4 ms·

I haven't worked anywhere that ordinary politics was discussed. I'm in uk though. I'd find it rude for someone to shove their political views in my face. It's f

I haven't worked anywhere that ordinary politics was discussed. I'm in uk though. I'd find it rude for someone to shove their political views in my face. It's fine for friends to discuss as I choose my friends not my colleagues. What kinda of things are people talking about?

tupputuppu 6y ago
That's the difference. For a lot of Californian tech companies, the whole company meetings revolve less around strategy and mission and more about racial inequality and Trump. As an outsider, I can't understand how strong the bubble is and how lacking in context these people are.
- DatBear 6y ago
  This seems a little farfetched, no?
  - tupputuppu 6y ago
    Well, I do work for one, and yes, last time I participated in an all company call the majority of the time the management spent talking about racial equality, completely unrelated to our business?
- d1zzy 6y ago
  I seriously doubt that. Most companies are pushing internal "respect your coworkers" rules that can be linked with politics but that's not really discussing Trump. I suspect that even Coinbase with their newly declared "apolitical workplace" rules does have plenty of anti-discrimination, harassment, etc rules, for one because lacking those can result in very bad consequences for the company in a trial.
xyzzyz 6y ago
Imagine if you had lunch with your coworkers, and one of them started complaining about Boris Johnson trying to kill the minorities with his fascist COVID policies. You personally don't like Johnson, and think his policies are far from optimal, but you think calling his policies "fascist", or implying he wants to kill anyone, is clearly over the top. However, instead of protesting, you nod your head and keep quiet, because defending Johnson's policies means that you're a fan of Johnson, and so basically a fascist, and you fear the general opprobrium among your colleagues, and would prefer to avoid anonymous HR complaints of your person. This is the reality of working for large tech companies in the US, just with Trump instead of Johnson.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  It's unfortunate discussions can't be kept over ideas and policies instead of veering towards persons. While I believe Trump is the worst president the US has had in recent history that doesn't mean I'd be unwilling to entertain a discussion of anything he may have done that people think it was a good thing. I suspect in most cases we'll end up with "we agree to disagree" which is fine. That said, one thing we have to consider is the environment in which the discussion takes place. At work people shouldn't have to get stressed with non-work related things, that's not in the interest of the company nor of the employees. So even if you know you can have respectful deep conversations of controversial current day politics with your colleagues, a better question would be, should you even have those conversations at work? I feel for people that suddenly need to discuss such topics, it means that they probably don't have IRL friends or friends outside of work if they really feel that they have to talk about no-work related issues at a work lunch. It's sad.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > It's unfortunate discussions can't be kept over ideas and policies instead of veering towards persons. I don't think it's a matter of ideas vs persons. Already I hear that speech and ideas are violence, and violence requires fighting back (by complaining to HR that you made them feel unsafe). Of course, you cannot keep quiet either, because "silence is violence" too. > It's unfortunate discussions can't be kept over ideas and policies instead of veering towards persons. This is a sensible expectation, and I think that's what reasonable people should be able to do. However, my experience tells me that there's nothing to win by having such conversation in work environment, so I'd prefer them to be avoided altogether. However, both the company as an institutions, and many individuals working on it, are insisting that the employees have these discussions, no matter how irrelevant it is for the actual job. This is the reality on the ground in most big US tech corporations. > I feel for people that suddenly need to discuss such topics, it means that they probably don't have IRL friends or friends outside of work if they really feel that they have to talk about no-work related issues at a work lunch. It's sad. I don't think that this is the case. In my experience, it's the more social people who are insisting on having these conversations. I think this is because the more social people are better at gauging social climate, and the purpose of these conversations, often purportedly about diversity and inclusion, is to enforce uniformity and exclusion of people with alternative views.

tupputuppu 6y ago

That's the difference. For a lot of Californian tech companies, the whole company meetings revolve less around strategy and mission and more about racial inequality and Trump. As an outsider, I can't understand how strong the bubble is and how lacking in context these people are.

DatBear 6y ago
This seems a little farfetched, no?
- tupputuppu 6y ago
  Well, I do work for one, and yes, last time I participated in an all company call the majority of the time the management spent talking about racial equality, completely unrelated to our business?
d1zzy 6y ago
I seriously doubt that. Most companies are pushing internal "respect your coworkers" rules that can be linked with politics but that's not really discussing Trump. I suspect that even Coinbase with their newly declared "apolitical workplace" rules does have plenty of anti-discrimination, harassment, etc rules, for one because lacking those can result in very bad consequences for the company in a trial.

xyzzyz 6y ago

Imagine if you had lunch with your coworkers, and one of them started complaining about Boris Johnson trying to kill the minorities with his fascist COVID policies. You personally don't like Johnson, and think his policies are far from optimal, but you think calling his policies "fascist", or implying he wants to kill anyone, is clearly over the top. However, instead of protesting, you nod your head and keep quiet, because defending Johnson's policies means that you're a fan of Johnson, and so basically a fascist, and you fear the general opprobrium among your colleagues, and would prefer to avoid anonymous HR complaints of your person. This is the reality of working for large tech companies in the US, just with Trump instead of Johnson.

d1zzy 6y ago
It's unfortunate discussions can't be kept over ideas and policies instead of veering towards persons. While I believe Trump is the worst president the US has had in recent history that doesn't mean I'd be unwilling to entertain a discussion of anything he may have done that people think it was a good thing. I suspect in most cases we'll end up with "we agree to disagree" which is fine. That said, one thing we have to consider is the environment in which the discussion takes place. At work people shouldn't have to get stressed with non-work related things, that's not in the interest of the company nor of the employees. So even if you know you can have respectful deep conversations of controversial current day politics with your colleagues, a better question would be, should you even have those conversations at work? I feel for people that suddenly need to discuss such topics, it means that they probably don't have IRL friends or friends outside of work if they really feel that they have to talk about no-work related issues at a work lunch. It's sad.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  > It's unfortunate discussions can't be kept over ideas and policies instead of veering towards persons. I don't think it's a matter of ideas vs persons. Already I hear that speech and ideas are violence, and violence requires fighting back (by complaining to HR that you made them feel unsafe). Of course, you cannot keep quiet either, because "silence is violence" too. > It's unfortunate discussions can't be kept over ideas and policies instead of veering towards persons. This is a sensible expectation, and I think that's what reasonable people should be able to do. However, my experience tells me that there's nothing to win by having such conversation in work environment, so I'd prefer them to be avoided altogether. However, both the company as an institutions, and many individuals working on it, are insisting that the employees have these discussions, no matter how irrelevant it is for the actual job. This is the reality on the ground in most big US tech corporations. > I feel for people that suddenly need to discuss such topics, it means that they probably don't have IRL friends or friends outside of work if they really feel that they have to talk about no-work related issues at a work lunch. It's sad. I don't think that this is the case. In my experience, it's the more social people who are insisting on having these conversations. I think this is because the more social people are better at gauging social climate, and the purpose of these conversations, often purportedly about diversity and inclusion, is to enforce uniformity and exclusion of people with alternative views.