6 ms·

> 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

by 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.
    - koonsolo 5y ago
      I don't see the political part in this. If I was gay and somebody would respond to me like that, I would instantly ask "Do you have a problem with me having a husband? Where were you living the last couple of decades? Are you some muslim extremist or something?" Keep it light and funny, and tear the bastard apart. It doesn't need to turn into a political debate, it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.
      - drewbug01 5y ago
        > I don't see the political part in this > it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate. I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing. I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes the managers are jerks as well. Sometimes their managers, too. It happens. I don't like it, it shouldn't happen: but it happens.
        koonsolo 5y ago
        You have more experience than me of course, so I believe you. It's a sad thing that we are still only at this level.
        drewbug01 5y ago
        Indeed, it is sad. But hey, progress does happen, even if it's slow. I'm not incredibly morose about it all the time, or anything - just cautious about losing some of that progress.
- jiofih 5y ago
  I’m sorry but I don’t quite get how company policy would impact this interaction with a coworker, in practice. If they are showing prejudice or treating you unfairly it is them that should be reported. It must be a pretty fucked up workplace for the opposite to happen?
- robjan 5y ago
  I think there a difference. A statement of indisputable fact i.e. "I went to the park with my husband" is different from an opinion or belief such as "I think x should be y", regardless of how accepted it is in the workplace or society as a whole.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    You think that the statement “I think my marriage should remain legal” is significantly different from the statement “I went to the park with my husband”?
    - therealdrag0 5y ago
      Yes.
    - robjan 5y ago
      It's obviously different. And this is an example of why politics is a dangerous subject in the workplace. I haven't challenged your belief, in fact, I don't even know your belief and you're already on the attack. If you say "I am married", that's a fact. If someone says they disagree with your marriage then they are stating an opinion.
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    I’m telling you though - that’s not how it plays out. This is something I’ve lived through - I’ve been asked not to talk about relationships at work because they aren’t heteronormative. It’s not a hair-splitting thing, I’m explicitly asserting that there are people who will twist it this way; at least they have in the past and I don’t see how it’ll be different now.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      Even if this policy were intended to be used this way, or winds up being used this way, (which I don't support), it still seems better than the alternative. If you reference your husband and somebody says "Aaah, political, can't say that" - do you want to be sharing personal details with this person? Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit in silence stewing with hatred of you? If you have anti-gay coworkers who buzz you for anodyne references like this you could just not talk to them or buzz them for their references to wives, girlfriends, whatever. You could escalate to management or HR if you felt they were treating you unfairly. If the corporate policy permits politics at worse, that would seem to make situation worse, not better.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If someone comes to me and reports anyone (of any gender) for using that sentence and claiming that it was political, they'll be first invited to repeat themself because I must have heard them incorrectly and then if that doesn't clue them in, I'll continue along the conversation until they realize that I don't believe that's the least bit political of a statement and if they continue to think that it is, they are only welcome to do that thinking at work with their mouth shut and away from their keyboard.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Good on you (genuinely) but you do recognize that there are plenty of people who would be much more sympathetic to the complainer, right?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Yes, of course. I've seen that number decrease over the decades, but it's obviously not zero (and probably never will be). It's not clear that the presence of those people on the earth requires official work channels to be a political discussion free-for-all. I spend time on a fairly small number of discussion sites. Invariably, the ones with the highest signal-to-noise ratio are the ones which ban gratuitous political discussion (including this one [Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ]). Political discussion (like religious discussion) tends to generate more heat than light and I don't begrudge a company wanting to focus official work channels on, well, work.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        I agree that political discussion generates more heat than light, and I agree that the company should be able to prohibit specific topics. At the same time, Basecamp’s definition of “political” is extremely broad (“every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant”) and I don’t blame people for worrying that anodyne statements would fall under its umbrella. To take a few hot-button issues from today: what if you’re Black, and a police officer racially profiles you on your way to work? What if your trans child is taking puberty blockers, or playing sports? Forget taking specific stances — is it acceptable to even let on to your coworkers that these things are happening in your life?
NationalPark 5y ago
I think the GP comment is referring to LGBT people who are out, willingly or not, to their coworkers. Which bathroom a trans person uses, for example, is considered a political issue by some people. But I also think that point can be generalized, to the boring but obvious conclusion that everything involving interaction between human beings is political, since those interactions occur within the context of a malleable political system. We could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment that makes being late for standup punishable by prison, couldn't we? Is it now political to be late for standup? You end up arguing over the degree to which something is political, which leads back to what everyone is complaining about: the enforcement of this policy cannot be anything but arbitrary. Personally, I think that if the Basecamp folks want to ban a particular type of politics then they should grow a spine and say what they mean, instead of expecting everyone to read between the lines for them. If they did that then perhaps they could expect people to agree to disagree, but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.
- mwcampbell 5y ago
  > but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now. And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work environment?
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    I don't think we can ignore that this is happening in the context of current events in the United States.
    - mwcampbell 5y ago
      And, being current events, they're already being discussed in plenty of places. For people who find it stressful to discuss these things, it's good to have a place where you know they won't be discussed, where you can focus fully on something that you can actually do something about.

by jiofih 5y ago

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.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    I don't see the political part in this. If I was gay and somebody would respond to me like that, I would instantly ask "Do you have a problem with me having a husband? Where were you living the last couple of decades? Are you some muslim extremist or something?" Keep it light and funny, and tear the bastard apart. It doesn't need to turn into a political debate, it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      > I don't see the political part in this > it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate. I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing. I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes the managers are jerks as well. Sometimes their managers, too. It happens. I don't like it, it shouldn't happen: but it happens.
      - koonsolo 5y ago
        You have more experience than me of course, so I believe you. It's a sad thing that we are still only at this level.
        drewbug01 5y ago
        Indeed, it is sad. But hey, progress does happen, even if it's slow. I'm not incredibly morose about it all the time, or anything - just cautious about losing some of that progress.
jiofih 5y ago
I’m sorry but I don’t quite get how company policy would impact this interaction with a coworker, in practice. If they are showing prejudice or treating you unfairly it is them that should be reported. It must be a pretty fucked up workplace for the opposite to happen?
robjan 5y ago
I think there a difference. A statement of indisputable fact i.e. "I went to the park with my husband" is different from an opinion or belief such as "I think x should be y", regardless of how accepted it is in the workplace or society as a whole.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  You think that the statement “I think my marriage should remain legal” is significantly different from the statement “I went to the park with my husband”?
  - therealdrag0 5y ago
    Yes.
  - robjan 5y ago
    It's obviously different. And this is an example of why politics is a dangerous subject in the workplace. I haven't challenged your belief, in fact, I don't even know your belief and you're already on the attack. If you say "I am married", that's a fact. If someone says they disagree with your marriage then they are stating an opinion.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  I’m telling you though - that’s not how it plays out. This is something I’ve lived through - I’ve been asked not to talk about relationships at work because they aren’t heteronormative. It’s not a hair-splitting thing, I’m explicitly asserting that there are people who will twist it this way; at least they have in the past and I don’t see how it’ll be different now.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Even if this policy were intended to be used this way, or winds up being used this way, (which I don't support), it still seems better than the alternative. If you reference your husband and somebody says "Aaah, political, can't say that" - do you want to be sharing personal details with this person? Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit in silence stewing with hatred of you? If you have anti-gay coworkers who buzz you for anodyne references like this you could just not talk to them or buzz them for their references to wives, girlfriends, whatever. You could escalate to management or HR if you felt they were treating you unfairly. If the corporate policy permits politics at worse, that would seem to make situation worse, not better.
sokoloff 5y ago
If someone comes to me and reports anyone (of any gender) for using that sentence and claiming that it was political, they'll be first invited to repeat themself because I must have heard them incorrectly and then if that doesn't clue them in, I'll continue along the conversation until they realize that I don't believe that's the least bit political of a statement and if they continue to think that it is, they are only welcome to do that thinking at work with their mouth shut and away from their keyboard.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Good on you (genuinely) but you do recognize that there are plenty of people who would be much more sympathetic to the complainer, right?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Yes, of course. I've seen that number decrease over the decades, but it's obviously not zero (and probably never will be). It's not clear that the presence of those people on the earth requires official work channels to be a political discussion free-for-all. I spend time on a fairly small number of discussion sites. Invariably, the ones with the highest signal-to-noise ratio are the ones which ban gratuitous political discussion (including this one [Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ]). Political discussion (like religious discussion) tends to generate more heat than light and I don't begrudge a company wanting to focus official work channels on, well, work.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      I agree that political discussion generates more heat than light, and I agree that the company should be able to prohibit specific topics. At the same time, Basecamp’s definition of “political” is extremely broad (“every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant”) and I don’t blame people for worrying that anodyne statements would fall under its umbrella. To take a few hot-button issues from today: what if you’re Black, and a police officer racially profiles you on your way to work? What if your trans child is taking puberty blockers, or playing sports? Forget taking specific stances — is it acceptable to even let on to your coworkers that these things are happening in your life?

NationalPark 5y ago

I think the GP comment is referring to LGBT people who are out, willingly or not, to their coworkers. Which bathroom a trans person uses, for example, is considered a political issue by some people. But I also think that point can be generalized, to the boring but obvious conclusion that everything involving interaction between human beings is political, since those interactions occur within the context of a malleable political system. We could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment that makes being late for standup punishable by prison, couldn't we? Is it now political to be late for standup? You end up arguing over the degree to which something is political, which leads back to what everyone is complaining about: the enforcement of this policy cannot be anything but arbitrary. Personally, I think that if the Basecamp folks want to ban a particular type of politics then they should grow a spine and say what they mean, instead of expecting everyone to read between the lines for them. If they did that then perhaps they could expect people to agree to disagree, but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.

mwcampbell 5y ago
> but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now. And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work environment?
- NationalPark 5y ago
  I don't think we can ignore that this is happening in the context of current events in the United States.
  - mwcampbell 5y ago
    And, being current events, they're already being discussed in plenty of places. For people who find it stressful to discuss these things, it's good to have a place where you know they won't be discussed, where you can focus fully on something that you can actually do something about.