4 ms·

A different kind of activism, perhaps. Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status qu

A different kind of activism, perhaps. Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status quo?

eplanit 6y ago
That thinking is the same as "either you're with me, or against me".
- tolbish 6y ago
  You can support the status quo without taking an extreme position. My point is that rephrasing what it is doesn't change what it actually is.
fallingknife 6y ago
No. Not anymore than the "don't bring up politics at Thanksgiving dinner" attitude is.
- tolbish 6y ago
  Thanksgiving dinner is an apples to oranges comparison to what a CEOs job is. From the article: > BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities CEOs think about how their business interfaces with the world around them. Some weild power on the order of states/countries, so that would make sense.
readams 6y ago
It is not true that every aspect of your life needs to be in service of political activism. It doesn't mean you're supporting the status quo because you don't spend 100% of your time doing politics.
- tolbish 6y ago
  That is a very black and white strawman interpretation of what I said.
haberman 6y ago
Is a wedding supporting the status quo by asking guests to dress appropriately and sit quietly during the ceremony? Is a movie theater supporting the status quo by running the movie from beginning to end without an intermission for political expression? Is there any neutral zone where people can gather and connect for any other purpose than politics? How can we hope to forge bonds with other people based on our common humanity if there is a demand that every space is filled with confrontation over our differences?
- tolbish 6y ago
  Yes, weddings enforce a certain formal fashion and culture. That it is normal and widely supported and not a problem for most people. It is only when these practices infringe on some right or induce some harm (as in your example, weddings that do archaic purity tests as "tradition") that we decide these thjngs should evolve. If we didn't do that, weddings would still include the time old tradition of women being traded for goats/cash.
  - haberman 6y ago
    Of course there are important social changes that have happened with respect to weddings and marriage. The question is: did those things change because of political confrontations that happened at weddings themselves? A wedding is a celebration where people have often come from far and wide. It may be the only time the two families will ever gather together at such a scale. It would be totally inappropriate for a guest to co-opt that moment to advance their own ideas about marriage, even if those ideas are just. Not every moment in life can or should be political.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tolbish 6y ago
      > Not every moment in life can or should be political. It's a good thing no one is making that argument. This article is about CEOs of large companies which handle millions of dollars daily and control about 1/3 of the lives of their employees: > BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities
enraged_camel 6y ago
Precisely. The only people who complain about others bringing up politics at work are those who are privileged, as they have the luxury of not exposing themselves to politics because it doesn't affect them negatively like it does, say, minorities.
- ta20210405 6y ago
  It's the other way around: Minorities have the privilege and luxury of politicizing EVERYTHING. Whites do not enjoy such privilege and luxury. >because it doesn't affect them negatively like it does, say, minorities. Source for this claim? One could say politics negatively affects white people more negatively than minorities because white people foot the bill more so than minorities.
ta20210405 6y ago
It's the same illogic as: "If you pay taxes, you support bombing children in Iraq. You support the status quo." Work is for work, movie theaters are for watching movies. Should moviegoers stand up and make political statements during a movie? No, "movie theaters should just be for movie watching" and "work should just be for work."

A different kind of activism, perhaps. Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status quo?

eplanit 6y ago

That thinking is the same as "either you're with me, or against me".

tolbish 6y ago
You can support the status quo without taking an extreme position. My point is that rephrasing what it is doesn't change what it actually is.

fallingknife 6y ago

No. Not anymore than the "don't bring up politics at Thanksgiving dinner" attitude is.

tolbish 6y ago
Thanksgiving dinner is an apples to oranges comparison to what a CEOs job is. From the article: > BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities CEOs think about how their business interfaces with the world around them. Some weild power on the order of states/countries, so that would make sense.

readams 6y ago

It is not true that every aspect of your life needs to be in service of political activism. It doesn't mean you're supporting the status quo because you don't spend 100% of your time doing politics.

tolbish 6y ago
That is a very black and white strawman interpretation of what I said.

haberman 6y ago

Is a wedding supporting the status quo by asking guests to dress appropriately and sit quietly during the ceremony? Is a movie theater supporting the status quo by running the movie from beginning to end without an intermission for political expression? Is there any neutral zone where people can gather and connect for any other purpose than politics? How can we hope to forge bonds with other people based on our common humanity if there is a demand that every space is filled with confrontation over our differences?

tolbish 6y ago
Yes, weddings enforce a certain formal fashion and culture. That it is normal and widely supported and not a problem for most people. It is only when these practices infringe on some right or induce some harm (as in your example, weddings that do archaic purity tests as "tradition") that we decide these thjngs should evolve. If we didn't do that, weddings would still include the time old tradition of women being traded for goats/cash.
- haberman 6y ago
  Of course there are important social changes that have happened with respect to weddings and marriage. The question is: did those things change because of political confrontations that happened at weddings themselves? A wedding is a celebration where people have often come from far and wide. It may be the only time the two families will ever gather together at such a scale. It would be totally inappropriate for a guest to co-opt that moment to advance their own ideas about marriage, even if those ideas are just. Not every moment in life can or should be political.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tolbish 6y ago
    > Not every moment in life can or should be political. It's a good thing no one is making that argument. This article is about CEOs of large companies which handle millions of dollars daily and control about 1/3 of the lives of their employees: > BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities

enraged_camel 6y ago

Precisely. The only people who complain about others bringing up politics at work are those who are privileged, as they have the luxury of not exposing themselves to politics because it doesn't affect them negatively like it does, say, minorities.

ta20210405 6y ago
It's the other way around: Minorities have the privilege and luxury of politicizing EVERYTHING. Whites do not enjoy such privilege and luxury. >because it doesn't affect them negatively like it does, say, minorities. Source for this claim? One could say politics negatively affects white people more negatively than minorities because white people foot the bill more so than minorities.

ta20210405 6y ago

It's the same illogic as: "If you pay taxes, you support bombing children in Iraq. You support the status quo." Work is for work, movie theaters are for watching movies. Should moviegoers stand up and make political statements during a movie? No, "movie theaters should just be for movie watching" and "work should just be for work."