5 ms·

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 (particul

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.)

rtpg 5y ago
Another basic example: imagine working at Basecamp and being like "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" (whatever the Rails equivalent is) Like maybe you want to have a more diverse team and this is one way of trying to recruit for it. Without these "oh politics is sin" things, the bosses saying no might require them to justify it. Instead they can now weasel their way out of this kind of stuff, and basically shield themselves from criticism on this front, even if people internally might want to change [0] Lots of conservative ideology is around this, trying to turn some subjective defense of beliefs into like... some objective rules about not doing X/Y/Z (basically maintaining the status quo). I'm not saying the decision makers are conservative, but that's what the result is going to be here. (tbh I think there are good reasons to minimize discussions about current events into places where people aren't forced to be exposed to them at work. I know I don't want to, just cuz I'm already exposed to it a lot. But there's a difference between banning politics talk and just asking people to keep it in certain areas IMO) [0] https://basecamp.com/about/team https://basecamp.com/about/team they don't have the engineering/non-engineering split here, but 50-odd people and they have 3 Dans + 3 Jasons. There are definitely companies with more absurd balances and the people at Basecamp probably would like to see improvements! But this kinda stuff makes it harder.
- bsima 5y ago
  > "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" Sure, just do it with your own money, not company money
  - rtpg 5y ago
    Should I pay for recruiter fees out of my own pocket if I want to send a recruiter to an HBCU while I'm at it? I'm not going to do a diversity spiel, but I have had the "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" discussion before, and part of solving that can involve more focused recruiting efforts (including stuff like sponsoring those kinds of events). It's totally a work-related thing. Why would I pay out of pocket to help my company hire?
    - chii 5y ago
      > "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" so if you have a business case for recruiting different kinds of people (who currently don't get recruited), then that's not a political agenda. If you can point to evidence that the recruitment team is missing out on great candidates because of some systemic mis-identification. But if you are suggesting that it would make the world a more equal place to hire those different people, even though they currently would not be hired, then that's not a great business case, and thus, becomes a political agenda.
    - bsima 5y ago
      Recruiting is different than public outreach. I think the strategy in recruiting is to hire the best people you can regardless of identity. “Best” is qualified by the tasks of the particular role
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    To be clear: are you saying that corporations shouldn’t sponsor anything, or are you singling out Django Girls as a “political” sponsorship? If the latter, you’re kinda proving GP’s point. Django Girls is an ostensibly non-political organization, politicized solely because it acknowledges an aspect of people’s identity.
bsima 5y ago
> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level
- drewbug01 5y ago
  My point is that some people consider my equal participation in that conversation to be inherently political. My point is essentially that anti-lgbt folk will dehumanize the conversation under the guise of “no politics”. Or at least that they could, and that it sure used to happen an awful lot, and it wasn’t that long ago.
  - bsima 5y ago
    I think it’s more dehumanizing to be reduced to a label than it is to be approached face-to-face
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      It sure is. But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies, and it’s exactly what I worry about when they’re enacted (because that’s how it used to work). I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”
      - bsima 5y ago
        > But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized
        drewbug01 5y ago
        That’s not what they’re doing though - they’re not saying “we cannot say the word ‘gay’ any more because that makes the sentence a political sentence.” They’re saying you can’t talk about politics, and honestly specific words don’t even have to come into play. You can weaponize the policy easily without using specific words at all.
babesh 5y ago
I worked in tech over twenty years ago and I knew multiple same sex couples back then. It wasn’t an issue at all. This was the Bay Area. May have been different elsewhere. It is still not an issue in the Bay Area.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  The Bay Area has always been a bit ahead of the curve there - but my point isn’t just an LGBT thing... that’s the example most relevant to me personally. People of color could probably talk about similar issues related to this kind of policy. Of note: Basecamp was at least until recently based primarily in the Midwest, in Chicago. Bay Area culture influences them in the same way it influences all tech culture, but they are certainly situated in a different culture than that of the Bay. (Also of note is that while SF specifically was friendlier to LGBT people historically, this is a difference of degrees: LGBT folks in SF experienced plenty of discrimination over the years. And personally, it’s the only place I’ve been called a “faggot” while walking on the sidewalk - multiple times. Anecdote, but still.)
  - Dylanlacey 5y ago
    This^^ It's one of the gayest places on earth, of _course_ it's going to be more accepting.
  - hderms 5y ago
    Chicago is pretty LGBTQ friendly. It's culturally more midwestern than say, NYC, but it's not like we're talking about St. Louis here.
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      I mean we’re really getting lost in the weeds here, I think. Like it’s not just about LGBT issues, it’s just an easy, personally relevant example for me to use. To your point though: Chicago is decent, but arguably less so than SF.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

rtpg 5y ago

Another basic example: imagine working at Basecamp and being like "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" (whatever the Rails equivalent is) Like maybe you want to have a more diverse team and this is one way of trying to recruit for it. Without these "oh politics is sin" things, the bosses saying no might require them to justify it. Instead they can now weasel their way out of this kind of stuff, and basically shield themselves from criticism on this front, even if people internally might want to change [0] Lots of conservative ideology is around this, trying to turn some subjective defense of beliefs into like... some objective rules about not doing X/Y/Z (basically maintaining the status quo). I'm not saying the decision makers are conservative, but that's what the result is going to be here. (tbh I think there are good reasons to minimize discussions about current events into places where people aren't forced to be exposed to them at work. I know I don't want to, just cuz I'm already exposed to it a lot. But there's a difference between banning politics talk and just asking people to keep it in certain areas IMO) [0] https://basecamp.com/about/team https://basecamp.com/about/team they don't have the engineering/non-engineering split here, but 50-odd people and they have 3 Dans + 3 Jasons. There are definitely companies with more absurd balances and the people at Basecamp probably would like to see improvements! But this kinda stuff makes it harder.

bsima 5y ago
> "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" Sure, just do it with your own money, not company money
- rtpg 5y ago
  Should I pay for recruiter fees out of my own pocket if I want to send a recruiter to an HBCU while I'm at it? I'm not going to do a diversity spiel, but I have had the "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" discussion before, and part of solving that can involve more focused recruiting efforts (including stuff like sponsoring those kinds of events). It's totally a work-related thing. Why would I pay out of pocket to help my company hire?
  - chii 5y ago
    > "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" so if you have a business case for recruiting different kinds of people (who currently don't get recruited), then that's not a political agenda. If you can point to evidence that the recruitment team is missing out on great candidates because of some systemic mis-identification. But if you are suggesting that it would make the world a more equal place to hire those different people, even though they currently would not be hired, then that's not a great business case, and thus, becomes a political agenda.
  - bsima 5y ago
    Recruiting is different than public outreach. I think the strategy in recruiting is to hire the best people you can regardless of identity. “Best” is qualified by the tasks of the particular role
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  To be clear: are you saying that corporations shouldn’t sponsor anything, or are you singling out Django Girls as a “political” sponsorship? If the latter, you’re kinda proving GP’s point. Django Girls is an ostensibly non-political organization, politicized solely because it acknowledges an aspect of people’s identity.

bsima 5y ago

> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level

drewbug01 5y ago
My point is that some people consider my equal participation in that conversation to be inherently political. My point is essentially that anti-lgbt folk will dehumanize the conversation under the guise of “no politics”. Or at least that they could, and that it sure used to happen an awful lot, and it wasn’t that long ago.
- bsima 5y ago
  I think it’s more dehumanizing to be reduced to a label than it is to be approached face-to-face
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    It sure is. But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies, and it’s exactly what I worry about when they’re enacted (because that’s how it used to work). I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”
    - bsima 5y ago
      > But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized
      - drewbug01 5y ago
        That’s not what they’re doing though - they’re not saying “we cannot say the word ‘gay’ any more because that makes the sentence a political sentence.” They’re saying you can’t talk about politics, and honestly specific words don’t even have to come into play. You can weaponize the policy easily without using specific words at all.

babesh 5y ago

I worked in tech over twenty years ago and I knew multiple same sex couples back then. It wasn’t an issue at all. This was the Bay Area. May have been different elsewhere. It is still not an issue in the Bay Area.

drewbug01 5y ago
The Bay Area has always been a bit ahead of the curve there - but my point isn’t just an LGBT thing... that’s the example most relevant to me personally. People of color could probably talk about similar issues related to this kind of policy. Of note: Basecamp was at least until recently based primarily in the Midwest, in Chicago. Bay Area culture influences them in the same way it influences all tech culture, but they are certainly situated in a different culture than that of the Bay. (Also of note is that while SF specifically was friendlier to LGBT people historically, this is a difference of degrees: LGBT folks in SF experienced plenty of discrimination over the years. And personally, it’s the only place I’ve been called a “faggot” while walking on the sidewalk - multiple times. Anecdote, but still.)
- Dylanlacey 5y ago
  This^^ It's one of the gayest places on earth, of _course_ it's going to be more accepting.
- hderms 5y ago
  Chicago is pretty LGBTQ friendly. It's culturally more midwestern than say, NYC, but it's not like we're talking about St. Louis here.
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    I mean we’re really getting lost in the weeds here, I think. Like it’s not just about LGBT issues, it’s just an easy, personally relevant example for me to use. To your point though: Chicago is decent, but arguably less so than SF.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]