6 ms·

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” -Elie Wiesel Choosing to not dis

• thinkingemote 5y ago
  Choosing a side is how you get polarisation. If the trouble with the world is too much polarisation, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to take a side.
• BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I feel like I'm more tormented by people demanding I take "a side" which is invariably their side. God help me if I choose to disagree. Besides, we live in a Democratic Republic and it's my representatives making the decisions, not me. That's literally by design. My only real feedback is casting a single vote when it's the right time.
  • TheTrotters 5y ago
    Yes, the unstated fact in these discussions about politics in workplace is that the dominant group is very liberal or even leftists. Especially on social issues. People who are criticizing Basecamp want their politics in workplace. Every single one of them knows they won't be in the minority. They won't have to be one of the few opposing voices in a sea of anti-abortion, pro-gun-rights, anti-gay-marriage, anti-immigration coworkers.
    • madeofpalk 5y ago
      I wonder if discussing removing racial segregation from workplaces back in the 60s or 70s or whenever was considered a "very liberal or even leftist"? Sometimes there's just a right side to be on. I've never had a discussion about abortion or guns-rights or whatever in the general workplace - maybe I've had social conversations amongst work friends - but really the "political" conversations I've had at work are mostly focus on building diverse teams to build better products or calling out and addressing bad behaviour.
      • krapp 5y ago
        >I wonder if discussing removing racial segregation from workplaces back in the 60s or 70s or whenever was considered a "very liberal or even leftist"? Sometimes there's just a right side to be on. Absolutely. The US government considered the entire civil rights movement to serve the Communist agenda. Read about J. Edgar Hoover's enemies list[0] or COINTELPRO[1]. The FBI believed MLK was a Communist agent[2]. Any anti-war or Black activist group was portrayed as enemies of the state and left-wing extremists. You can see the same playbook being used against BLM today. No one on the right will fail to refer to them as anything but a "Marxist terrorist group" that "burns entire cities to the ground" and "murders innocents with impunity." [0]https://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146862081/the-history-of-the-fbis-secret-enemies-list https://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146862081/the-history-of-the-... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2]https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bureau-investigation-fbi https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bure...
• wakeupbakeup 5y ago
  Some things aren't worth weighing in on. For example, you go to work and some of your more braindead colleagues are earnestly insisting that keeping a list of amusing customer names is the first step on the road to genocide. Do you: (a) get involved in this nonsense, knowing from past experience how furious they'll get if you disagree, or (b) ignore this stupidity and get on with your job? Personally, I'd pick the latter.
• arcturus17 5y ago
  You’re free to discuss politics outside of the workplace to your heart’s content, gather with other activists and even found your own political organization in your free time. You’re also free to quit your job and devote yourself entirely to, you know, politics. So I don’t buy any of your argument.
  • otachack 5y ago
    I totally get your argument but how do we address issues where there's implicit bias being applied to our work? AKA mostly white, males programming in potentially biased features. Work is not a politically/religiously clean room environment whether we like it or not.
    • totony 5y ago
      >I totally get your argument but how do we address issues where there's implicit bias being applied to our work? What kind of implicit bias do you mean?
    • icelancer 5y ago
      >> AKA mostly white, males programming in potentially biased features. Compared to the US population, white people are significantly underrepresented [0] in US software development jobs and overrepresented by Asians. "Most" is technically true at > 50% but it is hardly reflective of US racial demographics. sources: https://www.zippia.com/software-engineer-jobs/demographics/ https://www.zippia.com/software-engineer-jobs/demographics/ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 [0]: as are black and hispanic people
      • nathanielks 5y ago
        That's a distinction without a difference as white people still make up the majority.
        • LunaSea 5y ago
• Trasmatta 5y ago
  Trying to keep politics out of work != Never discussing politics, and refusing to choose a side And I'm saying this as somebody who's very critical of how Basecamp has handled this situation.
• handoflixue 5y ago
  > you’re choosing to take the side of those who prefer political decisions to be made by a small elite, without feedback from people like us. If you're talking about life in general, yes, but "don't talk politics at work" is very different from "leaving all politics to a small elite because they never get feedback from people like us"
• wwwdonohue 5y ago
  But do we really have to draw these lines at work, during work hours? The office is not a public square. It’s not a place where you give feedback to people in power...
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• koonsolo 5y ago
  1. Voting is done in private for a reason. 2. You discussing politics with your colleague has 0 effect on political decisions.
• ineptech 5y ago
  In the abstract, sure, an important sentiment; but applying Wiesel's words to this debate seems like the very height of hubris. No matter how fervently I might agree with some activists' goals, I am very dubious that Basecamp's old policy was actually improving the world, or that their new policy is hurting it.
• motives 5y ago
  I don't usually like engaging in political discourse online, as its very rarely fruitful, but I'd just like to encourage you to study some philosophy before making statements like these whereby you treat your own opinion as absolute fact (or at least your phrasing comes off that way to me). The nature of inaction on these issues is not necessarily inherently immoral, and I would personally argue its supererogation rather than moral duty, so whilst it may be commendable to stand up in these sorts of situations, in my opinion you are by no means morally obliged. This whole area has been a subject of debate for a very long time and the answer is never as simple as a generalisation that can fit in a sentence or two.
  • bollu 5y ago
    Could you name some pointers that I should look up to learn more about both sides of this debate?
    • motives 5y ago
      Sure, with respect to the language used in the original post, modal logic can be used as a formal basis for how we derive meaning from phrases like 'must' and 'never'. This has a lot of overlap with the field of deontology, which is a subset of moral philosophy which looks more closely at moral dutys and obligations. There are quite a few different theorys worth exploring in moral philosophy beyond just the deontological one, so I'd recommend starting with classical perspectives like that of Kant and making your own way from there.
  • madeofpalk 5y ago
    There was never any assertion that not participating is immoral, but that it is itself choice.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• krrrh 5y ago
  Comments like this make me worry that a lot of people don’t have lives outside of the office or their work identity. Or maybe people keep their friend groups so tightly curated by ideology these days that the only chance they have to argue about politics is at work?
  • secondcoming 5y ago
    Possibly true. Back during the election you'd read about people disowning family members. Probably hyperbole, but still insane
• 99_00 5y ago
  Who is the oppressor and who is the victim?
• ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  Making a neutral web where the combined decisions of the millions of users determines the outcome is not giving power to a "small elite"
• christophilus 5y ago
  Nope. You can still discuss politics over beers. Over barbecue. Over the phone on your own time. At your favorite place to volunteer. At your grocery store... Just please don’t do it where others are trapped having to hear you without any way out.
  • wokwokwok 5y ago
    If you don’t want to hear opinions, work with robots not people. Seriously, I get it, being ranted at sucks, but your a human, they’re a human, just say “I’m not really interested” and walk away. Relying on company policy for this is a strange offloading of your personal social responsibility and relationships. I understand and appreciate some work cultures are toxic, but I think it’s fair to expect people to taking a bit of personal responsibility for interacting like a normal person too.
    • christophilus 5y ago
      You’re not wrong. That’s been my approach. I’ve left two jobs over this, and have found a place where I genuinely like all of my coworkers, and we pretty much steer clear of unprofessional topics. There’s an old saying in the south: “never talk politics or religion around the supper table.” I think that it’s generally a good rule of thumb to avoid those topics when in a situation where you have a captive audience.
    • ZephyrBlu 5y ago
      It has become socially inappropriate to not want to talk about certain things. A company policy prevents things from getting personal.
• kbenson 5y ago
  There's a difference between not taking a side at all, and compartmentalizing so that some things are expressed in some parts of you life and some aren't. They said employees are not expected to curtail political speech in personal contexts or using personal accounts, just for official work accounts, where work communication is done. That was explicitly stated, and it was also stated that employees are encouraged to speak their mind politically on their personal accounts. This is a company setting expectations about what work time and work resources should be used for, with that explicitly not including political discussions. I think that's entirely within the expectations of most employers and employees.
• ThrustVectoring 5y ago
  Causality is backwards here. Which side is oppressed and which is the victim is a deeply political question; speaking out takes the side of victims because the widespread political support builds the shared understanding that their victimhood exists.
• legostormtroopr 5y ago
  Firstly, who defines the "sides". There is a massive amount of US presence online which often reduces to Democrat vs Republican. Except for those of us outside the US, who have no interest in US politics are often been told if you don't pick a side you are siding with evil. Secondly, that statement is basically public cohersion. If you are told, you have to pick - victim or oppressor - absolutely noone is going to publicly pick oppressor. Its kafaesque in its simiplicity.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]