4 ms·

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 an

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?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      There's nothing wrong with you privately expressing your concern about a project to superiors, and leaving the company if you don't agree. When you protest against it publicly in the workplace and shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you, then we have a problem. This is the difference between escalating concerns vs political activism, regardless of the actual issue at stake.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you Isn't this what you're doing now: shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about the place of political discussion in the workplace? Edit: To rephrase since you missed what I was getting at: you are advocating for institutional support in silencing people who express views with which you disagree in the workplace. That is, views which are "too political" should be forbidden and, if expressed, presumably shouted down or otherwise silenced. If for example, I expressed my disagreement with you that I believe political views are reasonable to express in the workplace, what action would you take?
        manigandham 7y ago
        No, I'm discussing. This isn't a workplace, it's a public internet forum. Nobody is prevented from participating here by my posts. You're free to discuss whatever you want as well. Replying to your edit => A workplace is different than the state. You do not have complete freedom within a corporation, and expression is very different from beliefs. Nobody cares about your beliefs, but your expression will be limited to increase harmony and productivity within a commercial space where you're paid to do work.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        You didn't actually address my question, and I made no mention of the state. I'm going to quote you again: you claimed that > When you protest against it publicly in the workplace and shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you, then we have a problem. I'm asking if you think that's generally true. For example, if you actually believe this, you would presumably make no attempt to silence me if I protested something in the workplace, as doing so would be taking exactly the action you object to. Presumably you would internally object to my protesting something, and we both agree that that's alright. But were you to express that concern outwardly, say by asking me to stop, it would be shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about workplace conduct. And therefore we would have a problem, or more correctly, you would have a problem with yourself. In other words, we encounter a bit of a paradox. How you resolve this paradox is of paramount importance: the value system you use to resolve this paradox becomes the values you use in the workplace. I'm using this to illustrate a point: there isn't a "null" position. Nebulously banning "political" views doesn't work unless you're clear about what makes something political. And people will disagree with you on those things. Its much less painful to ban things based on content (say: cursing or insults) than "how political it is", because the second is just an excuse to let your values implicitly bias the local Overton window without acknowledging that.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Fine, I'll bite. Is idea that expecting you not to berate your coworkers about your pet political issue is erasure? If so, then yes. I'm not willing to work with anyone who doesn't assume that I'm interacting with them on a good-faith basis by default. If your only tool for examining the motivations of outsider-groups is bigotry and bias, then all you will find is bigotry and bias.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. > Is idea that expecting you not to berate your coworkers about your pet political issue is erasure? No, the idea is that being trans in the workplace can lead to discrimination, and I've seen people use the excuse that identifying as trans is political to tell trans people they can't use preferred pronouns or use a preferred restroom or like wear what they want to work. That's bigotry and bias under the guise of apolitical-ness, no matter what you're looking for.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Pointing out the inherent privilege-preserving effects of discouraging challenge to the status quo is not adding an incendiary meaning. It's lifting a latent consequence to the level of manifest evidence. This understandably makes some people uncomfortable. It challenges beliefs, it challenges self-worth, it challenges value systems, it challenges worldviews. None of these invalidate the underlying concept that sheltering today's winners from any challenge, complaint, or criticism, is inherently repressive to those outside that class.
- busterarm 7y ago
  If we work together, you should assume good faith. We are all on the same team at work. That's the point.
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    No, we're not. I'm not on your side just because we work for the same company. I'm not even on the company's side. I'm on my side, first and last and always. If cooperation helps me, so be it. But if cooperation harms me, then I will speak up. If I am not heard, I will leave. That is my inherent and sovereign right as a human being.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Wouldn't an assumption of good faith presume a capacity for frank discussion? Oddly enough, I'm debating (on Mastodon) against the notion that a Single Global Authority defined as "suitably free", supported through taxes, would be a prefered / acceptable alternative to present private Internet service provisioning. I agree with most of the sentiment, particularly public subsidy of comms capabilities. The concern is that it's not possibly to simply define a thing as "suitably free", you've got to work in a real world, in which definitions don't simply instantiate themselves, in which adversaries may take control of critical regulatory bodies (I pointed out that One Geopolitical Party with interests Significantly Opposed to Another has in recent history held the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, where the UN was the proposed Internet provisioning entity). Similarly: you can't simply declare by definition or fiat that we're all on the same team. For multiple parties' interests to be fairly represented and addressed, there must be some mechanism for representing and addressing those concerns. Otherwise the proposal simply ignores existing realities and complexities and attempts to abstract them out of existence. They'll reappear in time in other places or forms. Additionally, my understaning of "presume good faith" may be different from yours. It's not so much a belief I'll maintain, most especially in the absence of evidence. It's an operating and communications modality I will attempt to sustain (and hope others do), up to the point at which it is clearly no longer tenable. It's an extension of all feasible grace and credit, to the point that no possible justification for that extension remains. Andreas Schou, a Googler, used to have an excellent guide to moderation pinned to his profile page there. A copy survives here: https://www.voidstar.com/Takeout/ActivityLog/Comments.html https://www.voidstar.com/Takeout/ActivityLog/Comments.html I've posted it, with paragraph breaks to Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/raw/W3vpntgM https://pastebin.com/raw/W3vpntgM

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?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    There's nothing wrong with you privately expressing your concern about a project to superiors, and leaving the company if you don't agree. When you protest against it publicly in the workplace and shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you, then we have a problem. This is the difference between escalating concerns vs political activism, regardless of the actual issue at stake.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      > shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you Isn't this what you're doing now: shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about the place of political discussion in the workplace? Edit: To rephrase since you missed what I was getting at: you are advocating for institutional support in silencing people who express views with which you disagree in the workplace. That is, views which are "too political" should be forbidden and, if expressed, presumably shouted down or otherwise silenced. If for example, I expressed my disagreement with you that I believe political views are reasonable to express in the workplace, what action would you take?
      - manigandham 7y ago
        No, I'm discussing. This isn't a workplace, it's a public internet forum. Nobody is prevented from participating here by my posts. You're free to discuss whatever you want as well. Replying to your edit => A workplace is different than the state. You do not have complete freedom within a corporation, and expression is very different from beliefs. Nobody cares about your beliefs, but your expression will be limited to increase harmony and productivity within a commercial space where you're paid to do work.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        You didn't actually address my question, and I made no mention of the state. I'm going to quote you again: you claimed that > When you protest against it publicly in the workplace and shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you, then we have a problem. I'm asking if you think that's generally true. For example, if you actually believe this, you would presumably make no attempt to silence me if I protested something in the workplace, as doing so would be taking exactly the action you object to. Presumably you would internally object to my protesting something, and we both agree that that's alright. But were you to express that concern outwardly, say by asking me to stop, it would be shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about workplace conduct. And therefore we would have a problem, or more correctly, you would have a problem with yourself. In other words, we encounter a bit of a paradox. How you resolve this paradox is of paramount importance: the value system you use to resolve this paradox becomes the values you use in the workplace. I'm using this to illustrate a point: there isn't a "null" position. Nebulously banning "political" views doesn't work unless you're clear about what makes something political. And people will disagree with you on those things. Its much less painful to ban things based on content (say: cursing or insults) than "how political it is", because the second is just an excuse to let your values implicitly bias the local Overton window without acknowledging that.
busterarm 7y ago
Fine, I'll bite. Is idea that expecting you not to berate your coworkers about your pet political issue is erasure? If so, then yes. I'm not willing to work with anyone who doesn't assume that I'm interacting with them on a good-faith basis by default. If your only tool for examining the motivations of outsider-groups is bigotry and bias, then all you will find is bigotry and bias.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. > Is idea that expecting you not to berate your coworkers about your pet political issue is erasure? No, the idea is that being trans in the workplace can lead to discrimination, and I've seen people use the excuse that identifying as trans is political to tell trans people they can't use preferred pronouns or use a preferred restroom or like wear what they want to work. That's bigotry and bias under the guise of apolitical-ness, no matter what you're looking for.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Pointing out the inherent privilege-preserving effects of discouraging challenge to the status quo is not adding an incendiary meaning. It's lifting a latent consequence to the level of manifest evidence. This understandably makes some people uncomfortable. It challenges beliefs, it challenges self-worth, it challenges value systems, it challenges worldviews. None of these invalidate the underlying concept that sheltering today's winners from any challenge, complaint, or criticism, is inherently repressive to those outside that class.

busterarm 7y ago
If we work together, you should assume good faith. We are all on the same team at work. That's the point.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  No, we're not. I'm not on your side just because we work for the same company. I'm not even on the company's side. I'm on my side, first and last and always. If cooperation helps me, so be it. But if cooperation harms me, then I will speak up. If I am not heard, I will leave. That is my inherent and sovereign right as a human being.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Wouldn't an assumption of good faith presume a capacity for frank discussion? Oddly enough, I'm debating (on Mastodon) against the notion that a Single Global Authority defined as "suitably free", supported through taxes, would be a prefered / acceptable alternative to present private Internet service provisioning. I agree with most of the sentiment, particularly public subsidy of comms capabilities. The concern is that it's not possibly to simply define a thing as "suitably free", you've got to work in a real world, in which definitions don't simply instantiate themselves, in which adversaries may take control of critical regulatory bodies (I pointed out that One Geopolitical Party with interests Significantly Opposed to Another has in recent history held the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, where the UN was the proposed Internet provisioning entity). Similarly: you can't simply declare by definition or fiat that we're all on the same team. For multiple parties' interests to be fairly represented and addressed, there must be some mechanism for representing and addressing those concerns. Otherwise the proposal simply ignores existing realities and complexities and attempts to abstract them out of existence. They'll reappear in time in other places or forms. Additionally, my understaning of "presume good faith" may be different from yours. It's not so much a belief I'll maintain, most especially in the absence of evidence. It's an operating and communications modality I will attempt to sustain (and hope others do), up to the point at which it is clearly no longer tenable. It's an extension of all feasible grace and credit, to the point that no possible justification for that extension remains. Andreas Schou, a Googler, used to have an excellent guide to moderation pinned to his profile page there. A copy survives here: https://www.voidstar.com/Takeout/ActivityLog/Comments.html https://www.voidstar.com/Takeout/ActivityLog/Comments.html I've posted it, with paragraph breaks to Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/raw/W3vpntgM https://pastebin.com/raw/W3vpntgM