4 ms·

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 poli

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
- haberman 6y ago
  I was responding to your claim/question (not the article): > Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status quo? If we accept your premise, it allows for no neutral zones or moments in life. Every space is either actively political (by welcoming political expression) or is passively political (by excluding it). Yes, we spend much more of our time at work than at weddings. But a workplace is also a captive space that people enter to support themselves, not for the purpose of associating with a particular group of coworkers. To me the captive nature of the space should lean even more towards political neutrality. A street preacher with a megaphone you can simply walk away from.
  - tolbish 6y ago
    That's not my premise though, that is a misinterpretation. There will be issues discussed at work by you and your coworkers that involve how the business affects your community. That's an example of what I mean, there will be (a nonzero amount). Nowhere did I say politics must invade every aspect of your life (a 100% amount), so I don't know why you keep saying that.

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

haberman 6y ago
I was responding to your claim/question (not the article): > Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status quo? If we accept your premise, it allows for no neutral zones or moments in life. Every space is either actively political (by welcoming political expression) or is passively political (by excluding it). Yes, we spend much more of our time at work than at weddings. But a workplace is also a captive space that people enter to support themselves, not for the purpose of associating with a particular group of coworkers. To me the captive nature of the space should lean even more towards political neutrality. A street preacher with a megaphone you can simply walk away from.
- tolbish 6y ago
  That's not my premise though, that is a misinterpretation. There will be issues discussed at work by you and your coworkers that involve how the business affects your community. That's an example of what I mean, there will be (a nonzero amount). Nowhere did I say politics must invade every aspect of your life (a 100% amount), so I don't know why you keep saying that.