3 ms·

While there are all kinds of radical opinions, in USA there are two quite clearly established camps of mainstream opinion, and it does seem reasonable that if r

While there are all kinds of radical opinions, in USA there are two quite clearly established camps of mainstream opinion, and it does seem reasonable that if roughly half of the country (or your state) vote for one candidate and roughly half for the other, then it should imply that the opinions of both of these camps are roughly equally valid from the perspective of the society. One gets a bit more votes and gets to decide policy, then another gets a bit more votes and gets to decide different policy, but ultimately both groups are part of the society and the workforce, and they should be able to coexist and cooperate while working in a single company. Whatever your stance is on the "left" and "right" topics, people who hold and express the exactly opposite stance, an opinion that you consider invalid and who likely consider your opinion on that political topic invalid in return, those people may be your neighbours and your colleagues and they have the same right to be there as you do, what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. And the main criterion for the eligibility of a discussion IMHO is not the relevance of the political topic to workplace (IMHO the target of employer's political dollars are just as valid topic as employer's religious mission, i.e. not at all, and specific discrimination of specific employees in this company would be on-topic but general discrimination issues in the country are exactly just as valid as general immigration policy or general tax policy) but the impact the discussion has on inter-employee relations and conflict. A political topic where strongly opposing co-workers can express their opinions, disagree, shrug, and go on working without the disagreement affecting their cooperation is obviously okay to discuss, but if the discussion of some topic results in employees conflicting for those non-directly-work-related political reasons, or in some employees not expressing their opinion because conflict would be imminent, then that topic is harming work and it would be reasonable to require to put it aside. Because letting it be (or, worse, the employer taking on one of the sides) would be de facto creating a hostile work environment for one or the other groups (whichever happens to be the less dominant at that particular workplace, it definitely cuts both ways), and that's simply not acceptable.

GeneralMayhem 5y ago
>if roughly half of the country (or your state) vote for one candidate and roughly half for the other, then it should imply that the opinions of both of these camps are roughly equally valid from the perspective of the society. Or, it implies that roughly half of society is wrong. More than one genocidal dictator was originally elected by popular vote. We do not need to take as a premise that equal support implies equal value. >those people may be your neighbours and your colleagues and they have the same right to be there as you do See, this is exactly the problem. Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Sure, mainstream opinions may be wrong, that often happens. However, they're still mainstream opinions, not a few rare extremists that can be just pushed out to edges and excluded. So you can disagree with their wrong opinions, and work to change their mind, but until they do - and even if they don't - in the workplace, you have to be able to work together with people strongly holding those wrong opinions; however wrong these peoople are, they should have equal rights to you. (I mean, weren't you also suggesting throwing out some people off workplaces because of their views?) And one definitely can advocate for tolerance for the intolerant as well - IIRC Jefferson explitly argued that we should, Popper argues that it won't turn out well and we shouldn't, I'd probably argue for something like John Rawl's position which is essentially tolerance up until actual imminent threat to physical security or perserveration of key institutions, i.e. intolerance of intolerant only as an extraordinary measure, but there are many reasonable arguments about this, there's no consensus agreement on any solution to the paradox of tolerance.
  - GeneralMayhem 5y ago
    You're conflating the practical and the moral. In practice, yes, you often have to hold your nose and work with all manner of odious people. That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be, or that those people are just as right. The ideal would be for such people not to exist, and we have to figure out how to get along in a world where they do; I think that's qualitatively different, even if we end up with roughly the same practical day-to-day experience either way. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or celebration.
- tha0xb1 5y ago
  >Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. Left-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. The amount of blatant racism from SJWs creating "safe spaces" free of straight white males is disgusting. Identity politics peddled by leftists is literally what you've described.

GeneralMayhem 5y ago

>if roughly half of the country (or your state) vote for one candidate and roughly half for the other, then it should imply that the opinions of both of these camps are roughly equally valid from the perspective of the society. Or, it implies that roughly half of society is wrong. More than one genocidal dictator was originally elected by popular vote. We do not need to take as a premise that equal support implies equal value. >those people may be your neighbours and your colleagues and they have the same right to be there as you do See, this is exactly the problem. Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out.

PeterisP 5y ago
Sure, mainstream opinions may be wrong, that often happens. However, they're still mainstream opinions, not a few rare extremists that can be just pushed out to edges and excluded. So you can disagree with their wrong opinions, and work to change their mind, but until they do - and even if they don't - in the workplace, you have to be able to work together with people strongly holding those wrong opinions; however wrong these peoople are, they should have equal rights to you. (I mean, weren't you also suggesting throwing out some people off workplaces because of their views?) And one definitely can advocate for tolerance for the intolerant as well - IIRC Jefferson explitly argued that we should, Popper argues that it won't turn out well and we shouldn't, I'd probably argue for something like John Rawl's position which is essentially tolerance up until actual imminent threat to physical security or perserveration of key institutions, i.e. intolerance of intolerant only as an extraordinary measure, but there are many reasonable arguments about this, there's no consensus agreement on any solution to the paradox of tolerance.
- GeneralMayhem 5y ago
  You're conflating the practical and the moral. In practice, yes, you often have to hold your nose and work with all manner of odious people. That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be, or that those people are just as right. The ideal would be for such people not to exist, and we have to figure out how to get along in a world where they do; I think that's qualitatively different, even if we end up with roughly the same practical day-to-day experience either way. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or celebration.
tha0xb1 5y ago
>Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. Left-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. The amount of blatant racism from SJWs creating "safe spaces" free of straight white males is disgusting. Identity politics peddled by leftists is literally what you've described.