9 ms·

To be clear, "keep politics out of the workplace" is another way of saying "I'm okay with the status quo, and if you don't like it I don't want to hear about it

To be clear, "keep politics out of the workplace" is another way of saying "I'm okay with the status quo, and if you don't like it I don't want to hear about it at work".

ta999999171 7y ago
It's actually another way of saying I'm okay with MY status quo. Not that that's good, necessarily. Just distinct.
zozbot234 7y ago
The "status quo" in the workplace (at least in this rather narrow subsector of "tech") is far from politics-free, so I'm not sure that your comment makes much sense.
- bbddg 7y ago
  I think what they mean by status quo is the political and power dynamics. Not how much "politics" is discussed.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Because discussing garden-variety, oppositional politics at work is how you can change "political and power dynamics" most effectively, of course. Not, e.g. by focusing on the actual policy issues you care most about, applying systems thinking and seeking plausible points of leverage (which often boils down to rejecting the oppositional game entirely and "pushing the rope sideways" in wholly unexpected ways). Seriously?
    - bbddg 7y ago
      I don't understand what you mean. I'm definitely not saying that "garden-variety, oppositional politics at work is how you can change "political and power dynamics" most effectively." The type of politics I want in the workplace is the politics of building worker power and fomenting radical labor unrest.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dmix 7y ago
The old switcheroo: by not being in support of office political activism like me that means you just support the [insert bad guys]. Rabble rabble. This sort of logic and villianization just adds to my reasons for not wanting that in my workplace.
zorpner 7y ago
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. What you're saying is absolutely true -- keeping politics out of anything is endorsement of the status quo. And even more specifically, as it relates to the workplace, anything you build with your labor is endorsement of that thing. That endorsement may be (and often is) coerced, whether by circumstance of lack of resources, H-1B visa, et cetera. But pretending that the things we build are apolitical is self-deception. If you build tools for ICE to put children in cages, you're building tools to put children in cages.
- tpmoney 7y ago
  This is, of course, absolute nonsense. If I’m running a mini golf enthusiasts group, keeping discussion on topic and not going off on the latest Trump fail or the most recent celebrity to reveal themselves as a serial sexual assaulter is neither an endorsement of Trump nor of sexual assault. It’s recognizing that not everyone wants to spend every minute of every day in every place discussing your particular bugaboo. There are literally thousands of places to have these discussions, they don’t need to happen everywhere and you don’t need to be constantly getting confirmation from everyone around you that they agree with your political views.
- sowbug 7y ago
  American freedom is the ability to earn a living and raise a family without paying a price for your political views. _Especially_ political views that you, zorpner, find reprehensible.
manigandham 7y ago
No it absolutely isn't. Adding an arbitrary and incendiary meaning to what others say is a major problem. You can create as many enemies as you want that way and it just fuels more division.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  So, should people who are inherently political, say gay, trans, or non-binary folk not exist in the workplace?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Again, nobody in this entire page has said anything like that. How did you come up with this statement? And no, the vast majority of people don't consider those characteristics to be political at all and really don't care. Come in, do work, go home, and don't hurt anyone. It's not a complicated political argument.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      > Again, nobody in this entire page has said anything like that. How did you come up with this statement? Something about lying with dogs and fleas. I'm happy to listen if you elaborate on what exactly you mean by political. Though I'll caution by stating that in general, I find that most "political" issues can be phrased as consequences of ethical concerns (if there weren't underlying ethical disagreements, there wouldn't be political issues). Let's take as an example the act of a company contracting with CBP. This is "political", in the sense that it is, to many, clearly an act of protest against the current administration. On the other hand, if one has ethical objections to separating children from their parents, or any number of other things, there can be a moral (and if one is an ACM member, an organizational) imperative to escalate when you have ethical concerns. In essence, if I believe the family separation policy hurts people, and my company may enable that policy, do I have a moral imperative to escalate my concerns about the hurt we're causing? Or is doing so "political" and therefore inappropriate to mention at work?
notadoc 7y ago
Someones job function at work is to perform their job duties. Unless someone works directly in politics, then politics do not belong in the workplace. There are plenty of other impolite subjects that are inappropriate to discuss at work too.
- ltrcola 7y ago
  Companies themselves are inherently political though, just by existing. They exist in the context of society and are made possible by the legal structures created by politics. And they generally advocate for themselves within the political system (a good example is lobbying). So there are certainly limits in the workplace and there is a line to toe for toleration and polite conversation, but saying "politics do not belong in the workplace" is pretty absurd.
  - username90 7y ago
    My coworker is free to march against gay rights on his free time, but if he brings it up every meeting as a topic we can't ignore then I'd call the workplace toxic and quit. The same goes for any other political topic people feel strongly for.
    - ltrcola 7y ago
      Why would someone bring it up at every meeting? That's a pretty big straw man argument. I'm sure there are outliers that do that, but they are rare. On the other hand, many gay folks are afraid to even mention their partner at all at work, even casually in the what that most people do. In that case, the belief that "gay rights are political" that some folks have are creating a toxic environment.
      - username90 7y ago
        > Why would someone bring it up at every meeting? That's a pretty big straw man argument. I'm sure there are outliers that do that, but they are rare. Note that I said that someone who constantly argue against gay rights is toxic, I have met people like that (not specifically gay, but about immigrants for example) and being around them is not fun. > On the other hand, many gay folks are afraid to even mention their partner at all at work, even casually in the what that most people do. In that case it is no longer political and they can complain that people targeted them for being gay.
remarkEon 7y ago
To be clear, Kafkatrapping, which is what you’re doing, is the most insidious manifestation of this culture because it turns everyone who isn’t trying to out-do the next one into a potential “enemy”.
- projektfu 7y ago
  Perhaps you’re also amping up the discussion. It’s one thing to say “you have no complaints because it works for you”. It’s another to say “you can’t say anything useful because of your white privilege and class alliance “
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    I guess that’s true to a certain extent. Unfortunately, today it is very apparent that the former example is conflated with the latter all the time. The “status quo” for the noisy people really is “white privilege and class alliance” (I’m using your terms to try to not inject any other value statements into this obviously contentious issue).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notJim 7y ago
I'm curious about the actual arguments people are making. I could see a few, with most people arguing a mix of a couple: 1. People who politically disagree with the work the company is doing should just leave. They do not have the right to resist or organize against it. 2. Google should just go along with anything the government does. If there's an opportunity for profit, Google should pursue it. If employees disagree, they should vote. Otherwise, see #1. 3. Google should have some moral tests, but the current situation passes the test. It's not as bad as people are saying. I honestly don't see how any of these are tenable. Number one is an argument against labor organizing in general, and the cats kind of out the bag there. Number two is just a variant of number one, and number three is inherently political—it's a situation where people see things differently, and the way we resolve those is politics.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> "keep politics out of the workplace" Pretty much all of the “pro-politics at the workplace” types would demand that anybody who wore a MAGA hat be fired… so I think that the people who think politics in the workplace are OK are the ones who are actually the ones maintaining the actual status quo: you can have opinions, as long as they’re the same as mine.
- zionic 7y ago
  Yep, quite simply they demand both the presence of politics in the workplace and their own monopoly on the politics displayed.

To be clear, "keep politics out of the workplace" is another way of saying "I'm okay with the status quo, and if you don't like it I don't want to hear about it at work".

ta999999171 7y ago

It's actually another way of saying I'm okay with MY status quo. Not that that's good, necessarily. Just distinct.

zozbot234 7y ago

The "status quo" in the workplace (at least in this rather narrow subsector of "tech") is far from politics-free, so I'm not sure that your comment makes much sense.

bbddg 7y ago
I think what they mean by status quo is the political and power dynamics. Not how much "politics" is discussed.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Because discussing garden-variety, oppositional politics at work is how you can change "political and power dynamics" most effectively, of course. Not, e.g. by focusing on the actual policy issues you care most about, applying systems thinking and seeking plausible points of leverage (which often boils down to rejecting the oppositional game entirely and "pushing the rope sideways" in wholly unexpected ways). Seriously?
  - bbddg 7y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. I'm definitely not saying that "garden-variety, oppositional politics at work is how you can change "political and power dynamics" most effectively." The type of politics I want in the workplace is the politics of building worker power and fomenting radical labor unrest.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dmix 7y ago

The old switcheroo: by not being in support of office political activism like me that means you just support the [insert bad guys]. Rabble rabble. This sort of logic and villianization just adds to my reasons for not wanting that in my workplace.

zorpner 7y ago

I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. What you're saying is absolutely true -- keeping politics out of anything is endorsement of the status quo. And even more specifically, as it relates to the workplace, anything you build with your labor is endorsement of that thing. That endorsement may be (and often is) coerced, whether by circumstance of lack of resources, H-1B visa, et cetera. But pretending that the things we build are apolitical is self-deception. If you build tools for ICE to put children in cages, you're building tools to put children in cages.

tpmoney 7y ago
This is, of course, absolute nonsense. If I’m running a mini golf enthusiasts group, keeping discussion on topic and not going off on the latest Trump fail or the most recent celebrity to reveal themselves as a serial sexual assaulter is neither an endorsement of Trump nor of sexual assault. It’s recognizing that not everyone wants to spend every minute of every day in every place discussing your particular bugaboo. There are literally thousands of places to have these discussions, they don’t need to happen everywhere and you don’t need to be constantly getting confirmation from everyone around you that they agree with your political views.
sowbug 7y ago
American freedom is the ability to earn a living and raise a family without paying a price for your political views. _Especially_ political views that you, zorpner, find reprehensible.

manigandham 7y ago

No it absolutely isn't. Adding an arbitrary and incendiary meaning to what others say is a major problem. You can create as many enemies as you want that way and it just fuels more division.

joshuamorton 7y ago
So, should people who are inherently political, say gay, trans, or non-binary folk not exist in the workplace?
- manigandham 7y ago
  Again, nobody in this entire page has said anything like that. How did you come up with this statement? And no, the vast majority of people don't consider those characteristics to be political at all and really don't care. Come in, do work, go home, and don't hurt anyone. It's not a complicated political argument.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > Again, nobody in this entire page has said anything like that. How did you come up with this statement? Something about lying with dogs and fleas. I'm happy to listen if you elaborate on what exactly you mean by political. Though I'll caution by stating that in general, I find that most "political" issues can be phrased as consequences of ethical concerns (if there weren't underlying ethical disagreements, there wouldn't be political issues). Let's take as an example the act of a company contracting with CBP. This is "political", in the sense that it is, to many, clearly an act of protest against the current administration. On the other hand, if one has ethical objections to separating children from their parents, or any number of other things, there can be a moral (and if one is an ACM member, an organizational) imperative to escalate when you have ethical concerns. In essence, if I believe the family separation policy hurts people, and my company may enable that policy, do I have a moral imperative to escalate my concerns about the hurt we're causing? Or is doing so "political" and therefore inappropriate to mention at work?

notadoc 7y ago

Someones job function at work is to perform their job duties. Unless someone works directly in politics, then politics do not belong in the workplace. There are plenty of other impolite subjects that are inappropriate to discuss at work too.

ltrcola 7y ago
Companies themselves are inherently political though, just by existing. They exist in the context of society and are made possible by the legal structures created by politics. And they generally advocate for themselves within the political system (a good example is lobbying). So there are certainly limits in the workplace and there is a line to toe for toleration and polite conversation, but saying "politics do not belong in the workplace" is pretty absurd.
- username90 7y ago
  My coworker is free to march against gay rights on his free time, but if he brings it up every meeting as a topic we can't ignore then I'd call the workplace toxic and quit. The same goes for any other political topic people feel strongly for.
  - ltrcola 7y ago
    Why would someone bring it up at every meeting? That's a pretty big straw man argument. I'm sure there are outliers that do that, but they are rare. On the other hand, many gay folks are afraid to even mention their partner at all at work, even casually in the what that most people do. In that case, the belief that "gay rights are political" that some folks have are creating a toxic environment.
    - username90 7y ago
      > Why would someone bring it up at every meeting? That's a pretty big straw man argument. I'm sure there are outliers that do that, but they are rare. Note that I said that someone who constantly argue against gay rights is toxic, I have met people like that (not specifically gay, but about immigrants for example) and being around them is not fun. > On the other hand, many gay folks are afraid to even mention their partner at all at work, even casually in the what that most people do. In that case it is no longer political and they can complain that people targeted them for being gay.

remarkEon 7y ago

To be clear, Kafkatrapping, which is what you’re doing, is the most insidious manifestation of this culture because it turns everyone who isn’t trying to out-do the next one into a potential “enemy”.

projektfu 7y ago
Perhaps you’re also amping up the discussion. It’s one thing to say “you have no complaints because it works for you”. It’s another to say “you can’t say anything useful because of your white privilege and class alliance “
- remarkEon 7y ago
  I guess that’s true to a certain extent. Unfortunately, today it is very apparent that the former example is conflated with the latter all the time. The “status quo” for the noisy people really is “white privilege and class alliance” (I’m using your terms to try to not inject any other value statements into this obviously contentious issue).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

notJim 7y ago

I'm curious about the actual arguments people are making. I could see a few, with most people arguing a mix of a couple: 1. People who politically disagree with the work the company is doing should just leave. They do not have the right to resist or organize against it. 2. Google should just go along with anything the government does. If there's an opportunity for profit, Google should pursue it. If employees disagree, they should vote. Otherwise, see #1. 3. Google should have some moral tests, but the current situation passes the test. It's not as bad as people are saying. I honestly don't see how any of these are tenable. Number one is an argument against labor organizing in general, and the cats kind of out the bag there. Number two is just a variant of number one, and number three is inherently political—it's a situation where people see things differently, and the way we resolve those is politics.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> "keep politics out of the workplace" Pretty much all of the “pro-politics at the workplace” types would demand that anybody who wore a MAGA hat be fired… so I think that the people who think politics in the workplace are OK are the ones who are actually the ones maintaining the actual status quo: you can have opinions, as long as they’re the same as mine.

zionic 7y ago
Yep, quite simply they demand both the presence of politics in the workplace and their own monopoly on the politics displayed.