5 ms·

>but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. >It's a pos

>but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. >It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive. It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies." Of course those are nonsense stances. On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive. >I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder. This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all. >This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic. Straight out of the Marxist handbook. >But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them. I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world. Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Yes it is, it absolutely is. No, its not, it avsolutely is not. > You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
- throwaway0xc 5y ago
  >No, its not, it avsolutely is not. Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED. >Limiting the scope of activism The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time. >always serves to protect the status quo. Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard. >The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral. It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other employees liked the rule. It was causing a stir, so I as CEO decided to prohibit any discussion on the matter. Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group. The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place. QED?
    - throwaway0xc 5y ago
      This strawman is so huge it experienced autoignition. >There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Your logic breaks down in your first sentence. No one is gagging company internal politics that pertains to their corporate charter and mission, rules, regulations, etc. Quite the contrary, they're actually opening that up and flattening the hierarchy. If anything your example only proves my point further (if you actually bothered to real TFA). >QED? QED for me yes, thanks.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. > It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED. The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Yes it is, it absolutely is. No, its not, it avsolutely is not. > You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.

throwaway0xc 5y ago
>No, its not, it avsolutely is not. Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED. >Limiting the scope of activism The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time. >always serves to protect the status quo. Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard. >The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral. It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other employees liked the rule. It was causing a stir, so I as CEO decided to prohibit any discussion on the matter. Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group. The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place. QED?
  - throwaway0xc 5y ago
    This strawman is so huge it experienced autoignition. >There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Your logic breaks down in your first sentence. No one is gagging company internal politics that pertains to their corporate charter and mission, rules, regulations, etc. Quite the contrary, they're actually opening that up and flattening the hierarchy. If anything your example only proves my point further (if you actually bothered to real TFA). >QED? QED for me yes, thanks.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. > It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED. The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.