3 ms·

Neat. Yes there are legitimate cases in which politics should certainly enter the workplace (legitimate labour disputes definitely being among these). These are

Neat. Yes there are legitimate cases in which politics should certainly enter the workplace (legitimate labour disputes definitely being among these). These are disputes that are more or less employees versus employers. But I don't see how anyone can reasonably make the case that (much of) the recent political activism at Google has been an example of defending general workers rights against abuses. It seems more like an attempt to push group politics (the group in question not representing the viewpoint or interests of all employees) onto an institution. As a rule of thumb, if the idea of the opposite side of your stance doing the same thing, with the same tactics, makes you feel uneasy - you might think twice about setting the precedence.

dmos62 7y ago
Is not being surveilled not in the interest of "general workers"? That's hard to answer, because what exactly is the worker? All groups and subgroups are divided to some extent; there will not be a conflict without multiple layers of subdivision. I agree that censorship of political discourse is a problem. Or religious, or of any subject. The "let's not talk politics amongst friends" (or at work) line of thought is a form of censorship that is in many ways self-imposed. I think that we're so bent on being right that we become blind to others' incentives, interests and other elements of subjectivity and lose the ability to resolve conflicts. Then the obvious option is to evade situations where we might have conflicts. A culture-wide communication problem. I'd like to see people comfortable discussing anything anytime with anyone.
- mkohlmyr 7y ago
  I'd love to live in a world where that was the case as well, but I'm not seeing much of that going around at the moment. And yes, I'd agree that in this case it could likely be considered a general workplace issue where most employees would be on the same side against the corporation. I think the original comment was talking more about the recent instances of protests however (don't do business with X, Y, Z because it conflicts with my politics etc).
  - dmos62 7y ago
    In my mind what I mention applies to workplace protests. A member of an organisation that feels at odds with its values doesn't have many choices. Swallow your world-view, speak up, or leave silently. It's not an easy situation to be in.

dmos62 7y ago

Is not being surveilled not in the interest of "general workers"? That's hard to answer, because what exactly is the worker? All groups and subgroups are divided to some extent; there will not be a conflict without multiple layers of subdivision. I agree that censorship of political discourse is a problem. Or religious, or of any subject. The "let's not talk politics amongst friends" (or at work) line of thought is a form of censorship that is in many ways self-imposed. I think that we're so bent on being right that we become blind to others' incentives, interests and other elements of subjectivity and lose the ability to resolve conflicts. Then the obvious option is to evade situations where we might have conflicts. A culture-wide communication problem. I'd like to see people comfortable discussing anything anytime with anyone.

mkohlmyr 7y ago
I'd love to live in a world where that was the case as well, but I'm not seeing much of that going around at the moment. And yes, I'd agree that in this case it could likely be considered a general workplace issue where most employees would be on the same side against the corporation. I think the original comment was talking more about the recent instances of protests however (don't do business with X, Y, Z because it conflicts with my politics etc).
- dmos62 7y ago
  In my mind what I mention applies to workplace protests. A member of an organisation that feels at odds with its values doesn't have many choices. Swallow your world-view, speak up, or leave silently. It's not an easy situation to be in.