6 ms·
Forbidding debate is taking an implicit stance in favor of the status quo.
by eli 6y ago
Forbidding debate is taking an implicit stance in favor of the status quo.
- defertoreptar 6y agoOr it's just acknowledging that it can be disruptive and divisive at a place where your goal is to focus and communicate effectively.
- sdfqasdghj2 6y agoI don't see this press release as forbidding debate. This is simply saying that the company won't be taking a stance. That shouldn't stop individual employees discussing political topics as long as they can act like adults and not create a hostile environment.
- seneca 6y ago> I don't see this press release as forbidding debate. It specifically does: > We won’t: Debate causes or political candidates internally
- sdfqasdghj2 6y agoHm. What is the legality of limiting employees speech during e.g. their lunch break time?
- manigandham 6y agoNo, it's just stating that the workplace is neutral. It's not for or against anything. You can do that on your time instead.
- yunohn 6y agoThe homepage of the privacy-focused adtech company you run, highlights California's new Privacy law. Have you considered that this means your workplace has a clear political stance on privacy?
- manigandham 6y agoSure, the company provides services that help others comply with regulations and thus favors those regulations. Just like any other corporation that prefers regulations that help drive it's business. Our workplace is still neutral though, and we don't discuss politics. To be extra clear: Whether you're for or against privacy regulations is not relevant. Whether the law is changing and will increase our revenues is relevant. See the difference?
- yunohn 6y agoI see that you think there's a difference. But you've admitted that politics is a topic you discuss. In fact, lots of companies spend money to actively make said laws bend in their favor. The difference is less straightforward than you make it out to be.
- manigandham 6y agoSince you consider everything to be political, then everything is politics and there is no discussion without it. It's a tautological inevitability. However there is a difference in that we don't discuss personal opinions on politics. We talk about changes, and whether those changes are good for the business. That's a pretty clear line that you seem to be refusing to accept even though our team understands it perfectly.
- yunohn 6y agoI don't think "everything" is meant to be taken so /literally/. It is your personal opinion on privacy that led to the founding of the company. It is most likely your employees' personal opinions that made them choose to work at your company vs Google or FB's ad divisions. But let's discuss a more relevant political topic. Your name, manigandham, implies you are of Asian origin. The /political/ immigration laws determine your/parents' existence in the USA. If the company you/they worked for was serving/assisting organisations that would invalidate your legal residence, would you not be concerned? Or would you help the project succeed & accept your fate once ICE came knocking?
- eli 6y agoBlocking even the discussion of change is the definition of conservatism. It's explicitly against change and implicitly for the status quo.
- manigandham 6y agoThat is not the definition of conservatism, and a limit on discussion is not implicitly for anything. It's your own subjective interpretation if you think it's for the status quo. This isn't complicated. For example: People may be on both sides of climate change, but not discussing it in the workplace doesn't mean the company is for or against anything. Apply this to any other topic that has nothing to do with the business.
- username90 6y ago> Forbidding debate is taking an implicit stance in favor of the status quo. If the reformists are winning outside the company then the status quo is in the reformists favor and thus forbidding debate is pro change. For example now, Biden is favored to win so status quo is Biden wins, so a company forbidding political debate is liberal. For Coinbase specifically, all their US locations are in blue states, making the status quo Democrat no matter how you see it. Edit: Anyway, your argument doesn't make sense, you aren't in favor of the status quo unless you fight to bring it back after things change or you fight to keep it from changing. Also you aren't pro the status quo just because you prevent people you pay money to waste time arguing with each other instead of doing their job.
- SecretRepub2 6y agoThis reminds me of the screaming protestors who surrounded diners in restaurants and demand that they raise a fist and say "Black Lives Matters"