3 ms·

I think what they're saying is that will work to make the environment within the company as welcoming as possible. However, they will not try and solve that pro

I think what they're saying is that will work to make the environment within the company as welcoming as possible. However, they will not try and solve that problem for society at large. Although you may disagree with the approach, it doesn't seem contradictory to me.

tshaddox 6y ago
And again, it's a false notion to think that those are two separate things. You can't, to use example that I hope is obvious, support making your work environment welcoming to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, while also refusing to oppose or even discuss a political movement or politician who would throw people in jail for having a certain sexual orientation.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  While I would find that political position abhorrent, I wouldn't expect and certainly not demand that my company issue a specific public statement denouncing it.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    You don’t need to expect or demand that, although I certainly would. The problem is when a company claims they care about that issue as part of their mission, but then prohibits employees from taking a stand on that issue or even discussing that issue.
    - garbageslam 6y ago
      Why is that a problem? People can care about an issue without taking a stand or even discussing the issue. This "with us or against us" attitude is precisely what makes it difficult to get along with activists. The only reason it is "a problem" is that it doesn't conform to the long term goals of the activists. The company needs to have goals that are separate from those of the activists in order to survive.
  - paxys 6y ago
    What about being able to discuss that internally with coworkers? Because the company prohibits that as well.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      My wager is they de facto won't prohibit any discussion between consenting and mutually interested coworkers that doesn't negatively impact their work output, which seems "fair enough" to me.
      - paxys 6y ago
        So you'd be okay working for a company with policies you don't agree with because "they probably won't enforce them"?

tshaddox 6y ago

And again, it's a false notion to think that those are two separate things. You can't, to use example that I hope is obvious, support making your work environment welcoming to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, while also refusing to oppose or even discuss a political movement or politician who would throw people in jail for having a certain sexual orientation.

sokoloff 6y ago
While I would find that political position abhorrent, I wouldn't expect and certainly not demand that my company issue a specific public statement denouncing it.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  You don’t need to expect or demand that, although I certainly would. The problem is when a company claims they care about that issue as part of their mission, but then prohibits employees from taking a stand on that issue or even discussing that issue.
  - garbageslam 6y ago
    Why is that a problem? People can care about an issue without taking a stand or even discussing the issue. This "with us or against us" attitude is precisely what makes it difficult to get along with activists. The only reason it is "a problem" is that it doesn't conform to the long term goals of the activists. The company needs to have goals that are separate from those of the activists in order to survive.
- paxys 6y ago
  What about being able to discuss that internally with coworkers? Because the company prohibits that as well.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    My wager is they de facto won't prohibit any discussion between consenting and mutually interested coworkers that doesn't negatively impact their work output, which seems "fair enough" to me.
    - paxys 6y ago
      So you'd be okay working for a company with policies you don't agree with because "they probably won't enforce them"?