination laws as they are currently setup in the US do not protect LGBTQ folks in the way they protect others. For example, in many states people can still be fired based off their gender or sexual identity [1]. I don't have to give a second thought to bringing my significant other to an office holiday party. If my coworker needs skip that same party out of fear of being fired for bringing their significant other, that is a workplace problem. [1] - https://www.fastcompany.com/90369004/lgbt-employee-protections-by-state-map-shows-where-gay-workers-can-be-fired https://www.fastcompany.com/90369004/lgbt-employee-protectio...
• Sacho 7y ago
  I don't understand how any of these conversations(besides the first one, in perhaps an HR meeting), could possibly be topical at work? The company isn't paying me to preach my political agenda. Have you also considered that while a "marginalized" person might be keenly aware, researched and emotionally invested in discussing these things, a "privileged" person may feel ambushed and distracted by these questions while they are trying to focus on work? The language and obvious expectation in many of these "discussions" is a with-us-or-against-us recruitment for the agenda, often backed up with moral blackmail(e.g. "we're fighting for our lives here and you won't even help us"). At work we try to afford each other respect, politeness and professional courtesy, but from what I've seen, these "discussions" are anything but. I don't think imposing oneself onto other people like these "discussions" do is effective. Surely you've seen the hyperbole, the aggression and vitriol that goes with them and can imagine how it seems to someone who isn't invested in the agendas? After all you ask to not be downvoted even in your meta-discussion about the topics, what about when discussing the topics themselves? I agree with the progressive arguments - that you can't just say "no politics in X", that politics are inherent to what you do. What I absolutely disagree with is the tactics employed, and I think they are not just ineffective, they have a negative effect on engagement. People may want to help, but they don't want to feel like they're being coerced to. People may want to discuss, but they want to do it on their terms. People may want to listen, but they don't want to be lectured. I think this is why there is such a strong push to disengage and ignore these problems - and I agree that they are problems that need discussion and need solutions. The in-your-face unapologetic advocacy, the constant motte-and-bailey argumentation, the extreme emotional reactions to any dissention, the preaching from a perceived moral high ground - these are not a conductive environment for changing minds. So I agree with you. I'll go even further. It's bullshit to say "no politics at work", and it's hypocritical. I will keep supporting that policy, because it's the lesser of two evils, because I think progressive strategy is counter-productive and a recipe for disaster. I'm happy to have any of these discussions, on a neutral, preferrably anonymous forum, where there is enough distance that perhaps we could have a productive argument. Work is none of those things.
  • cgiles 7y ago
    > I agree with the progressive arguments - that you can't just say "no politics in X", that politics are inherent to what you do. I would push back on this. In a trivial sense, politics is in everything, because everything is somehow related to everything else. For most work-related purposes, an LGBT issue, to take a random example, is relevant in the same way it is relevant to include the gravitational influence of Neptune when calculating the trajectory of a thrown object on Earth: technically there is an influence, but it is minute. This would be true unless, perhaps, you work in HR and dealing with this stuff is part of the job description. Naturally, strongly committed activists won't see it that way because they see literally everything through the lens of their hobbyhorse. But I agree very much with your second paragraph. I work in medical research. The important thing about it is to find cures for diseases. If some allegedly or actually marginalized person comes in and attempts to derail this important work with their own issues, it is incredibly self-centered. I don't care how bad you think your group has it, it isn't as bad as "the group of people with metastatic cancer". Privileged as I may or may not be, it isn't me such a person would be harming, it's the patients. I think most people in my field recognize this and political issues generally aren't a problem there. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the importance of the work and the likelihood that people will bring up political issues.
• friedman23 7y ago
  It seems to me what you want is not to discuss politics at work but dictate politics are work. Unless you are perfectly okay with your co worker coming in with a MAGA hat every day and explaining to you why they think LGTB people don't deserve the right to marry.
  • midnighttoker3 7y ago
    Nah, I'd rather see such a person beaten and ridiculed. Whch they would 100% deserve and I feel zero guilt about saying. Which is why I don't actually have an issue discouraging discussion of politics at work. it causes problems.
  • kelnos 7y ago
    I don't view this as a political issue at all. If I ran a company and had LGBTQ employees, I would not want what you just described because it would be creating a hostile environment for those employees. Coming into your workplace and telling your co-workers that they don't deserve equal rights under the law is just a shitty thing to do. It's an issue of basic respect and has nothing to do with politics.
    • friedman23 7y ago
      You can attempt to frame it however you would like but what you want is an environment where people can only discuss political views that you agree with. There is no harassment when someone simply states "I don't think same sex marriage should be legal.". And before I get downvoted into oblivion, I don't agree with that statement, I'm actually completely apathetic to it and think it's unimportant.
    • dodobirdlord 7y ago
      Politics is more or less the mechanism by which society takes collective action. Since people are broadly speaking in favor of free value, pretty much every policy that has nearly exclusively positive or at worst neutral effects has been implemented. It's not like anyone would oppose such policy! So "politics" exists as the realm of policy proposals that help some people and harm other people. All political opinions involve harming someone. If they didn't then they wouldn't be "political" opinions, they would just be opinions.
• jcranberry 7y ago
  I would think the most influential voice in these cases would be managers/leadership adding a provision to company guidelines and the like, in order to attempt to cultivate and safeguard a productive day to day culture. But this particular perspective isn't necessarily a function of their 'privilege' in the sense of cultural capital and an advantageous background etc, but just of their own self-interest in this exact moment.
• james_s_tayler 7y ago
  Let's not forget office politics. In that case, you basically can't discuss anything at work.
• manigandham 7y ago
  In your "neutral" comment, you're already taking a stance on the topics and automatically defining marginalized and privileged. People are far more complicated than that. That's why these discussions aren't a good idea. Companies are paying you for productivity and ensuring a calm environment is important. You have plenty of opportunity to discuss and create all the change you want elsewhere.
• legostormtroopr 7y ago
  > We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive. Except Cancel Culture is making it that these can't be discussed without complete agreement. Take for example, "Women in Tech", personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved'. For the better part of 15 years, there has been a massive movement to encourage women in STEM. There are hundreds of Women in Tech meetups, scholarships, Womens only courses... yet the numbers have barely budged in more than 10 years. Personally, it looks like in aggregate it will be difficult to get 50/50 representation of women and men in tech. To make it clear, we should definitely support everyone who is in tech, and make it an inclusive environment, but the continued push for 50/50 isn't going to happen so perhaps its not worth the huge money sink it is. At the last place I worked that opinion was flat out branded "sexist", and if you didn't vocally agree with every women in tech initiative people asked why. So I would say the ability to speak openly about politics was shut down long ago, and not by the people you think.
  • cmdshiftf4 7y ago
    >To make it clear, we should definitely support everyone who is in tech, and make it an inclusive environment, but the continued push for 50/50 isn't going to happen so perhaps its not worth the huge money sink it is. Not worth the huge money sink to whom? The companies involved? Because the ideologues of identity politics capitalizing on this "shame"-induced economy are making a fortune from it and while they continue to do so, you can expect more of the same. It will stop of course when the bubble pops, lucrative front-end JS jobs requiring a 3 month "bootcamp" to get into disappear and every remaining IC is stack ranked based on that which is quantitative.
  • jetpks 7y ago
    Women were barely allowed into workplaces in general within the last 50 years and are still fighting biases that have existed for millennia. Fixing the lack of women in tech is a multi-century process, not something that's just knocked out in as little as 15 years. We'd be lucky to start seeing the needle move in such a short amount of time.
    • 7y ago
• icelancer 7y ago
  >> Underrepresented minorities in tech >> If you disagree I’d love to understand your viewpoint as to why. I'm a underrepresented minority in just about everywhere but tech, yet you draw the line "at tech" for some arbitrary reason (as if my place of work or work opportunities defines who I am). This is why I disagree. Someone is making arbitrary groups of underrepresentation and/or minority harm who have no real claim over said power. Also: >> I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege... I am one of said underrepresented minorities "not in tech" (I also don't work in tech anymore, so I guess I'm in the clear now) who have no interest or desire to talk politics at work. Not when I was poor and drawing on EBT/SNAP/WIC and not when I've been well off, or anywhere in between. There is no absolute reason you have to be privileged to not want to talk about politics at work. This is a majorly false assumption.
• ryanackley 7y ago
  By "discussing" do you mean a bunch of people getting together to agree with each other on these topics? I ask that because I can't see a socially well-adjusted person openly opposing any of these ideas. This is the curse of political correctness. The topics you list carry the weight of such moral certainty in most peoples' minds that opposing someone's opinion on the topic will immediately trigger a negative reaction. This makes it "political" For example, if someone at an office in downtown SF openly announced they didn't want to work with an lgbt person, would their coworkers look at that person and be like "Aww, poor thing, lets discuss this with him or her so I can understand his way of thinking" or would they just think "bigot! I knew something was off about him" Btw, I think these are all important topics and I agree that we should be trying to educate people via discussion and empathy.
• AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Take underrepresented minorities in tech (presuming yours is a tech workplace): You can work on that in a "nonpolitical" way. (It is, as you say, still politics, in a way, but it's not being done like it's politics.) You say, "You know that Android developer position that's been open for four months, that we can't find anyone for? I wonder if there might be some non-traditional candidates that would fit that role. How could we go about finding them?" That's done in a non-political way. The emphasis is on "this could help the organization". Or, you could address the same issue by saying "We need to pressure HR to require them to present at least one under-represented minority candidate for each open position." That's a much more political approach to the same problem. On a more general level: > We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive. Sure. But don't do the discussing at work. That's not what work is for. (The exception is when the problem does affect work. If the workplace is trans-hostile, say, you need to address that at work, and there's probably not a non-political way to do it.)
  • eranimo 7y ago
    Serious question: why do you think work shouldn't be about discussing the issues that matter? Why dance around the issues?
    • AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Behind your question seems to be the idea that all places should be places for discussing the "ideas that matter". I don't think that is correct. Work isn't a debating society. It isn't part of a political campaign. It's a place for efficiently producing things that people want. If it fails at that, society suffers, even if some really good debates happen. We have other places for those debates; we don't have other places for producing the things that society needs.
      • JamisonM 7y ago
        Work isn't a debating society but it is part of larger society, if we all go to work building gas chambers without any willingness to discuss the political implications of having all these damn gas chambers around, well..
• manfredo 7y ago
  — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality because it’s too political. — Women in tech: Nope, let’s not go there, too political. — Underrepresented minorities in tech: Sorry it’s a pipeline problem, don’t bring politics into this. In my experience in tech (though only Silicon Valley tech companies, so that's a narrow sample) this the opposite of what is true. Companies are very eager to display how much they support LGBT movements and announce how they'll increase diversity by offering larger hiring bonuses for diverse hires and institute systems of reservations for women and non-Asian PoC. Both the private and public companies I've worked with have been very active in pursuing these goals. And we're not alone Microsoft offers larger bonuses for hiring managers that hire diverse candidates [1], and Intel withholds portions of bonuses unless diversity quotas are not met [2]. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/19/18508013/microsoft-pro-diversity-hiring-inclusion-employee-criticism-claims https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/19/18508013/microsoft-pro-di... 2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-hits-a-novel-diversity-target-it-calls-full-representation-1540818005 https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-hits-a-novel-diversity-ta...
• cgiles 7y ago
  > it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive. The reason they are so divisive is because the loud people fall into two categories: 1) people who loudly and constantly complain about these issues and for whom no amount of improvement is enough, and 2) people who think all these problems are greatly exaggerated, part of the liberal culture wars, and find it extremely annoying that anyone would bring it up. The "silent majority" in these issues are people who say "yeah, sure, it seems fair to allow gay marriage, why not" and "let's see what we can do to improve female and minority representation but let's not jump to the conclusion that anyone in particular is to blame". The hallmarks of being in this silent majority are: - being generally well-intentioned - supportive of incremental, common-sense solutions that are not zero-sum - dislikes intense conflict and blame games - does not take a view of the issue that makes one group of people the "heroes/victims" and another the "villains" So, if you hear the proposal "let's allow politics at work", who do you think is actually going to speak up? That's right, the loud and annoying people that you can hear anytime by turning on the news. Ideologues for whom compromise and assuming good faith in your opponents is anathema. No thanks.
  • mike00632 7y ago
    >The "silent majority" in these issues are people who say "yeah, sure, it seems fair to allow gay marriage, why not"... For a very long time this was NOT the majority opinion despite some brave tech companies imposing policies that prevented LGBT discrimination. Keep in mind too that many states in which tech companies do business still (with the support of the majority) legalize discrimination of LGBT in hiring, housing, lending, everything. Some states even have policies that try to prevent LGBT people from raising families. This isn't a case of two strident extremes causing a ruckus while the well-mannered majority knows best.
    • cgiles 7y ago
      Of course. Every old idea was new once, and that is the role of the activist and ideologue: to introduce new ideas for public assessment. But these people would do well to remember that the bulk of the public they are trying to convince are not ideologues as well. The well mannered majority may not know best but it is what is ultimately making the decisions.
• devmunchies 7y ago
  > If you disagree I’d love to understand your viewpoint as to why. I don't disagree, but I'm "privileged" and want to keep it that way for me and my posterity. Not ashamed in the least because its not bad to be privileged.
• zamalek 7y ago
  I'll openly admit that I don't have an answer for the deeper issue here (Gitlab selling software to evil customers), in terms of specifically politics: I don't think politics should be discussed at workplaces that do not participate in political systems in an official capacity (lobbying, PACs etc.). If your employer engages in politics, then that should be an allowed topic and/or other accommodations should be made for employees who regard their employer as morally reprehensible. > LGBTQ+, women in tech, underrepresented minorities in tech, education I don't consider these political in any way. Employees should be able to talk about how the company can improve its own diversity policies, irrespective of what the government decides what to do. The line of thinking here is similar to "separating church and state," and also that it's easier to change company policy: changing company policy provides quick and "easy" improvements to social progress, while the longer and more difficult fights at the political level occur.
  • z3phyr 7y ago
    Every voter (and non voter) is participating in a political system by choosing to vote (and not vote!). Those who got democracy also got all the responsibility with it. Those in a democratic system who do not engage in politics are bad citizens.
    • zamalek 7y ago
      Which portion of my comments suggests nonparticipation in government by citizens? It suggests exactly the opposite.
      • z3phyr 7y ago
        Voting is a continuous event. Participating in it requires extensive and continuous discussion among peers who would make up their mind.
• skybrian 7y ago
  The problem is getting hooked on politics that doesn't actually affect you personally, other people on your team, or how you do your job. Just like we do on Hacker News, you can have employees reading about stuff happening elsewhere in the world, commenting on it, and getting upset over it. At large companies, this can include things going on in different parts of the company. You don't know them or how they work, but you start taking it personally because it affects the company's reputation. I'm retired, but if I went back to work, I would want to pay more attention to helping my co-workers and accomplishing the team's mission (which of course involves some politics) and pay a lot less attention to other, less relevant politics. You can say it's privileged to want to shut out the world and concentrate on improving one thing, but I prefer to think of this as an aspirational goal.
  • eranimo 7y ago
    No, you're just privileged enough to not have to worry about a divisive political issue because it doesn't directly impact you. There's nothing wrong with that, if you're aware of it.
    • skybrian 7y ago
      But maybe this is true of most people and most political issues, other than the ones that do affect them? And even then, they might want to get away from politics when they go to work?
• TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Others made good general and specific arguments for avoiding such discussions at a workplace, but I'd like to offer a thought experiment that can help understand it better. Imagine yourself noticing that people around you start to reveal themselves as strongly religious - and not in your religion, if you subscribe to any - and very much into proselytizing. Not a day goes by without someone approaching you to convince you to believe in their god. Even when not explicitly preaching, they keep invalidating everything you worry about. "You fret about your 401k as if you were to use it. Armageddon is coming soon, and if you believe in God, you'll get the best 401k there is!". "I wonder how can you spend so much time on that hobby, when so many people still haven't heard the Good News." "Yes, this disease is a tragedy, but God's Kingdom will soon cure it, and all others too. These doctors are wasting their time." "You're depressed because of climate change? Don't be! God won't let anything happen to Earth!" At some point you would really start to prefer people to stop talking any and all religion at workplace. This isn't an arbitrary example. As a teenager, I've been that preacher. People who do that believe strongly in what they talk about - it's literally the most important issue in their lives. The conflict stems from failure to understand that just because they care about an issue, doesn't mean everyone else does too. Failing to recognize that, doubling down on efforts to make others pay attention, breeds contempt, resentment, and otherwise achieves the exact opposite of what's intended. I've seen both sides of this, and the way the topics you mention are approached today very much reminds me of such religious groups. There's a time and place for all discussions, but they need to happen in contexts where all parties are at least a little receptive, and not by performing DDOS on someone's attention, or invalidating everything they care about that's not related to the important issue.
  • alisonatwork 7y ago
    This is not a fair comparison. The OC was not talking about proselytizing, they were talking about how to create an inclusive environment at work. We cannot create an inclusive environment at work if we are not allowed to openly talk about groups who currently do not feel included and why that is.
    • ddxxdd 7y ago
      Common sense states that it's okay to talk about politics insofar as it relates to workplace productivity.
• awinder 7y ago
  I’ll take a shot at it, with the caveat that I too would like to not be downvoted into oblivion xD. So discussion for the sake of discussion is not exactly what I would see as a high need for the workplace. If you are trying to address these types of issues in a way that has business impacts, I think you’re outside of what I would term as “discussing politics”. From that list — discussing inclusivity initiatives has clear workplace benefits. Discussing a highly charged political event involving lgbt issues is adjacent to that, and has a highly likelihood of being inflammatory, and isn’t directly correlated to anything actually going on with the business. I think that framework would also help everyone stay on point. You don’t go to work to solve the worlds ills. But you can address some of the ills where it’s actually impacting your life at work. Further, it should prevent backlashes from other groups, and help humanize by getting out of ephemeral arguments and getting into discussions about building a collective environment where the business thrives and everyone is equally entitled to feel safe at work. Making work a better place — good. Making work look like Crossfire — bad.
• amoitnga 7y ago
  Here's my 2c. Why do you need to discuss anything at all? Work is where I work. I'm being paid for my time and professional expertise, not my opinion on anything else. I don't get why would I be allowed to spend that time on conversations not related to work. Being allowed to have some short talk, maybe discuss something quickly, like a game last night or something, is and should be more of a nicety. Nobody gonna stop me from doing this. But I don't see why we should be allowed spending long periods of time discussing other important issues. There are meetups, we can get together after work, go for a beer etc... And have those conversations in our personal time if we deem it important. But not during business hours. Work is for work. So banning conversations is reasonable imo, and not only political.
  • codeafin 7y ago
    >So banning conversations is reasonable imo I think that's a very sad thing to say. Say conversation is banned but "small talk" is allowed, where's the line between that? And like the guy above said, there's also no line on what's political - even talking about a video game like you said can be political. So in the end, I believe that would end up with people just avoiding talking to each other at all, to avoid any complications. And that "Why discuss anything at all?" could be applied to other places - "Why discuss anything political at a school/dance class/supermarket/bar? You're just here to learn/dance/shop/drink-and-relax. Those conversations are _banned_ here". It seems like a slippery slope to ban this natural social interaction.
    • zarkov99 7y ago
      It is sad indeed, that we lost the ability to discuss difficult issues. But it is true nonetheless, it is impossible to discuss politics unless we all pretend to be on the same page, and yes, in tech for the most part that is the left page. Silence makes for a dull workplace, but it is better than living in abject hypocrisy.
      • amoitnga 7y ago
        I'm not saying it has to be silence. I'm saying someone else shouldn't be paying for it. We have time before/after work, nothing is stopping us from having those conversations. I was only saying if from my perspective - when I talk about anything other than work, I don't code, I don't talk about possible solutions, I don't explore... I don't work.. while being paid for it. Short amount is ok, it helps to recharge, remain sane.
• zarkov99 7y ago
  Because tech culture has skewed so insanely towards the authoritarian left that any challenge to the orthodoxy your post suggests is immediately weaponized. There is simply no way to honestly discuss the points you bring up without putting one's reputation and eventually career in danger. The Damore memo is a perfect example of this. The only safe thing to do in our culture right now is virtue signal and nod along with the rest of the mob. Perhaps one day the madness will pass and we will be able to again ask hard questions in public and try, together, to get to the bottom of things. Until then, lets just not talk about these things, so that a great many of us are not forced to wallow in hypocrisy for the majority of our waking hours.
  • JamisonM 7y ago
    tech culture has skewed so insanely towards the authoritarian left Have you worked at a tech job lately? This is just.. wow..
    • zarkov99 7y ago
      Yes, have you? And more importantly do you read the news? If so then perhaps we have different ideas of what authoritarian means.
• overgard 7y ago
  Well, the problem is that practically anything can be "politics", I don't think it's a useful way to frame thinking around what you can or can't say at work. Generally though, when people say something is "politics" what it means is it comes down to a value judgement, rather than there being a middle solution, or the issue is too complicated for there to be a general consensus. As an example that probably wouldn't come up at work, consider the abortion question. If you're of the fundamentalist religious sort, your values practically demand you believe that aborting a baby is wrong. If you're not, then it's a lot more grey. Something like that is a value issue, there isn't really a compromise that doesn't involve one side changing fundamental beliefs about the world and the universe. To answer your specific issues though: - lgbt: not relevant. It's illegal to discriminate on that, so... either your company is following the law or it's not. Also: nobody needs to know. It doesn't need to be discussed, it just either needs to be litigated or not litigated. But no smart company wants their employees talking about their personal views on that because that could be a huge liability if someone has intolerant personal views (even if they don't apply them professionally). - Women in tech & underrepresented minorities: ... well it IS a pipeline problem. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of companies would love to have more diversity, but you can only hire the people that apply. I see a lot of the SJ types make offices miserable hammering on this stuff that frequently can't be fixed locally. I mean yeah, if someone is scaring away people, then address that behavior, but that's more of a "having respectful competent management" issue. - Education - Never really heard of this being an issue that isn't allowed to be talked about. I don't think anyone would really get upset about this though. Also, as others have mentioned... a lot of times when people say these issues should be "discussed" they don't really mean that. The far left generally hates "discussion" on their pet issues if there's even a hint of not towing the party line, and it quickly escalates into people being called racist. So frequently, avoiding "politics" is just saying, "please pick your fight somewhere else"
• thrwayxyz 7y ago
  It takes a huge amount of privilege to be able to talk about politics at work. The despised minorities, like zoophiles, would not only be fired but arrested with the whole office cheering that on. Something I find pretty odd given that fucking a cow is a lot better for the cow than eating it.
• austincheney 7y ago
  I don't mean to be inflammatory but you are subjectively biasing the subject of "political discussions at work" out of concern for marginalized groups. In my experience this bias often has the opposite of intended result by providing what might be a marginalized group into a specialized class deserving extra-special care instead of equality, which eventually results in entitlement and possibly resentment. If you want to protect marginalized groups write and enforce policies that focus on inclusion, equality, and anti-discrimination regardless of politics or preference. In other words: when nobody is special everybody is equally special.
• ryandrake 7y ago
  In all of your example topics (and others), there are clear sets of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" opinions, and if you share an unacceptable one, you face all kinds of potential work-impacting repercussions ranging from "sad faces" to getting fired. In the spirit of imagining you're in the out group: Imagine you're a Trump supporter and work in a big-name SV tech company. Someone asks you at work "Boy, Trump is a bonehead, isn't he?" Well, now you're put in a no-win situation: You have to either lie about your beliefs to keep everyone happy, share your beliefs and risk getting fired or some other type of discipline. Or, you'll need to dodge by saying "I don't think it's appropriate to talk about politics at work," leaving it to the asker to speculate about your views. Remember "Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" At the end where most people are aliens and the few real humans have to put on a fake persona in order to walk around freely? If you slipped up and dropped the persona for an instant they'd all point at you and make that alien noise, and you're done for! That must be what it feels like to hold unorthodox political views working in a Silicon Valley tech company these days.
• BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Yeah, taken in the most widely possible way, politics is anything that you say or do outside of your family - so it becomes the absurd injunction of "no communication or work allowed at work"...
• egoisticalgoat 7y ago
  These kinds of policy always scare me because people don't realize how prevalent politics are in our daily lives, even as devs. Dark patterns? Ad tracking? Hell, even something as simple as a dropdown for sex/gender is political. With these kinds of policies, you're forced not to think, just execute.
• iliketocomplain 7y ago
  > Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, ... I'm not a racist, but ...
• eadmund 7y ago
  I suspect very strongly that each of your 'marginalised' groups would have much greater luck discussing politics at works than its opposite. I can't imagine any tech company these days allowing folks to use work time to support the traditional view of marriage, traditional gender roles or old-fashioned racial views (that last, in particular, is completely unimaginable — and that's a really good thing!). I think the privilege right now belongs to those in those 'marginalised' groups, who have the privilege to advocate for their views.