4 ms·

I don't resent people raising political or social arguments. Actually, I quite enjoy them and actively partake outside of hackernews. What I do resent is being

I don't resent people raising political or social arguments. Actually, I quite enjoy them and actively partake outside of hackernews. What I do resent is being told what the right answers are and forbidden from disagreeing on threat of termination and ostracisation. My own preference order is appropriate discussion of social issues, no discussion, told what the answers are without discussion. Let me give an example. At my most recent job there is a monthly lunch for women at my level with our VP. Who is also a woman. The explicit topic of this lunch is career advancement for women. I learned about the lunch from my two female coworkers. In order to get promoted you need to have feedback and buy off from upper management. Same for raises and bonuses. Now, I don't know, but I assume having a monthly meeting to talk about my career advancement with the VP of our group would be a benefit for the pursuit of getting promoted and getting more money. My perception is that if I said something like "Hey, isn't it a bit unfair we give this perk to women and not men?" Is that I would be quickly shamed. If I stuck to it, I'd expect to get fired. I don't think I could even question the logic of it, and I do have some questions, without being fired. Ironically, it strikes me as an extremely privileged perspective to have the same political beliefs as the company and also to insist on talking about them at the company. "We just want to say what the owners think and punish people who disagree. Who could object to that?"

cool_dude85 5y ago
>My own preference order is appropriate discussion of social issues, no discussion, told what the answers are without discussion. Surely "appropriate discussion" includes a lot of telling people what the answers are without discussion. It's just hidden from your view. For instance, you would probably agree that your co-worker wearing a swastika, walking around the offices during lunch giving seig heils to his friends, is not "appropriate discussion". Nor would it be "appropriate discussion" for your coworker to wear his klan hood on casual Friday. So where's the line between "appropriate discussion" and "told what the answers are"? Are you telling your poor nazi and klansman coworkers what the answers are, without discussion, when you ask them not to do such things?
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The ambiguity and difficulty of agreeing on drawing a line is a good argument to just rule out political discussion entirely.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    But did the klansman or the nazi have any political discussion? They're just wearing their funny outfits and walking around saying hello to their friends. If anything, someone complaining about their behavior is having political discussion.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      Both the Klan and Nazis are political organizations so supporting them seems pretty clearly political speech. Similar, you wouldn't be allowed to wear your Klan hood or your Bernie Sanders hat to a polling station (where political displays like that are prohibited). (Although, of course, people probably wouldn't notice the Sanders hat)
      - cool_dude85 5y ago
        You're going to throw accusations like "supporting the klan" or "supporting the Nazi party" around with only circumstantial evidence? You're one of those political discussion agitators after all. These two fellows just think that the hats and armbands they're wearing are stylish accessories. And the hand motions? No more than a good triceps workout.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        I don't follow your argument. Suppose we worked at a sporting goods store and management noticed that employees and customers were regularly getting into arguments about teams, players, game outcomes, etc. So, management says to employees "Employees should not discuss their own personal views on sports. This will help us better serve customers and work together." Well, once that new policy is in place, it won't exactly be a head scratcher as to how we should view an employee wearing the jersey of his favorite basketball player. Personal opinions on sports are out and wearing a sports jersey is clearing showing, or at clearly will be interpreted as showing, support for that basketball player.
kaitai 5y ago
Why not just look at the current ratios of managers and test your hypothesis that lunch with this VP helps? My personal experience is that lunch is cheaper for the company to give than raises; it enables them to look like they're doing something while dollars to donuts the actual gender ratios get more & more lopsided as the paychecks rise. Perhaps your company is unusual and this isn't the case, and this lunch actually accomplishes something. I'd be quite interested if that were so.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  It's impossible to know if it did or didn't help people. "Excuse me, do you think you're a manager now because of gendered benefits extended to you? Hmm? What's that? I should pack up my stuff?" I think if there was a men's group, to help men get promoted, that people wouldn't shrug and say "Maybe it doesn't help."

cool_dude85 5y ago

>My own preference order is appropriate discussion of social issues, no discussion, told what the answers are without discussion. Surely "appropriate discussion" includes a lot of telling people what the answers are without discussion. It's just hidden from your view. For instance, you would probably agree that your co-worker wearing a swastika, walking around the offices during lunch giving seig heils to his friends, is not "appropriate discussion". Nor would it be "appropriate discussion" for your coworker to wear his klan hood on casual Friday. So where's the line between "appropriate discussion" and "told what the answers are"? Are you telling your poor nazi and klansman coworkers what the answers are, without discussion, when you ask them not to do such things?

ALittleLight 5y ago
The ambiguity and difficulty of agreeing on drawing a line is a good argument to just rule out political discussion entirely.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  But did the klansman or the nazi have any political discussion? They're just wearing their funny outfits and walking around saying hello to their friends. If anything, someone complaining about their behavior is having political discussion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Both the Klan and Nazis are political organizations so supporting them seems pretty clearly political speech. Similar, you wouldn't be allowed to wear your Klan hood or your Bernie Sanders hat to a polling station (where political displays like that are prohibited). (Although, of course, people probably wouldn't notice the Sanders hat)
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      You're going to throw accusations like "supporting the klan" or "supporting the Nazi party" around with only circumstantial evidence? You're one of those political discussion agitators after all. These two fellows just think that the hats and armbands they're wearing are stylish accessories. And the hand motions? No more than a good triceps workout.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        I don't follow your argument. Suppose we worked at a sporting goods store and management noticed that employees and customers were regularly getting into arguments about teams, players, game outcomes, etc. So, management says to employees "Employees should not discuss their own personal views on sports. This will help us better serve customers and work together." Well, once that new policy is in place, it won't exactly be a head scratcher as to how we should view an employee wearing the jersey of his favorite basketball player. Personal opinions on sports are out and wearing a sports jersey is clearing showing, or at clearly will be interpreted as showing, support for that basketball player.

kaitai 5y ago

Why not just look at the current ratios of managers and test your hypothesis that lunch with this VP helps? My personal experience is that lunch is cheaper for the company to give than raises; it enables them to look like they're doing something while dollars to donuts the actual gender ratios get more & more lopsided as the paychecks rise. Perhaps your company is unusual and this isn't the case, and this lunch actually accomplishes something. I'd be quite interested if that were so.

ALittleLight 5y ago
It's impossible to know if it did or didn't help people. "Excuse me, do you think you're a manager now because of gendered benefits extended to you? Hmm? What's that? I should pack up my stuff?" I think if there was a men's group, to help men get promoted, that people wouldn't shrug and say "Maybe it doesn't help."