3 ms·
>My own preference order is appropriate discussion of social issues, no discussion, told what the answers are without discussion. Surely "appropriate discussio
by 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 agoThe ambiguity and difficulty of agreeing on drawing a line is a good argument to just rule out political discussion entirely.
- cool_dude85 5y agoBut 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 agoBoth 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 agoYou'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 agoI 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.
- cool_dude85 5y agoMy argument is that your preferred work policy - "appropriate discussion" is impossible without a lot of implied use of your least favorite policy - being "told what the answer is." In turn, your second policy - "no political discussion" is practically unworkable. I demonstrate by an example. If you want to make it so your coworker can't wear his swastika, you must allow political discussion: "This piece of clothing has a certain understood meaning in society, wearing it implies he supports xyz, any claims to the contrary are a fig leaf." "No, no, I just like the look..." And we have a political argument on our hands about whether such attire is appropriate. In short, allowing no political discussion at the workplace is not possible. As to your own metaphor, it falls flat. Everything is politics. Not everything is sports. It is very possible to go about your day without making any sporting statements, and impossible to not make political statements.
- thewakalix 5y agoWhile that’s true, there’s also ambiguity and difficulty involved in deciding what is and isn’t political. (For that matter, is “is this political?” political?)
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoAbsolutely! There's no silver bullet here - to work well in a diverse group, you have to understand and accept that not everyone will be on exactly the same page. My own workplace says things I find to be too political from time to time, and I don't see that as an important problem. And I've definitely seen people who overcorrect in the other direction, turning over every rock to try and find hidden politics. What doesn't work is the original commenter's idea that > Everything is political. Even saying you don’t have a position is tacit endorsement of the status quo. Because the logical conclusion of this argument, and I strongly suspect the intended conclusion, is that you should continue all political arguments at maximum intensity until you win. If my manager comes by and asks me to get back to work, I can't do it - that would be a tacit endorsement of the status quo!
- cgrealy 5y agoYou have a weird definition of “logical conclusion”. How about you can talk about political issues in an adult and professional manner?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoWell, to be clear, this is a conclusion I've seen people explicitly draw - I'm not just making it up. There was a famous incident at Coinbase where a request to discuss an important political issue spiraled outwards and outwards, until a bunch of employees went on strike to demand the founder adopt their political slogan. Often you can't talk about political issues in an adult and professional manner. Many issues have to do with deeply and passionately held beliefs; you can't expect people who believe that some law is taking their rights away, or that some war is an unjust slaughter, to discuss it in the same tone they'd use to discuss a project planning issue. You can make it work for some issues in some contexts, and I know plenty of people who successfully talk politics with groups of their coworkers over lunch. But companywide discussions about hugely controversial issues are almost never going to go well.