3 ms·

This is a point which I think is really tough for people to come to grips with. If you're in the majority, if you're what's considered "normal," then a whole lo

This is a point which I think is really tough for people to come to grips with. If you're in the majority, if you're what's considered "normal," then a whole lot of things aren't "political" for you but become political when someone else starts talking about them. When Bob talks about his wife, he's just making small talk; when Fred talks about his husband, he's "a gay activist." And god forbid one of your employees be transgender or nonbinary: requesting that they be acknowledged as such can be interpreted as an overtly political statement. Look at how many people get super, super angry with anyone who voluntarily lists their pronouns somewhere.

fallingknife 6y ago
Straw man. If a gay guy talks about his husband, and someone calls him a gay activist for it, he's the political guy who needs to go.
- tootie 6y ago
  In this example, the accuser isn't accusing the gay man. He'd be complaining to HR about politics at work. It was legal to fire someone for being gay up last year. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-...
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree that it's a straw man. There remains a fairly large subset of people who are "fine" with having LGBTQ coworkers, but if those coworkers regularly talk about their personal lives to the same degree that non-LGBTQ coworkers regularly talk about theirs, it's seen as "pushing it in our faces." On an earlier thread about Basecamp, I suggested that if the real goal is to keep conversations in the office civil and focused on work, the policy should be "keep conversations in the office civil and focused on work." You can politely shut down acrimonious debate in your Slack not because it's "political," but because it's acrimonious, and you're not sending a message that "political" discussions that really do have a bearing on your workplace culture are off-limits even if they're conducted respectfully. That's where Basecamp dropped the ball. (And let the ball roll under the couch and then set the couch on fire.)

fallingknife 6y ago

Straw man. If a gay guy talks about his husband, and someone calls him a gay activist for it, he's the political guy who needs to go.

tootie 6y ago
In this example, the accuser isn't accusing the gay man. He'd be complaining to HR about politics at work. It was legal to fire someone for being gay up last year. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-...
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree that it's a straw man. There remains a fairly large subset of people who are "fine" with having LGBTQ coworkers, but if those coworkers regularly talk about their personal lives to the same degree that non-LGBTQ coworkers regularly talk about theirs, it's seen as "pushing it in our faces." On an earlier thread about Basecamp, I suggested that if the real goal is to keep conversations in the office civil and focused on work, the policy should be "keep conversations in the office civil and focused on work." You can politely shut down acrimonious debate in your Slack not because it's "political," but because it's acrimonious, and you're not sending a message that "political" discussions that really do have a bearing on your workplace culture are off-limits even if they're conducted respectfully. That's where Basecamp dropped the ball. (And let the ball roll under the couch and then set the couch on fire.)