5 ms·

prefer a workplace where I don't have to bite my tongue 24/7 simply because my political views aren't popular It's not that cut and dry; There's a di

by ido 6y ago

prefer a workplace where I don't have to bite my tongue 24/7 simply because my political views aren't popular It's not that cut and dry; There's a difference between disagreeing about what is the optimal rate of taxes on labor and capital, if marijuana should be legalized, how much public money should be spent on infrastructure and so on vs say if trans people deserve acceptance & healthcare, gay people should be able to marry, women allowed to get abortions, or that ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group. If the discussion is about the person you are talking to getting to enjoy the same basic rights everyone else does (or even just exist) that's not just any political discussion and it affects them very personally and directly. As they say, "your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

nailer 6y ago
> if trans people deserve acceptance & healthcare, gay people should be able to marry, women allowed to get abortions, or that ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group. You think this. Others don't. Your values are not universal. If you want to advocate for your positions, arguing on a company slack while being paid to do something else isn't the time.
- ido 6y ago
  The problem is that some people's mere existence is political. If you're trans, gay, black or muslim (for example) someone arguing against who you are is not a theoretical debate. If a coworker was saying or acting in an anti-semitic way (possibly not even consciously), I would absolutely feel unsafe as a Jew in a company that told me "that's just their beliefs, you don't have to agree with their politics". I would call that out on the company slack & if they continue doing so would expect them to get fired.
  - nailer 6y ago
    You’re confusing innate and non innate qualities. Islam isn’t an innate quality. People can and do leave Islam. Whether transgenderism is an innate quality is up for debate. People certainly can and do stop identifying as a different gender from their sex assigned at birth. In the case of your other example of black and Jewish people: it’s already inappropriate to be racist at work.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'd encourage you to introspect on this. "Ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group" is a common position, and one I strongly agree with. But you also seem to be saying that, across a pretty wide range of contentious social issues, everyone needs to assimilate your beliefs and you can't work with anyone who hasn't. Do you see the tension here?
- ido 6y ago
  When it comes to basic rights (sometimes even the right to exist), yes that is what I'm saying. Homophobia, Transphobia and so on are not better than racism & religious discrimination. This is sometimes hard to see for people who are themselves not part of the "contentious" group (and not always due to malevolence, sometimes it's just hard to sympathize with people who aren't like yourself).
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's not about "better than". The problem is that your principles directly conflict. How would you respond, for example, to a devout Muslim with religious objections to gay marriage?
    - ido 6y ago
      I would respond to them in exactly the same way I'd respond to a devout Christian who religiously objects to gay marriage. And I would still not think Islamophobia is justified (just like the existence of homophobic Christians doesn't condemn Christianity & Christians as a whole).
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        But what is the way you'd respond? It doesn't sound like you'd fire them. So it seems like your only option is to say "alright, I don't agree with you about this, but that's fine as long as you understand that you can't go around arguing this at work". Which is a reasonable solution, don't get me wrong. But this kind of solution is what people mean when they talk about limiting politics at work, and these kinds of conflicts are why it's a good idea. In order to work with people who don't share your precise values, there have to be ground rules to minimize conflict.
disgrunt 6y ago
It's not that cut and dry; There's a difference between disagreeing about [issues I don't have strong opinions about] and [issues I do have strong opinions about]. Now scramble those weakly / strongly held opinions for every individual...

by ido 6y ago

nailer 6y ago

> if trans people deserve acceptance & healthcare, gay people should be able to marry, women allowed to get abortions, or that ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group. You think this. Others don't. Your values are not universal. If you want to advocate for your positions, arguing on a company slack while being paid to do something else isn't the time.

ido 6y ago
The problem is that some people's mere existence is political. If you're trans, gay, black or muslim (for example) someone arguing against who you are is not a theoretical debate. If a coworker was saying or acting in an anti-semitic way (possibly not even consciously), I would absolutely feel unsafe as a Jew in a company that told me "that's just their beliefs, you don't have to agree with their politics". I would call that out on the company slack & if they continue doing so would expect them to get fired.
- nailer 6y ago
  You’re confusing innate and non innate qualities. Islam isn’t an innate quality. People can and do leave Islam. Whether transgenderism is an innate quality is up for debate. People certainly can and do stop identifying as a different gender from their sex assigned at birth. In the case of your other example of black and Jewish people: it’s already inappropriate to be racist at work.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'd encourage you to introspect on this. "Ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group" is a common position, and one I strongly agree with. But you also seem to be saying that, across a pretty wide range of contentious social issues, everyone needs to assimilate your beliefs and you can't work with anyone who hasn't. Do you see the tension here?

ido 6y ago
When it comes to basic rights (sometimes even the right to exist), yes that is what I'm saying. Homophobia, Transphobia and so on are not better than racism & religious discrimination. This is sometimes hard to see for people who are themselves not part of the "contentious" group (and not always due to malevolence, sometimes it's just hard to sympathize with people who aren't like yourself).
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not about "better than". The problem is that your principles directly conflict. How would you respond, for example, to a devout Muslim with religious objections to gay marriage?
  - ido 6y ago
    I would respond to them in exactly the same way I'd respond to a devout Christian who religiously objects to gay marriage. And I would still not think Islamophobia is justified (just like the existence of homophobic Christians doesn't condemn Christianity & Christians as a whole).
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But what is the way you'd respond? It doesn't sound like you'd fire them. So it seems like your only option is to say "alright, I don't agree with you about this, but that's fine as long as you understand that you can't go around arguing this at work". Which is a reasonable solution, don't get me wrong. But this kind of solution is what people mean when they talk about limiting politics at work, and these kinds of conflicts are why it's a good idea. In order to work with people who don't share your precise values, there have to be ground rules to minimize conflict.

disgrunt 6y ago

It's not that cut and dry; There's a difference between disagreeing about [issues I don't have strong opinions about] and [issues I do have strong opinions about]. Now scramble those weakly / strongly held opinions for every individual...