6 ms·

I agree with your sentiment that we are more than replacable robots. But I think for a long time 'a whole person' referred to your character, your hobbies, you

I agree with your sentiment that we are more than replacable robots. But I think for a long time 'a whole person' referred to your character, your hobbies, your family, your quirks. And politics was a small, and usually private part of that. We are in a time now where politics is tribal and has usurped a huge part of people's identities. To the point they see the other tribe as the devil merely by association. And I could see how that would cause conflicts in a business that are detrimental to the bottom line

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nick-of-time 5y ago
Politics is an expression of your moral values. It's always been an important part of a person.
- gryfft 5y ago
  People who huffily decry "politics" also tend to have political beliefs which they feel are apolitical. Examining and unpacking those beliefs is "political," however, so that the net result is "I just don't want my politics questioned or examined, even when it affects other people."
  - collaborative 5y ago
    Believe it or not there are plenty of people who live their lifes outside of politics. They don't vote, they don't have any favorites in the political arena Politics is divisive and agressive. Some people are put off by the easy narratives of good vs bad Only dictatorships have historically wanted to permeate every aspect of life with politics. The USSR used to say "everything is politics". There are plenty of examples... politics needs moderation. I wish that people could vent their passions with football like in the old days. At least everyone knew no one was "really serious" about why their team deserves world domination There is a time and place for politics (not at work). God knows how many times I've had to put on my earphones just to disappear from the latest office brawl about politics
    - 988747 5y ago
      Living "outside of politics" means having no self-preservation instinct. Politicians are like gangsters constantly plotting against you, trying to take your money from you, or force you to do things you don't want to do. They can make your life real Hell on Earth. The only chance of stopping them is by protesting loudly and by voting.
      - gryfft 5y ago
        >Living "outside of politics" means having no self-preservation instinct It's also a privilege enjoyed by those who are allowed to think of their normal lives and needs as "nonpolitical". There are people living in the US for whom "I would like not to get murdered for no reason" is a political opinion.
        tomrod 5y ago
        Of course it's political. Politics is the argument over the distribution of the use of coercive power in society. People should not be murdered by the establishment without consequence, and the fact it happens regularly is an indictment to our culture and society.
    - carschno 5y ago
      That is one way to see it, aka a political opinion.
      - throwaway316943 5y ago
        i.e. everything is politics, comrade. Less facetiously: you’re trying to pigeon hole someone into your own belief system. Stop, you’re being a dink.
        gryfft 5y ago
        Interesting example of identity politics here. "Don't talk about things I don't like or else you're a communist. You don't want to be a communist do you?"
  - yanderekko 5y ago
    Yes, I indeed just don't want my politics questioned or examined, even when my critic has a questionable narrative of how it affects other people. I see how this is commonly leveraged as a superficial excuse to evangelize reluctant parties. "Silence is violence." I don't want to be subjected to company-sponsored political struggle sessions, nor do I want to subject others to company-sponsored political struggle sessions. Yes, this can superficially be construed of as a political belief. If you want to find some other mutually-agreeable term for the idea that one's workplace should not be dominated by partisan evangelizing, then I'm open to suggestions.
    - gryfft 5y ago
      >company-sponsored political struggle sessions This is a strawman. I was not advocating company-sponsored political struggle sessions. Does a company-sponsored presentation discouraging unionization count as a "political struggle session?" I have been subjected to that before, and the company would not describe that as political -- no, they're just protecting their investments. For the employees whose lives the question of unionizing actually impacts, unionization is a furiously political question. I wasn't saying we need more corporate presentations about LGBTQA+ pride or BLM. But minorities exist, they're people, and their normal lives will often be "political" to those who are able and willing to ignore the problems those minorities face. "NO POLITICS PLEASE!" will silence those whose ideas are considered "political" while implicitly endorsing ideas that have been promoted to "apolitical." Here's a quote from an Innuendo Studios video[1] which has some relevance here: >The adage about bros on the internet is “‘political’ means anything I disagree with,” but it’d be more accurate to say, here, “‘political’ means anything on which the community disagrees.” For instance, “Nazis are bad” is an apolitical statement because everyone in the community agrees. It’s common sense, and therefore neutral. But, paradoxically, “Nazis are good” is also apolitical; because “Nazis are bad” is the consensus, “Nazis are good” must be just an edgy joke, and, even if not, the community already believes the opposite, so the statement is harmless. Tolerable. However, “feminism is good” is a political statement, because the community hasn’t reached consensus. It is debatable, and therefore political, and you should stop talking about it. And making political arguments, no matter how rational, is having an agenda, and having an agenda is ruining the community. [1] https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g
- drdeca 5y ago
  I think there is a conflation between multiple senses of “political” in this topic. Let’s put it this way: I shouldn’t be socially expected to express anything which would suggest that I will be voting for a particular party.
- jkereako 5y ago
  These days, politics is an expression of fear. The essence of politics, that is, governance guided by virtue and truth, is lost. Would you agree that to publicly descent from the majority would more often result in ridicule, not discussion?
tshaddox 5y ago
> But I think for a long time 'a whole person' referred to your character, your hobbies, your family, your quirks. And politics was a small, and usually private part of that. Is it possible that you’re referring to a time when large classes of people had little to no voice in politics or representation in government?
- caspper69 5y ago
  No, he's referring to a time when people weren't antagonistic and tribal at work, just like he said. From the tone of your comment, you seem incredulous that such a time actually existed. It did.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    There have always been people who are antagonistic and tribal at work. What’re you talking about? Where do asshole bosses and kiss-ass tropes come from if not precisely this?
    - caspper69 5y ago
      Yes, but the antagonism used to be about work. Not everything else.
      - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
        No? There’s still workplaces that will have a random racist antagonizing an employee of color or some perceived woman-with-dyed hair will get shit for being assumed a liberal. Stuff like this was common and still hapens.
wpietri 5y ago
I think the notion that "politics was a small, and usually private part of that" is not and has never been true. Assuming you're talking about America, where that view is common, I think it's referring to a particular post-WWII status quo that generally held among white professionals. But that didn't mean politics was absent; it just meant that enough people agreed on the status quo and felt disagreements could be resolved through governmental processes that partisan politics could be left at the workplace's door. But many elements of that consensus were deeply political. For example that consensus from the 40s to the 60s was to oppress non-white and non-male people in the workplace. Indeed, the notion that "the bottom line" is the main thing that matters is very political. For example, it leaves out the split of that money. It leaves out how you treat the workers. It leaves out whether increasing the bottom line has negative societal effects. Using the power of employers to force people not to talk about this is an extremely political action. As you say, things have changed. In the US, the political process has become deeply dysfunctional because of asymmetrical polarization. A majority of one party believes things that are false and is expelling any of its leaders say otherwise. That same party is aiming to win through stopping people from voting and through other structural impediments to democracy. If people are disenfranchised at the ballot box, it's no wonder they're turning to what levers of power they do have. So if people really want a quiet workplace, then banning politics is exactly the wrong way to do it. Instead, they're going to have to step up and pressure to fix the political system, and then use that system to address the legitimate concerns of their fellow citizens.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nick-of-time 5y ago

Politics is an expression of your moral values. It's always been an important part of a person.

gryfft 5y ago
People who huffily decry "politics" also tend to have political beliefs which they feel are apolitical. Examining and unpacking those beliefs is "political," however, so that the net result is "I just don't want my politics questioned or examined, even when it affects other people."
- collaborative 5y ago
  Believe it or not there are plenty of people who live their lifes outside of politics. They don't vote, they don't have any favorites in the political arena Politics is divisive and agressive. Some people are put off by the easy narratives of good vs bad Only dictatorships have historically wanted to permeate every aspect of life with politics. The USSR used to say "everything is politics". There are plenty of examples... politics needs moderation. I wish that people could vent their passions with football like in the old days. At least everyone knew no one was "really serious" about why their team deserves world domination There is a time and place for politics (not at work). God knows how many times I've had to put on my earphones just to disappear from the latest office brawl about politics
  - 988747 5y ago
    Living "outside of politics" means having no self-preservation instinct. Politicians are like gangsters constantly plotting against you, trying to take your money from you, or force you to do things you don't want to do. They can make your life real Hell on Earth. The only chance of stopping them is by protesting loudly and by voting.
    - gryfft 5y ago
      >Living "outside of politics" means having no self-preservation instinct It's also a privilege enjoyed by those who are allowed to think of their normal lives and needs as "nonpolitical". There are people living in the US for whom "I would like not to get murdered for no reason" is a political opinion.
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Of course it's political. Politics is the argument over the distribution of the use of coercive power in society. People should not be murdered by the establishment without consequence, and the fact it happens regularly is an indictment to our culture and society.
  - carschno 5y ago
    That is one way to see it, aka a political opinion.
    - throwaway316943 5y ago
      i.e. everything is politics, comrade. Less facetiously: you’re trying to pigeon hole someone into your own belief system. Stop, you’re being a dink.
      - gryfft 5y ago
        Interesting example of identity politics here. "Don't talk about things I don't like or else you're a communist. You don't want to be a communist do you?"
- yanderekko 5y ago
  Yes, I indeed just don't want my politics questioned or examined, even when my critic has a questionable narrative of how it affects other people. I see how this is commonly leveraged as a superficial excuse to evangelize reluctant parties. "Silence is violence." I don't want to be subjected to company-sponsored political struggle sessions, nor do I want to subject others to company-sponsored political struggle sessions. Yes, this can superficially be construed of as a political belief. If you want to find some other mutually-agreeable term for the idea that one's workplace should not be dominated by partisan evangelizing, then I'm open to suggestions.
  - gryfft 5y ago
    >company-sponsored political struggle sessions This is a strawman. I was not advocating company-sponsored political struggle sessions. Does a company-sponsored presentation discouraging unionization count as a "political struggle session?" I have been subjected to that before, and the company would not describe that as political -- no, they're just protecting their investments. For the employees whose lives the question of unionizing actually impacts, unionization is a furiously political question. I wasn't saying we need more corporate presentations about LGBTQA+ pride or BLM. But minorities exist, they're people, and their normal lives will often be "political" to those who are able and willing to ignore the problems those minorities face. "NO POLITICS PLEASE!" will silence those whose ideas are considered "political" while implicitly endorsing ideas that have been promoted to "apolitical." Here's a quote from an Innuendo Studios video[1] which has some relevance here: >The adage about bros on the internet is “‘political’ means anything I disagree with,” but it’d be more accurate to say, here, “‘political’ means anything on which the community disagrees.” For instance, “Nazis are bad” is an apolitical statement because everyone in the community agrees. It’s common sense, and therefore neutral. But, paradoxically, “Nazis are good” is also apolitical; because “Nazis are bad” is the consensus, “Nazis are good” must be just an edgy joke, and, even if not, the community already believes the opposite, so the statement is harmless. Tolerable. However, “feminism is good” is a political statement, because the community hasn’t reached consensus. It is debatable, and therefore political, and you should stop talking about it. And making political arguments, no matter how rational, is having an agenda, and having an agenda is ruining the community. [1] https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g
drdeca 5y ago
I think there is a conflation between multiple senses of “political” in this topic. Let’s put it this way: I shouldn’t be socially expected to express anything which would suggest that I will be voting for a particular party.
jkereako 5y ago
These days, politics is an expression of fear. The essence of politics, that is, governance guided by virtue and truth, is lost. Would you agree that to publicly descent from the majority would more often result in ridicule, not discussion?

tshaddox 5y ago

> But I think for a long time 'a whole person' referred to your character, your hobbies, your family, your quirks. And politics was a small, and usually private part of that. Is it possible that you’re referring to a time when large classes of people had little to no voice in politics or representation in government?

caspper69 5y ago
No, he's referring to a time when people weren't antagonistic and tribal at work, just like he said. From the tone of your comment, you seem incredulous that such a time actually existed. It did.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  There have always been people who are antagonistic and tribal at work. What’re you talking about? Where do asshole bosses and kiss-ass tropes come from if not precisely this?
  - caspper69 5y ago
    Yes, but the antagonism used to be about work. Not everything else.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      No? There’s still workplaces that will have a random racist antagonizing an employee of color or some perceived woman-with-dyed hair will get shit for being assumed a liberal. Stuff like this was common and still hapens.

wpietri 5y ago

I think the notion that "politics was a small, and usually private part of that" is not and has never been true. Assuming you're talking about America, where that view is common, I think it's referring to a particular post-WWII status quo that generally held among white professionals. But that didn't mean politics was absent; it just meant that enough people agreed on the status quo and felt disagreements could be resolved through governmental processes that partisan politics could be left at the workplace's door. But many elements of that consensus were deeply political. For example that consensus from the 40s to the 60s was to oppress non-white and non-male people in the workplace. Indeed, the notion that "the bottom line" is the main thing that matters is very political. For example, it leaves out the split of that money. It leaves out how you treat the workers. It leaves out whether increasing the bottom line has negative societal effects. Using the power of employers to force people not to talk about this is an extremely political action. As you say, things have changed. In the US, the political process has become deeply dysfunctional because of asymmetrical polarization. A majority of one party believes things that are false and is expelling any of its leaders say otherwise. That same party is aiming to win through stopping people from voting and through other structural impediments to democracy. If people are disenfranchised at the ballot box, it's no wonder they're turning to what levers of power they do have. So if people really want a quiet workplace, then banning politics is exactly the wrong way to do it. Instead, they're going to have to step up and pressure to fix the political system, and then use that system to address the legitimate concerns of their fellow citizens.