5 ms·
Because "no politics at work" isn't neutral, it means supporting the status quo by way of defining what counts as "politics". Is calling someone by their prefer
by gnopgnip 5y ago
Because "no politics at work" isn't neutral, it means supporting the status quo by way of defining what counts as "politics". Is calling someone by their preferred pronouns, or wearing a mask during the pandemic politics?
- refenestrator 5y agoI feel like there's a vast, decent middle ground between deliberately misgendering your coworkers and the current inquisition-style shitfest.
- gnopgnip 5y agoBeing deliberately misgendered at work is a real issue, the law doesn't prohibit it in many states. Look at cases like Meriwether v. Hartop, a professor was disciplined for deliberately misgendering a student repeatedly, then successfully sued the university
- permo-w 5y agoShould it be illegal? Is it illegal to call someone by the wrong name, or age, or race? Should it be? I don’t think we should be making rudeness illegal. On the other hand, professors absolutely shouldn’t be able to sue their institution for punishing them for it. There’s a middle ground
- gnopgnip 5y agoNo one is claiming it is illegal to call someone the wrong name or age or race. The question in this case is "should it be illegal to discipline an employee for deliberately misgendering a student?" At least one federal circuit court found that it is illegal for the university to discipline a professor for deliberately misgendering a student multiple times. This is all to say, being deliberately misgendered by a coworker is a real problem. A private employer would not be required by law to fire or discipline an employee who was doing the same thing as this professor. So for the employer, deciding whether or not to discipline an employee who deliberately misgenders a coworker is "a political issue"
- edem 5y agoIt is neutral by definition. And it is also a very good approach as it automatically filters out wokes from the potential candidate pool (as we've seen in Basecamp's example it also works wonders on your current workforce).
- koheripbal 5y agoPeople have a right to political privacy.
- foolfoolz 5y agoi can’t stand this argument. if your not actively trying to X then you support Y. it’s cherry picked grandstanding. its a way to single people out without a conversation. cancel culture in the microcosm. you do not have to act in any specific way to hold some political beliefs and no one should judge you for your beliefs
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y agoBut it can sometimes be true in the sense that if you do not support X, you are willing to let Y happen. Things like climate change, mask wearing and stuff. You can hate that argument, people can still accuse you of it and they might be right.
- kbelder 5y agoKeyword 'might'.
- foolfoolz 5y agono. this falls apart because there are innumerable i justices in the world. i am silent on almost all of them. that does not mean i support the status quo
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y agoThere's a difference between an injustice somewhere in the world completely unrelated to oneself, an an injustice one witnesses and doesn't say something (e.g. discrimination) or an injustice one is part of and does not change anything (e.g. climate change if one lives in a wealthy country).
- kortilla 5y agoWhy aren’t you spending every waking minute talking about the atrocities in China, the Middle East, central Africa, etc. You must support the status quo there right? And, “there’s nothing we can do” isn’t true for the United States citizens who can vote the most powerful economy/military in the world.