3 ms·
> but also prevents those people who want to defend the status quo. You don't have to defend the status quo, if no one is allowed to challenge it. In other wor
by Faark 7y ago
> but also prevents those people who want to defend the status quo.
You don't have to defend the status quo, if no one is allowed to challenge it. In other words your ideal office is set in favor of the status quo. And a century ago, would likely not have hired women or blacks. Since that would have been "political".
Thing is, I'm actually in favor of this. Most companies should probably stick to avoiding politics as good as possible and give their employees freedom to do whatever they want outside of work. At the same time, "X employee does [bad thing]" headlines make this damn hard, and thus the company will have to distance itself from what such employees do... worst case by terminating the relationship.
Long story short, having a highly divided society will lead to a lot of pain. No way around it. Finding ways to work against those divisions before they get even worse, even if that means conflict, seem more important than to just bury one's head in the sand.
- manfredo 7y agoYou are erroneous in your belief that bringing politics into the workplace is a means to work against division. Quite the opposite. When politics are brought into the workplace, political discussion is monopolized by people with power (be it explicit authority, or social influence) and exclude people whose politics are opposed to them. Politics, by nature, tends to divide people which is precisely why companies that want to avoid a divided workforce don't allow politics in their workplace.