19 ms·

I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the st

I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, not just which “party” you like. The very act of being a company is very relative to the laws and regulations your country has, which are of course determined by politics. Coinbase is specifically a company about cryptocurrency. Crypto is directly related to a how governments manage their own currency, the right to privacy, law circumvention (see Alpha Bay), and so on. How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do?

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Should toilets be political too? Which would you use?
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Toilets are political which is why certain places have moved to uni-sex toilets.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    I mean the porcelain friend specifically. Which party symbols should it be ordained with?
chii 6y ago
> you can’t truly be apolitical; that's one of those "you're either with us or against us" type of deal - which is not the right way to deal with anything imho. You _can_ be apolitical - as in, you do not let your political views affect what you do. You keep your political views private. You do not try to change anyone else's political views as part of your job.
- rmc 6y ago
  I think the issue is “How do you decide what is political and what isn't?” e.g. if you're a communist, then the existence is shareholders is political support for capitalism. So how do you remain “apolitical” then?
  - chii 6y ago
    > So how do you remain “apolitical” then? Outside of your job, you can be as politically active as you wish. Nobody is saying you should stop all political activism. But if i walk into a store intending to buy something, i don't want to be blasted with any political message or be asked to sign up for a rally or donate to some cause i don't care about. And an employee should work on the job they are being hired to do, not spend work time undertaking political activism unless explicitly allowed by their boss (for example, your company may allow you time off for charity or such activities). If, for example, your political view is that of communism, then you will have to suffer in silence in the USA while working for shareholders/owners of property. Or quit your job if you cannot stand it. What you can't do is use your job as a resource to push that view further than you could on your own.
    - throwaway936482 6y ago
      So that's unions out then. Sounds like a political stance to me if you ban people from advocating for collective bargaining in the workplace.
      - chii 6y ago
        collective bargaining starts at the level of government - not within the workplace. It would obviously be in the interest of the employer to stop it from starting up. So you take this political stance outside of work. If enough people can be convinced that collective bargaining is a good idea, it will get enshrined into law. Employers will have to comply. On the other hand, organising during work time (which is being paid for by your employer) is unethical - and regardless of my feelings of the idea of collective bargaining, it should not be done on someone else's dime.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
celticninja 6y ago
certain roles require you to be apolitical, i'm thinking of employees of a national civil service whose role is to implement policy not decide it. If you had to quit when a party you didnt support was in power it would cause huge problems for continuity of services. Essentially then the civil service becomes political, which is really what it should not be.
pracer 6y ago
You are confusing people with companies. A person is political, a company should not. Otherwise, you are siding with totalitarian regimes that decide which services or rights you have based on what you think or believe. It was tried in the past, good luck for that.
- Nursie 6y ago
  When things like climate science have been turned into political issues, this is next to impossible.
username90 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. Being gay is not political. Being trans is not political. Being black is not political. Saying that gays/trans/black people shouldn't exist or doesn't belong is political. Saying that everyone needs to care about gay/trans/black rights is political. A trans person and a fundamental Christian who works well together without bringing up either political stance are not political. If the fundamental Christian makes a fuzz then he is political and should be reprimanded. If the trans person digs into the Christians opinions until they find something to get angry about and then get angry they are political. I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand.
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  > If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. And what happens when it's not the case? When people don't just treat people of foo group normally, and it's happening throughout the company? What should foo group do? Ask the company to get to an apolitical state where they can just do their job? Let people in the company know that it's going on? By you definition, that's political and wrong. Or do they just bear the cost of it while others continue doing what they're doing? > I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand Because (In my opinion) you're starting with a fundamentally flawed premise that there isn't already politics in the work place. There always has been. The important difference is that the only thing that gets branded as "politics" is anything different from the status quo. If it's politics aligned with the status quo it's not seen as politics even when it it. A similar example. I'm not taking a stand on it in any way here, but kneeling during the national anthem before a football game was considered a political act (which it is). One response was "keep politics out of football" (parallel to our discussion here). But again similar to our discussion here it was glossing over the fact that playing the national anthem before a sporting event is an extremely political action to begin with (ex. Should we play the national anthem before a game of Jeopardy?). Saying there wasn't politics before / by default, is just turning a blind eye to the existing politics because it's the status quo.
cblconfederate 6y ago
it's correct that crypto is against all politics, and thus coinbase is de facto far-libertarian, or anarchocapitalist. That doesn't prevent it from creating "an apolitical culture" in their workplace. Just like how , today , a libertarian might work for the Fed or something. I thought their point is that the politics of individual workers won't distract from the company's "mission" (whatever that is, i assume it's the product). that said i think it's wrong to ascribe political motives to every move and claim that nobody can be a-political in public. Political belongs to the public sphere and not everyone wants to live in there.
vowelless 6y ago
> Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, It is so sad that people increasingly have this view. Politics was never how “we engaged and collaborated in society”.
- clinta 6y ago
  Politics is discussing when it is justified and appropriate to use violence. For enforcing laws, collecting taxes ect... All peaceful human interaction falls outside of that.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    I legitimately do not understand defining collecting taxes as violence. That's like the third time I've seen this type of argument on HN. I don't get it. Can you please explain that to me?
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      Most tax collection is completed without violence in practical sense. But taxes are backed by the threat of violence. If you don't pay them, you can be charged with a crime and ultimately imprisoned. And if you try to resist imprisonment that is enforced with armed agents of the state who will use force to compel you. Taxes aren't voluntary. This is an old libertarian argument, which when taken to its narrow logical conclusion says all taxes are fundamentally theft and immoral. The primary counter-argument is to suggest that the property or wages being taxed aren't "fully" the possessions of the taxed individual or entity. If you are receiving wages in part because of the state apparatus, then the wages weren't fully yours to begin with. Various forms of social contract theory are used to justify taxes. The other main argument is probably more utilitarian. Your right to property only extends to the extent that it is socially valuable in comparison to other rights and responsibilities. Property is this model isn't a fundamental right, but one mechanism used in combinations with others to maximize human welfare.
      - throwaways885 6y ago
Allower 6y ago
If you don't know how to separate social issues from politics, well shit, that's the whole problem isn't it. Figure it out or continue being a moron dragging civilization back into the dark ages.
mc32 6y ago
Politics is too personal and can only lead to discord among employees. There is little upside to politics being in the open in an established company. It may be useful in attracting talent at some point, but at another point it becomes a liability, unless your company is a PAC or something of the sort. If you serve a wide audience or have a wide workforce, it’s less headache if workers separate their politics from their work unless the employer is paying you to be political.
- philipov 6y ago
  Yes, and choosing to have such a policy about political discussion is a political act that supports the status quo by quashing dissent. Therefore, many people who are not happy with the status quo are upset by companies that do this.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I don’t want to have to manoeuver and tiptoe around shit all day long. I don’t want to have to think about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today. I’m not seeking to offend anyone, but I also don’t want have keep a twitterpulse of what’s woke today vs yesterday. I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. There are big issues we can agree on. Energy, climate, crime, justice, etc., from a big picture perspective rather than an activist perspective. Activism is tiring. People get exhausted. Long term, people just want to make a living and be left alone if they are not being negative. You can’t live in a world where activism is a way of life like Cuba. Listen to the “Commandant” brother no 1. We have to up bread production right after we recite the revolutionary manifesto one more time before we join hands in community work for the revolution”. No, let me be in peace.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      >I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. Just going off this one statement, if you want a forgiving workplace, does that mean you have to own your mistakes and ask for forgiveness when you make an "untactful remark"? It sounds like seeking forgiveness will require you to do things like "think[ing] about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today."
jwalton 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They most definitely will not be neutral on policy decisions that affect their business, and if you go read their blog post they said exactly that: > If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here, but we normally wouldn’t engage in policy decisions around healthcare or education for example.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
> claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). sure if someone says that they believe drug use should not be criminalized but also claim to be apolitical and do nothing to help make drug use legal, it follows that they are supporting the status quo of actually keeping drug use illegal. However if that status quo is changed by the actions of others who do want drug use to be legalized and the apolitical person does nothing to try to oppose this new status quo it can be reasonably assumed that they were in fact apolitical. Then you might say that their politics is to support the Status quo, but that is probably only in regards to the things they don't care strongly enough about to do anything about one way or another. Which is the case with most people. Most people throughout history have been apolitical in this way - if you give them something to decide regarding an issue they have no strong opinions on they will most likely do nothing and let the status quo prevail.
shireboy 6y ago
The original post specifically said they would be involved in things directly related to their mission. So conceivably they would be involved in privacy, currency, etc. What I think they are opting out of is the pressure on businesses and individuals to support every cause du jur or denounce the latest fad outrage. While you can't be apolitical, you can be measured, polite, balanced, and recognize there is an appropriate time and place for everything. You can recognize that there is only time and energy for so many things. You can also recognize that much of politics is manufactured outrage and theater. Opting out of all of the daily outrage cycle as a business or individual in favor of contemplative attention to things that truly matter to you on a 10 to 15 year scale seems like a very reasonable approach to me. Claiming that people doing so "support the status quo" or "if you're not with us you're against us" is groupthink and coercive at best, and a mob mentality at worst.
Igelau 6y ago
I know I posted it recently and it was poorly received, but it needs to be repeated because people forget. > Politics: > the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. If you think it means: > how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society You're biting at a hook baited with identity politics. That's a curated opinion that politicians are glad you've accepted because it's choked you from imagining that apolitical positions exist. It's absolutely possible to be apolitical. It may be hard to do so. It may be possible to claim to be "apolitical" in a way that gains political leverage. That's dishonesty and it's a different topic.
conistonwater 6y ago
Like that famous song, "Don't say he's hypocritical, say rather that he's apolitical. 'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."
dcolkitt 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This seems like a fallacy. X may be undesirable, but it's impossible to completely rid ourselves of X. Therefore it's pointless to even worry about reducing X. Thermodynamics tells us that we can't ever reach absolute zero. Therefore I don't have to put the groceries away in the refrigerator. No person or organization can be completely apolitical, but they can aim to be minimally political. And that difference is substantial. Only a maximal postmodernist would dispute that the NRA is orders of magnitude more political than the IETF. Similarly we strive for our courts to be free of bias. However jurists are flesh and blood. They'll get hungry or sleep and that will affect their mood. Yet we'd all be horrified if a judge openly declared "Ya know what? I hate Dutch-Americans and plan to rule against them in every case regardless of the facts"
- geofft 6y ago
  I think the analogy works the other way. Thermodynamics, like politics, is a thing we can't be rid of. Therefore, even if you don't care about the exact temperature of your groceries, put them in the fridge. If you have a bag of fresh bread, milk, and frozen meat, it's a lot better to stick the whole bag in the fridge than leave the whole bag in the counter. Obviously it would be even better to put them away properly, but if you want to not care as much as possible, you still have to care a little bit. There's no way to avoid it completely, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away and is certainly not meritorious. The NRA is "more political" in the sense of their daily activities, of course, but I think you could construct a great argument that the IETF has more impact on world politics (or, let's say, the governments of the world) than the NRA. Everyone knows the NRA is taking an absolutist give-everyone-an-AR-15 stance; they work very hard on it, but at this point they're almost an anchor. Some parts of the US give easy access to guns, and they're going to do so regardless. Other parts (NYC, where I live) make it very hard to access guns, and the NRA isn't able to do much more. And the rest of the world doesn't care. Meanwhile, the IETF, in how it chooses to distribute power to network operators vs. service providers vs. end users, which protocols it facilitates standardization work on, who is in the room, what sorts of threats cryptographic protocols protect against, etc., has a lot of influence on who has power over digital communications. I think I'd even argue that it's more important for someone at the IETF to be aware of the political implications of their work than someone at the NRA. The NRA has an obviously political mission; whether you choose to pay attention to it in how you do your job and what you prioritize or not, you're going to further that mission. (Imagine, for instance, being a gun-control advocate at the NRA and see how much impact you'll have.) The IETF's mission is more open-ended, which means you can develop protocols to facilitate government surveillance or to subvert it, depending on what you think is more important.
mancerayder 6y ago
>I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). The Far Left and the Far Right, and college activists everywhere, tend to agree with this statement. Everyone else finds the idea of a forced battle, which is what you said entails, to be the beginnings of authoritarianism (or bullying if taken at an individual level).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dangerface 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? These are issues with consumers and state not the business.
dangerface 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This is a Kafka trap
bredren 6y ago
I think this is the premise of of The Witcher series.
thinkloop 6y ago
When companies say they are being apolitical they mean more narrowly political - ignoring as much as possible the things that do not affect their core business. Does coinbase have to have a declared position for whether there should be a Mexico wall, or gun rights, or abortion - not really. What about BLM or gay rights? They probably have to have some minimal position like "we treat everyone equally", but that's also different than donating to the protests or conversely declaring support for the police union, etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lliamander 6y ago
Apolitical doesn't just mean "supporting the status quo". It can mean "improving the world along a particular dimension with a coalition that cuts across historic factions". That's what Coinbase is trying to do, and (for example) open source has historically been. Making a workplace political means excluding people who believe in the mission but don't share your views on things irrelevant to that mission. This is dumb for a couple reasons: * you've now hamstrung the mission your organization was ostensibly about * the people you excluded are still out there. Even if you no longer have to work with them, you do have to share a society with them. And now they're going to form their own organizations and become more polarized. It may be a cost worth bearing in some circumstances, but generally you want to keep the number of people excluded in this manner to a minimum.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RestlessMind 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? I can see why a company might want to engage in a little bit of politics, particularly when it is tied to its very own existence. But that doesn't mean it should be engaging in all kinds of politics at all the times. So we are talking about "truly apolitical" vs "mostly apolitical" vs "not at all apolitical". It seems Coinbase wants to be "mostly apolitical" here.
vidarh 6y ago
Indeed, the choice to "be apolitical" is itself a political choice.
ballenf 6y ago
All these arguments just feel like people wanting the benefits of owning a company without doing the work or taking the risk. When you accept employment at a company, you do so on their terms -- including whether political activism on the job is permitted. If you want to set the terms of employment, start or buy a company. Or, I guess, get laws passed that outlaw companies from having a policy you disagree with. Whether being apolitical is itself political or not is a circular argument -- for some it is, for some it isn't. And that difference is itself a difference of political opinion of the same kind as the others.
Aunche 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? Coinbase didn't say they would be neutral about all issues, just issues that aren't related to their business. Obviously if the government wants to ban cryptocurrency, they're going to lobby against it.
lordlimecat 6y ago
This is a blog about the company's direction, not about whether it will perfectly conform to the ideals laid out. The CEO is not claiming that they are apolitical, but that that is their goal. >Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, An organization can be apolitical in which clients it takes, how it applies its agreements and rules, and its involvement in the campaign process. >How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value. The products and tools and services they sell are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law. They are no different than people who make lockpicks in that respect. Technically the company couldn't care less what you do with the lockpicks. Maybe you're a hobbyist, or a locksmith. Maybe. Some of their employees may be okay looking the other way, but not all of them will be. Based on the way this is going down it sounds like there was some internal drama about this, and they feel like it's best to part ways with the pro-law crowd.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    What products are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law?
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Cryptocurrencies.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
>I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical Well frankly you and many others in this country are morons. The past few years are evidence of that.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Personal attacks aren't welcome here.
knorker 6y ago
That's one way to see it. But it seems the general trend is that every company needs to be political on every issue. Where employees seem to spend more time on social justice than building the product the company is selling.
baryphonic 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). This is a fairly untenable position. Suppose there is an alien civilization somewhere with a similarly complex organization as our own society. You have no stake or opinions in the outcomes of what they do. You might even have beliefs that might give rise to politics ("I don't want earth destroyed," for instance), but in a real sense, you are apolitical with respect to that civilization. That doesn't make you in favor of the status quo, it just means that you don't know or care what's going on there. Bringing it closer to home, you'll realize that you have similar apolitical beliefs with respect to a small town in a neighboring country, or maybe the government policy of the Central African Republic. You might object that in these cases, a person is by construction unaware of the goings-on in distant places; however, I think the contrary argument is more absurd. The contrary argument is that as soon as someone merely knows about a political issue, she is then forced to choose, without her consent, that she is in favor of the status quo. That's not a tenable way to treat people with respect, not to mention organize society. And loads of people intentionally ignore the goings-on in politics. So then, if people can be apolitical about certain or even most issues, certainly someone could be apolitical about all but the most mundane issues (like the governance of a family). Further, the status quo is not a political issue; it's the condition of living in some reality. Human collective action is only one component that shapes our status quo. Many are beyond human control. So the mere existence of a status quo does not imply that anyone "chooses" it. That I think is the error. A person can have no opinion and withdraw from politics. That is apolitical. Constructing the concept in such a way that forces them to pick a side of a line in the sand excludes the middle ground, and is also profoundly disrespectful and unfair.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

Should toilets be political too? Which would you use?

marcinzm 6y ago
Toilets are political which is why certain places have moved to uni-sex toilets.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  I mean the porcelain friend specifically. Which party symbols should it be ordained with?

chii 6y ago

> you can’t truly be apolitical; that's one of those "you're either with us or against us" type of deal - which is not the right way to deal with anything imho. You _can_ be apolitical - as in, you do not let your political views affect what you do. You keep your political views private. You do not try to change anyone else's political views as part of your job.

rmc 6y ago
I think the issue is “How do you decide what is political and what isn't?” e.g. if you're a communist, then the existence is shareholders is political support for capitalism. So how do you remain “apolitical” then?
- chii 6y ago
  > So how do you remain “apolitical” then? Outside of your job, you can be as politically active as you wish. Nobody is saying you should stop all political activism. But if i walk into a store intending to buy something, i don't want to be blasted with any political message or be asked to sign up for a rally or donate to some cause i don't care about. And an employee should work on the job they are being hired to do, not spend work time undertaking political activism unless explicitly allowed by their boss (for example, your company may allow you time off for charity or such activities). If, for example, your political view is that of communism, then you will have to suffer in silence in the USA while working for shareholders/owners of property. Or quit your job if you cannot stand it. What you can't do is use your job as a resource to push that view further than you could on your own.
  - throwaway936482 6y ago
    So that's unions out then. Sounds like a political stance to me if you ban people from advocating for collective bargaining in the workplace.
    - chii 6y ago
      collective bargaining starts at the level of government - not within the workplace. It would obviously be in the interest of the employer to stop it from starting up. So you take this political stance outside of work. If enough people can be convinced that collective bargaining is a good idea, it will get enshrined into law. Employers will have to comply. On the other hand, organising during work time (which is being paid for by your employer) is unethical - and regardless of my feelings of the idea of collective bargaining, it should not be done on someone else's dime.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

celticninja 6y ago

certain roles require you to be apolitical, i'm thinking of employees of a national civil service whose role is to implement policy not decide it. If you had to quit when a party you didnt support was in power it would cause huge problems for continuity of services. Essentially then the civil service becomes political, which is really what it should not be.

pracer 6y ago

You are confusing people with companies. A person is political, a company should not. Otherwise, you are siding with totalitarian regimes that decide which services or rights you have based on what you think or believe. It was tried in the past, good luck for that.

Nursie 6y ago
When things like climate science have been turned into political issues, this is next to impossible.

username90 6y ago

> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. Being gay is not political. Being trans is not political. Being black is not political. Saying that gays/trans/black people shouldn't exist or doesn't belong is political. Saying that everyone needs to care about gay/trans/black rights is political. A trans person and a fundamental Christian who works well together without bringing up either political stance are not political. If the fundamental Christian makes a fuzz then he is political and should be reprimanded. If the trans person digs into the Christians opinions until they find something to get angry about and then get angry they are political. I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand.

BoiledCabbage 6y ago
> If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. And what happens when it's not the case? When people don't just treat people of foo group normally, and it's happening throughout the company? What should foo group do? Ask the company to get to an apolitical state where they can just do their job? Let people in the company know that it's going on? By you definition, that's political and wrong. Or do they just bear the cost of it while others continue doing what they're doing? > I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand Because (In my opinion) you're starting with a fundamentally flawed premise that there isn't already politics in the work place. There always has been. The important difference is that the only thing that gets branded as "politics" is anything different from the status quo. If it's politics aligned with the status quo it's not seen as politics even when it it. A similar example. I'm not taking a stand on it in any way here, but kneeling during the national anthem before a football game was considered a political act (which it is). One response was "keep politics out of football" (parallel to our discussion here). But again similar to our discussion here it was glossing over the fact that playing the national anthem before a sporting event is an extremely political action to begin with (ex. Should we play the national anthem before a game of Jeopardy?). Saying there wasn't politics before / by default, is just turning a blind eye to the existing politics because it's the status quo.

cblconfederate 6y ago

it's correct that crypto is against all politics, and thus coinbase is de facto far-libertarian, or anarchocapitalist. That doesn't prevent it from creating "an apolitical culture" in their workplace. Just like how , today , a libertarian might work for the Fed or something. I thought their point is that the politics of individual workers won't distract from the company's "mission" (whatever that is, i assume it's the product). that said i think it's wrong to ascribe political motives to every move and claim that nobody can be a-political in public. Political belongs to the public sphere and not everyone wants to live in there.

vowelless 6y ago

> Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, It is so sad that people increasingly have this view. Politics was never how “we engaged and collaborated in society”.

clinta 6y ago
Politics is discussing when it is justified and appropriate to use violence. For enforcing laws, collecting taxes ect... All peaceful human interaction falls outside of that.
- Loughla 6y ago
  I legitimately do not understand defining collecting taxes as violence. That's like the third time I've seen this type of argument on HN. I don't get it. Can you please explain that to me?
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    Most tax collection is completed without violence in practical sense. But taxes are backed by the threat of violence. If you don't pay them, you can be charged with a crime and ultimately imprisoned. And if you try to resist imprisonment that is enforced with armed agents of the state who will use force to compel you. Taxes aren't voluntary. This is an old libertarian argument, which when taken to its narrow logical conclusion says all taxes are fundamentally theft and immoral. The primary counter-argument is to suggest that the property or wages being taxed aren't "fully" the possessions of the taxed individual or entity. If you are receiving wages in part because of the state apparatus, then the wages weren't fully yours to begin with. Various forms of social contract theory are used to justify taxes. The other main argument is probably more utilitarian. Your right to property only extends to the extent that it is socially valuable in comparison to other rights and responsibilities. Property is this model isn't a fundamental right, but one mechanism used in combinations with others to maximize human welfare.
    - throwaways885 6y ago

Allower 6y ago

If you don't know how to separate social issues from politics, well shit, that's the whole problem isn't it. Figure it out or continue being a moron dragging civilization back into the dark ages.

mc32 6y ago

Politics is too personal and can only lead to discord among employees. There is little upside to politics being in the open in an established company. It may be useful in attracting talent at some point, but at another point it becomes a liability, unless your company is a PAC or something of the sort. If you serve a wide audience or have a wide workforce, it’s less headache if workers separate their politics from their work unless the employer is paying you to be political.

philipov 6y ago
Yes, and choosing to have such a policy about political discussion is a political act that supports the status quo by quashing dissent. Therefore, many people who are not happy with the status quo are upset by companies that do this.
- mc32 6y ago
  I don’t want to have to manoeuver and tiptoe around shit all day long. I don’t want to have to think about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today. I’m not seeking to offend anyone, but I also don’t want have keep a twitterpulse of what’s woke today vs yesterday. I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. There are big issues we can agree on. Energy, climate, crime, justice, etc., from a big picture perspective rather than an activist perspective. Activism is tiring. People get exhausted. Long term, people just want to make a living and be left alone if they are not being negative. You can’t live in a world where activism is a way of life like Cuba. Listen to the “Commandant” brother no 1. We have to up bread production right after we recite the revolutionary manifesto one more time before we join hands in community work for the revolution”. No, let me be in peace.
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    >I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. Just going off this one statement, if you want a forgiving workplace, does that mean you have to own your mistakes and ask for forgiveness when you make an "untactful remark"? It sounds like seeking forgiveness will require you to do things like "think[ing] about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today."

jwalton 6y ago

> How can they truly be neutral on all these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They most definitely will not be neutral on policy decisions that affect their business, and if you go read their blog post they said exactly that: > If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here, but we normally wouldn’t engage in policy decisions around healthcare or education for example.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

> claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). sure if someone says that they believe drug use should not be criminalized but also claim to be apolitical and do nothing to help make drug use legal, it follows that they are supporting the status quo of actually keeping drug use illegal. However if that status quo is changed by the actions of others who do want drug use to be legalized and the apolitical person does nothing to try to oppose this new status quo it can be reasonably assumed that they were in fact apolitical. Then you might say that their politics is to support the Status quo, but that is probably only in regards to the things they don't care strongly enough about to do anything about one way or another. Which is the case with most people. Most people throughout history have been apolitical in this way - if you give them something to decide regarding an issue they have no strong opinions on they will most likely do nothing and let the status quo prevail.

shireboy 6y ago

The original post specifically said they would be involved in things directly related to their mission. So conceivably they would be involved in privacy, currency, etc. What I think they are opting out of is the pressure on businesses and individuals to support every cause du jur or denounce the latest fad outrage. While you can't be apolitical, you can be measured, polite, balanced, and recognize there is an appropriate time and place for everything. You can recognize that there is only time and energy for so many things. You can also recognize that much of politics is manufactured outrage and theater. Opting out of all of the daily outrage cycle as a business or individual in favor of contemplative attention to things that truly matter to you on a 10 to 15 year scale seems like a very reasonable approach to me. Claiming that people doing so "support the status quo" or "if you're not with us you're against us" is groupthink and coercive at best, and a mob mentality at worst.

Igelau 6y ago

I know I posted it recently and it was poorly received, but it needs to be repeated because people forget. > Politics: > the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. If you think it means: > how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society You're biting at a hook baited with identity politics. That's a curated opinion that politicians are glad you've accepted because it's choked you from imagining that apolitical positions exist. It's absolutely possible to be apolitical. It may be hard to do so. It may be possible to claim to be "apolitical" in a way that gains political leverage. That's dishonesty and it's a different topic.

conistonwater 6y ago

Like that famous song, "Don't say he's hypocritical, say rather that he's apolitical. 'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."

dcolkitt 6y ago

> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This seems like a fallacy. X may be undesirable, but it's impossible to completely rid ourselves of X. Therefore it's pointless to even worry about reducing X. Thermodynamics tells us that we can't ever reach absolute zero. Therefore I don't have to put the groceries away in the refrigerator. No person or organization can be completely apolitical, but they can aim to be minimally political. And that difference is substantial. Only a maximal postmodernist would dispute that the NRA is orders of magnitude more political than the IETF. Similarly we strive for our courts to be free of bias. However jurists are flesh and blood. They'll get hungry or sleep and that will affect their mood. Yet we'd all be horrified if a judge openly declared "Ya know what? I hate Dutch-Americans and plan to rule against them in every case regardless of the facts"

geofft 6y ago
I think the analogy works the other way. Thermodynamics, like politics, is a thing we can't be rid of. Therefore, even if you don't care about the exact temperature of your groceries, put them in the fridge. If you have a bag of fresh bread, milk, and frozen meat, it's a lot better to stick the whole bag in the fridge than leave the whole bag in the counter. Obviously it would be even better to put them away properly, but if you want to not care as much as possible, you still have to care a little bit. There's no way to avoid it completely, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away and is certainly not meritorious. The NRA is "more political" in the sense of their daily activities, of course, but I think you could construct a great argument that the IETF has more impact on world politics (or, let's say, the governments of the world) than the NRA. Everyone knows the NRA is taking an absolutist give-everyone-an-AR-15 stance; they work very hard on it, but at this point they're almost an anchor. Some parts of the US give easy access to guns, and they're going to do so regardless. Other parts (NYC, where I live) make it very hard to access guns, and the NRA isn't able to do much more. And the rest of the world doesn't care. Meanwhile, the IETF, in how it chooses to distribute power to network operators vs. service providers vs. end users, which protocols it facilitates standardization work on, who is in the room, what sorts of threats cryptographic protocols protect against, etc., has a lot of influence on who has power over digital communications. I think I'd even argue that it's more important for someone at the IETF to be aware of the political implications of their work than someone at the NRA. The NRA has an obviously political mission; whether you choose to pay attention to it in how you do your job and what you prioritize or not, you're going to further that mission. (Imagine, for instance, being a gun-control advocate at the NRA and see how much impact you'll have.) The IETF's mission is more open-ended, which means you can develop protocols to facilitate government surveillance or to subvert it, depending on what you think is more important.

mancerayder 6y ago

>I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). The Far Left and the Far Right, and college activists everywhere, tend to agree with this statement. Everyone else finds the idea of a forced battle, which is what you said entails, to be the beginnings of authoritarianism (or bullying if taken at an individual level).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dangerface 6y ago

> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? These are issues with consumers and state not the business.

dangerface 6y ago

> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This is a Kafka trap

bredren 6y ago

I think this is the premise of of The Witcher series.

thinkloop 6y ago

When companies say they are being apolitical they mean more narrowly political - ignoring as much as possible the things that do not affect their core business. Does coinbase have to have a declared position for whether there should be a Mexico wall, or gun rights, or abortion - not really. What about BLM or gay rights? They probably have to have some minimal position like "we treat everyone equally", but that's also different than donating to the protests or conversely declaring support for the police union, etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lliamander 6y ago

Apolitical doesn't just mean "supporting the status quo". It can mean "improving the world along a particular dimension with a coalition that cuts across historic factions". That's what Coinbase is trying to do, and (for example) open source has historically been. Making a workplace political means excluding people who believe in the mission but don't share your views on things irrelevant to that mission. This is dumb for a couple reasons: * you've now hamstrung the mission your organization was ostensibly about * the people you excluded are still out there. Even if you no longer have to work with them, you do have to share a society with them. And now they're going to form their own organizations and become more polarized. It may be a cost worth bearing in some circumstances, but generally you want to keep the number of people excluded in this manner to a minimum.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

RestlessMind 6y ago

> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? I can see why a company might want to engage in a little bit of politics, particularly when it is tied to its very own existence. But that doesn't mean it should be engaging in all kinds of politics at all the times. So we are talking about "truly apolitical" vs "mostly apolitical" vs "not at all apolitical". It seems Coinbase wants to be "mostly apolitical" here.

vidarh 6y ago

Indeed, the choice to "be apolitical" is itself a political choice.

ballenf 6y ago

All these arguments just feel like people wanting the benefits of owning a company without doing the work or taking the risk. When you accept employment at a company, you do so on their terms -- including whether political activism on the job is permitted. If you want to set the terms of employment, start or buy a company. Or, I guess, get laws passed that outlaw companies from having a policy you disagree with. Whether being apolitical is itself political or not is a circular argument -- for some it is, for some it isn't. And that difference is itself a difference of political opinion of the same kind as the others.

Aunche 6y ago

> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? Coinbase didn't say they would be neutral about all issues, just issues that aren't related to their business. Obviously if the government wants to ban cryptocurrency, they're going to lobby against it.

lordlimecat 6y ago

This is a blog about the company's direction, not about whether it will perfectly conform to the ideals laid out. The CEO is not claiming that they are apolitical, but that that is their goal. >Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, An organization can be apolitical in which clients it takes, how it applies its agreements and rules, and its involvement in the campaign process. >How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value.

arcticbull 6y ago
> They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value. The products and tools and services they sell are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law. They are no different than people who make lockpicks in that respect. Technically the company couldn't care less what you do with the lockpicks. Maybe you're a hobbyist, or a locksmith. Maybe. Some of their employees may be okay looking the other way, but not all of them will be. Based on the way this is going down it sounds like there was some internal drama about this, and they feel like it's best to part ways with the pro-law crowd.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  What products are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Cryptocurrencies.

deeeeplearning 6y ago

>I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical Well frankly you and many others in this country are morons. The past few years are evidence of that.

arcticbull 6y ago
Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

knorker 6y ago

That's one way to see it. But it seems the general trend is that every company needs to be political on every issue. Where employees seem to spend more time on social justice than building the product the company is selling.

baryphonic 6y ago

> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). This is a fairly untenable position. Suppose there is an alien civilization somewhere with a similarly complex organization as our own society. You have no stake or opinions in the outcomes of what they do. You might even have beliefs that might give rise to politics ("I don't want earth destroyed," for instance), but in a real sense, you are apolitical with respect to that civilization. That doesn't make you in favor of the status quo, it just means that you don't know or care what's going on there. Bringing it closer to home, you'll realize that you have similar apolitical beliefs with respect to a small town in a neighboring country, or maybe the government policy of the Central African Republic. You might object that in these cases, a person is by construction unaware of the goings-on in distant places; however, I think the contrary argument is more absurd. The contrary argument is that as soon as someone merely knows about a political issue, she is then forced to choose, without her consent, that she is in favor of the status quo. That's not a tenable way to treat people with respect, not to mention organize society. And loads of people intentionally ignore the goings-on in politics. So then, if people can be apolitical about certain or even most issues, certainly someone could be apolitical about all but the most mundane issues (like the governance of a family). Further, the status quo is not a political issue; it's the condition of living in some reality. Human collective action is only one component that shapes our status quo. Many are beyond human control. So the mere existence of a status quo does not imply that anyone "chooses" it. That I think is the error. A person can have no opinion and withdraw from politics. That is apolitical. Constructing the concept in such a way that forces them to pick a side of a line in the sand excludes the middle ground, and is also profoundly disrespectful and unfair.