4 ms·

The phases I use in my response above explicitly often explicitly use the word politics. The people saying that are not being narrow with their definitions lik

The phases I use in my response above explicitly often explicitly use the word politics. The people saying that are not being narrow with their definitions like you are here. So if people live their life having people around them using the word politics like in my phrases above they will also start using the word that way. A way that does not match up with your definitions. > You’re confusing “controversial” with “political”. So when you say things like the above it comes off to me as unreasonable/uncharitable. Since the people you are talking to are using a set of definitions that are relatively common in my experience. edit: unreasonable -> unreasonable/uncharitable --- > I’ve never heard anyone told not to talk about those things because they’re political, but I could believe they were told not to talk about them because they’re controversial. Knowledge and understanding of a topic is required before reasoned action is taken. If you can not talk about abortion, birth control, sexual/gender discrimination, gay marriage, and more because it is controversial then we might be getting in to an area where speech is so restricted that it impedes knowledge transfer and understanding on those topics. In order to have an informed populace then need to be exposed to things, sometime controversial. If you remove a reasonably large mechanism for that, conversation at work, it will have political consequences.

throwaway777888 6y ago
>Knowledge and understanding of a topic is required before reasoned action is taken. If you can not talk about abortion, birth control, sexual/gender discrimination, gay marriage, and more because it is controversial then we might be getting in to an area where speech is so restricted that it impedes knowledge transfer and understanding on those topics. And you can research and discuss those topics outside of work. You're not being paid to show up to work and form PACs. You're not being paid to show up to work to virtue signal about the most fashionable wedge issue of the day. You're not being paid to show up to work and sow discord by assuming moral high ground and vilifying the other side. etc., etc. >In order to have an informed populace then need to be exposed to things, sometime controversial. The political culture status quo at Bay Area companies is that this is an alt-right talking point. >If you remove a reasonably large mechanism for that, conversation at work, it will have political consequences. Conversation at work absolutely should not be a large mechanism for political discussion. It's work. If there are political consequences because workers are no longer allow to virtue signal all day, then that speaks more about their weak mental state than it does about politics.
throwaway98777 6y ago
>Knowledge and understanding of a topic is required before reasoned action is taken. If you can not talk about abortion, birth control, sexual/gender discrimination, gay marriage, and more because it is controversial then we might be getting in to an area where speech is so restricted that it impedes knowledge transfer and understanding on those topics. And you can research and discuss those topics outside of work. You're not being paid to show up to work and form PACs. You're not being paid to show up to work to virtue signal about the most fashionable wedge issue of the day. You're not being paid to show up to work and sow discord by assuming moral high ground and vilifying the other side. etc., etc. >In order to have an informed populace then need to be exposed to things, sometime controversial. The political culture status quo at Bay Area companies is that this is an alt-right talking point. >If you remove a reasonably large mechanism for that, conversation at work, it will have political consequences. Conversation at work absolutely should not be a large mechanism for political discussion. It's work. If there are political consequences because workers are no longer allow to virtue signal all day, then that speaks more about their weak mental state than it does about politics.
- davorak 6y ago
  > And you can research and discuss those topics outside of work. In my experience in the USA it is common for conversations at work to be about family, kids, life experiences(good and bad), current events, etc. It is something people bond over and use to help form a common company culture. Different companies vary what is allowed and or encouraged and experience different benefits and consequences. > You're not being paid to show up to work and form PACs. You're not being paid to show up to work to virtue signal about the most fashionable wedge issue of the day. You're not being paid to show up to work and sow discord by assuming moral high ground and vilifying the other side. etc., etc. I do not see anyone in this thread advocating for anything that extreme. >>In order to have an informed populace then need to be exposed to things, sometime controversial. > The political culture status quo at Bay Area companies is that this is an alt-right talking point. I am not in the know about bay area culture but that does not match my limited view from the outside. > Conversation at work absolutely should not be a large mechanism for political discussion. It's work. If there are political consequences because workers are no longer allow to virtue signal all day, then that speaks more about their weak mental state than it does about politics. My focus on for this comment was not politic conversation in the work place but on how removing a large mechanism of knowledge and understanding transferal in the work place would have political consequences for society.

throwaway777888 6y ago

>Knowledge and understanding of a topic is required before reasoned action is taken. If you can not talk about abortion, birth control, sexual/gender discrimination, gay marriage, and more because it is controversial then we might be getting in to an area where speech is so restricted that it impedes knowledge transfer and understanding on those topics. And you can research and discuss those topics outside of work. You're not being paid to show up to work and form PACs. You're not being paid to show up to work to virtue signal about the most fashionable wedge issue of the day. You're not being paid to show up to work and sow discord by assuming moral high ground and vilifying the other side. etc., etc. >In order to have an informed populace then need to be exposed to things, sometime controversial. The political culture status quo at Bay Area companies is that this is an alt-right talking point. >If you remove a reasonably large mechanism for that, conversation at work, it will have political consequences. Conversation at work absolutely should not be a large mechanism for political discussion. It's work. If there are political consequences because workers are no longer allow to virtue signal all day, then that speaks more about their weak mental state than it does about politics.

throwaway98777 6y ago

davorak 6y ago
> And you can research and discuss those topics outside of work. In my experience in the USA it is common for conversations at work to be about family, kids, life experiences(good and bad), current events, etc. It is something people bond over and use to help form a common company culture. Different companies vary what is allowed and or encouraged and experience different benefits and consequences. > You're not being paid to show up to work and form PACs. You're not being paid to show up to work to virtue signal about the most fashionable wedge issue of the day. You're not being paid to show up to work and sow discord by assuming moral high ground and vilifying the other side. etc., etc. I do not see anyone in this thread advocating for anything that extreme. >>In order to have an informed populace then need to be exposed to things, sometime controversial. > The political culture status quo at Bay Area companies is that this is an alt-right talking point. I am not in the know about bay area culture but that does not match my limited view from the outside. > Conversation at work absolutely should not be a large mechanism for political discussion. It's work. If there are political consequences because workers are no longer allow to virtue signal all day, then that speaks more about their weak mental state than it does about politics. My focus on for this comment was not politic conversation in the work place but on how removing a large mechanism of knowledge and understanding transferal in the work place would have political consequences for society.