13 ms·

Issues that directly impact me and mine at my workplace are considered “political” by those of more conservative mindsets. That’s the really ugly flip side of

Issues that directly impact me and mine at my workplace are considered “political” by those of more conservative mindsets. That’s the really ugly flip side of this, and I know it’s been said elsewhere but: conservative politics in the US make some people’s entire existence political, full stop. So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. You can’t disconnect this from the current US political situation. They’re joined at the hip.

koonsolo 5y ago
Discrimination in any form should not be accepted. But is this still a political topic? I thought we all already decided that.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  I think a lot of people replying have the same mindset: “haven’t we already decided that discrimination is bad?” I mean... I wish we all had, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Many people still tout discrimination as a legitimate political view.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    I agree, but strangely enough, both extreme right and extreme left seem to love discrimination in some form. I honestly believe that the real solution is treat everyone the same, and to demand from everyone to do the same. When your solution includes distinction, you will never get rid of the distinction.
spawarotti 5y ago
I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. Perhaps implicitly the new policy assumes it is obvious you can mention your husband and anybody giving you problems because of that is violating the policy. I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".
- drewbug01 5y ago
  > I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places. Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there. But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good. > I do think the policy should be explicit about it. I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.
slibhb 5y ago
Your fundamental error is not recognizing the existence of the "tolerant bigot". Most bigots are tolerant. Most people (in the US) who think homosexuality is a crime against God, a sin, wrong, or just gross are tolerant. They will keep their opinion to themselves and they can be friends, neighbors, coworkers with a gay person with no issues. People are weird and complicated. It just isn't the case that someone who is against gay marriage is "against your right to exist". Tolerance is putting up with things you disapprove of not approving everything.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  You're not really wrong, on any point. But you did make an interesting connection, that a lot of people are making: "Tolerance is [...] not approving everything." It's honestly fascinating to me that this keeps coming up. I never asked for approval - the hypothetical I continually stick to is "this policy could allow someone to label me saying 'my husband and I ...' as 'political speech', and silence that aspect of my life." (And, specifically, that I have experienced this before myself and have seen it happen to others and that it's not all that uncommon). But I'm not asking for approval - but you jumped there anyways. Why is that? To me, that reads as "asking for tolerance" is the same as "asking for approval," but that would contradict what you stated earlier. There's a logical inconsistency there, and I don't know how you resolve it?
  - slibhb 5y ago
    People, including me, are making the "tolerance is not approval" connection because we look at society and see a lot of tolerance and then we see lots of people who conflate tolerance with approval, sometimes explicitly, e.g. if someone says "I am very tolerant, I support gay marriage," they are using the word "tolerant" wrong. Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political. Acquiring your right to marry was political, but exercising that right is not. If someone doesn't understand this and interprets you referencing your husband as some political statement, they are wrong, and I expect most HR departments would realize that if push came to shove.
nerdponx 5y ago
I think I agree with what you said about American conservatism; it's an interesting idea at least. But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp? So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I can't think of many political topics that necessarily amount to uninviting someone from daily work conversation at a company like Basecamp.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  > But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp? Let's say I work at Basecamp and believe that workers should be entitled to seats on Basecamp's board, just as they are in all large companies in Germany. Should I be punished for raising this?
  - drusepth 5y ago
    This seems like something you would want to bring up with your boss / HR / higher-ups, instead of starting an open discussion/debate with the whole company, right?
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      “That seems like [a worker rights issue] that you would want to bring up with [the folks who usually don’t like the workers exercising their rights]” is how that sounds to me, when I read it. Sure, yeah, you should bring it up with management, but bringing it up with your coworkers is essential to actually making a change happen.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      No reason it couldn’t be both.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  It wasn’t that long ago that even in tech, you couldn’t mention same-sex spouses without backlash. And that’s still the case today in other industries (particularly ones that don’t have a sizable internet culture influence like tech does). So like to apply that specifically to a work context: that’s saying “no watercooler chat about what you and your spouses got up to over the weekend” because your spouse existing is a “political” concept. And by extension, that employee isn’t very much welcome. You can extend that metaphor in other directions though: company PACs supporting anti-gay politicians, benefits that exclude LGBT employees, etc. Now that’s all “political” too. (There are other areas too, I think - this particular identity-based angle on it is relevant to me personally so I can see these examples clearly. I feel confident there are others.)
markmark 5y ago
But isn't the place to discuss those issues, if they are impacting you at your workplace, with your manager, HR or your union? Not to start a thread on the work discussion forum?
- drewbug01 5y ago
  I don’t think so, for a variety of reasons. But one of them is that managers and HR reps are often keen to just make a problem “go away” - so coworkers agitating over that problem is often required for any substantial change. Notably, the US tech workforce is almost entirely in unionized, as well - so that avenue isn’t available.
mwcampbell 5y ago
> You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?
- tclancy 5y ago
  I think it’s because it’s really just putting your fingers in your ears, ignoring the fact you simply redefined the problem instead of solving it. The next step is, who gets to decide what is and is not “political”? The answer tends to be the last people you want.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing to share with coworkers. Only one of the statements happens to involve (and even take a stance on!) a political debate which was extremely prominent in US national politics 6 years ago and extremely divisive and highly-charged. If a company has a policy like this, what should their response be to these two people? Should one, both, or neither message be allowed in the company’s casual chat channel?
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Why do you think your marriage is of such general interest that you bring it up in a company chat channel? Talk about it in person, with people who give a shit.
    - 5y ago
jiofih 5y ago
> some people’s entire existence political, full stop > you uninvited certain people entirely Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?
- drewbug01 5y ago
  Not unable to work; unwelcome at work. I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. So again - not that I can’t work, but I’m unwelcome at work. Even if the company would never enforce the policy that way: they could, and I have to worry about it. And not too long ago, companies did enforce it that way. (Just to continue with one specific example, I don’t think the problem is contained only to this one example)
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    > I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. They are the ones that make it political, not you. This borders discrimination in my opinion.
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      > Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. Indeed. That’s why the policy is bad: it tilts the field in favor of someone acting like this. Because now we first must counter-claim “it’s not politics to mention my husband” and win that fight, and then move on to “and you’re harassing me by weaponizing the politics policy.” If anti-gay views weren’t legitimately held up as political views by about half the country, this wouldn’t be nearly so bad.
      - 5y ago
kiawe_fire 5y ago
> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop. It’s made quite clear that my only means of survival are to keep my mouth shut and present myself as entirely apolitical. Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely, but you’re not ok with both sides being silenced, or at least “toned down”, for the sake of promoting fairness, inclusion, and productivity.
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  > Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, What is a "straight white" liberal company? Are you saying you've asked all your coworkers their sexual orientation, or are you making assumptions based on heteronormativity. Dating people of the opposite gender doesn't necessarily make one straight. As a not-entirely-straight man in tech, I have never discussed my degree of "straightness" at work, but I would be a bit taken aback by someone assuming this.
  - randomsearch 5y ago
    This sort of over-reaction to throwaway comments is a big part of the problem. Take the most generous interpretation - maybe they just mean "a company where I am in the minority politically", that's all you need to take to follow the point. Stop being the language police or we'll never make any progress. Tolerance, generosity, always assume the best of someone.
  - random5634 5y ago
    Good lord. Straight white could simply meant mostly white or mostly straight and white
- deanCommie 5y ago
  I don't know your lived experience. I'm going to try not to doubt it. Maybe your coworkers are toxic and you are trying to talk to them about why low taxes are good because they encourage innovation, and that government-run agencies are not as efficient as private enterprises, and they are screaming the Communist Manifesto back at you. But in my experience, that's not the kinds of opinions that I see the modern discourse have no tolerance for. Happy to be hear some stories otherwise and have my own mind be opened about the kind of discrimination you're talking about.
nautilus12 5y ago
"I love my family!" "That's good...hold up are you conservative?" "Yes" "Stop pushing your politics on us!" This mindset is demonizing and insidious, full stop. It's simply unacceptable in a civil society

koonsolo 5y ago

Discrimination in any form should not be accepted. But is this still a political topic? I thought we all already decided that.

drewbug01 5y ago
I think a lot of people replying have the same mindset: “haven’t we already decided that discrimination is bad?” I mean... I wish we all had, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Many people still tout discrimination as a legitimate political view.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  I agree, but strangely enough, both extreme right and extreme left seem to love discrimination in some form. I honestly believe that the real solution is treat everyone the same, and to demand from everyone to do the same. When your solution includes distinction, you will never get rid of the distinction.

spawarotti 5y ago

I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. Perhaps implicitly the new policy assumes it is obvious you can mention your husband and anybody giving you problems because of that is violating the policy. I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".

drewbug01 5y ago
> I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places. Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there. But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good. > I do think the policy should be explicit about it. I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.

slibhb 5y ago

Your fundamental error is not recognizing the existence of the "tolerant bigot". Most bigots are tolerant. Most people (in the US) who think homosexuality is a crime against God, a sin, wrong, or just gross are tolerant. They will keep their opinion to themselves and they can be friends, neighbors, coworkers with a gay person with no issues. People are weird and complicated. It just isn't the case that someone who is against gay marriage is "against your right to exist". Tolerance is putting up with things you disapprove of not approving everything.

drewbug01 5y ago
You're not really wrong, on any point. But you did make an interesting connection, that a lot of people are making: "Tolerance is [...] not approving everything." It's honestly fascinating to me that this keeps coming up. I never asked for approval - the hypothetical I continually stick to is "this policy could allow someone to label me saying 'my husband and I ...' as 'political speech', and silence that aspect of my life." (And, specifically, that I have experienced this before myself and have seen it happen to others and that it's not all that uncommon). But I'm not asking for approval - but you jumped there anyways. Why is that? To me, that reads as "asking for tolerance" is the same as "asking for approval," but that would contradict what you stated earlier. There's a logical inconsistency there, and I don't know how you resolve it?
- slibhb 5y ago
  People, including me, are making the "tolerance is not approval" connection because we look at society and see a lot of tolerance and then we see lots of people who conflate tolerance with approval, sometimes explicitly, e.g. if someone says "I am very tolerant, I support gay marriage," they are using the word "tolerant" wrong. Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political. Acquiring your right to marry was political, but exercising that right is not. If someone doesn't understand this and interprets you referencing your husband as some political statement, they are wrong, and I expect most HR departments would realize that if push came to shove.

nerdponx 5y ago

I think I agree with what you said about American conservatism; it's an interesting idea at least. But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp? So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I can't think of many political topics that necessarily amount to uninviting someone from daily work conversation at a company like Basecamp.

djrobstep 5y ago
> But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp? Let's say I work at Basecamp and believe that workers should be entitled to seats on Basecamp's board, just as they are in all large companies in Germany. Should I be punished for raising this?
- drusepth 5y ago
  This seems like something you would want to bring up with your boss / HR / higher-ups, instead of starting an open discussion/debate with the whole company, right?
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    “That seems like [a worker rights issue] that you would want to bring up with [the folks who usually don’t like the workers exercising their rights]” is how that sounds to me, when I read it. Sure, yeah, you should bring it up with management, but bringing it up with your coworkers is essential to actually making a change happen.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    No reason it couldn’t be both.
drewbug01 5y ago
It wasn’t that long ago that even in tech, you couldn’t mention same-sex spouses without backlash. And that’s still the case today in other industries (particularly ones that don’t have a sizable internet culture influence like tech does). So like to apply that specifically to a work context: that’s saying “no watercooler chat about what you and your spouses got up to over the weekend” because your spouse existing is a “political” concept. And by extension, that employee isn’t very much welcome. You can extend that metaphor in other directions though: company PACs supporting anti-gay politicians, benefits that exclude LGBT employees, etc. Now that’s all “political” too. (There are other areas too, I think - this particular identity-based angle on it is relevant to me personally so I can see these examples clearly. I feel confident there are others.)

markmark 5y ago

But isn't the place to discuss those issues, if they are impacting you at your workplace, with your manager, HR or your union? Not to start a thread on the work discussion forum?

drewbug01 5y ago
I don’t think so, for a variety of reasons. But one of them is that managers and HR reps are often keen to just make a problem “go away” - so coworkers agitating over that problem is often required for any substantial change. Notably, the US tech workforce is almost entirely in unionized, as well - so that avenue isn’t available.

mwcampbell 5y ago

> You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?

tclancy 5y ago
I think it’s because it’s really just putting your fingers in your ears, ignoring the fact you simply redefined the problem instead of solving it. The next step is, who gets to decide what is and is not “political”? The answer tends to be the last people you want.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tshaddox 5y ago
Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing to share with coworkers. Only one of the statements happens to involve (and even take a stance on!) a political debate which was extremely prominent in US national politics 6 years ago and extremely divisive and highly-charged. If a company has a policy like this, what should their response be to these two people? Should one, both, or neither message be allowed in the company’s casual chat channel?
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Why do you think your marriage is of such general interest that you bring it up in a company chat channel? Talk about it in person, with people who give a shit.
  - 5y ago

jiofih 5y ago

> some people’s entire existence political, full stop > you uninvited certain people entirely Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?

drewbug01 5y ago
Not unable to work; unwelcome at work. I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. So again - not that I can’t work, but I’m unwelcome at work. Even if the company would never enforce the policy that way: they could, and I have to worry about it. And not too long ago, companies did enforce it that way. (Just to continue with one specific example, I don’t think the problem is contained only to this one example)
- koonsolo 5y ago
  > I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. They are the ones that make it political, not you. This borders discrimination in my opinion.
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    > Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. Indeed. That’s why the policy is bad: it tilts the field in favor of someone acting like this. Because now we first must counter-claim “it’s not politics to mention my husband” and win that fight, and then move on to “and you’re harassing me by weaponizing the politics policy.” If anti-gay views weren’t legitimately held up as political views by about half the country, this wouldn’t be nearly so bad.
    - 5y ago

kiawe_fire 5y ago

> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop. It’s made quite clear that my only means of survival are to keep my mouth shut and present myself as entirely apolitical. Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely, but you’re not ok with both sides being silenced, or at least “toned down”, for the sake of promoting fairness, inclusion, and productivity.

pcthrowaway 5y ago
> Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, What is a "straight white" liberal company? Are you saying you've asked all your coworkers their sexual orientation, or are you making assumptions based on heteronormativity. Dating people of the opposite gender doesn't necessarily make one straight. As a not-entirely-straight man in tech, I have never discussed my degree of "straightness" at work, but I would be a bit taken aback by someone assuming this.
- randomsearch 5y ago
  This sort of over-reaction to throwaway comments is a big part of the problem. Take the most generous interpretation - maybe they just mean "a company where I am in the minority politically", that's all you need to take to follow the point. Stop being the language police or we'll never make any progress. Tolerance, generosity, always assume the best of someone.
- random5634 5y ago
  Good lord. Straight white could simply meant mostly white or mostly straight and white
deanCommie 5y ago
I don't know your lived experience. I'm going to try not to doubt it. Maybe your coworkers are toxic and you are trying to talk to them about why low taxes are good because they encourage innovation, and that government-run agencies are not as efficient as private enterprises, and they are screaming the Communist Manifesto back at you. But in my experience, that's not the kinds of opinions that I see the modern discourse have no tolerance for. Happy to be hear some stories otherwise and have my own mind be opened about the kind of discrimination you're talking about.

nautilus12 5y ago

"I love my family!" "That's good...hold up are you conservative?" "Yes" "Stop pushing your politics on us!" This mindset is demonizing and insidious, full stop. It's simply unacceptable in a civil society