6 ms·

I think that's a good idea. No politics, you come to work to work, as long as you treat your colleagues with respect. Companies shouldn't be changing the poli

by dijit 4y ago

I think that's a good idea. No politics, you come to work to work, as long as you treat your colleagues with respect. Companies shouldn't be changing the political landscape anyway, that would be a scary world. I'm C-Level, so I can hopefully instil this as culture.

NoraCodes 4y ago
> Companies shouldn't be changing the political landscape anyway, that would be a scary world. I'm curious as to how you think lobbying works in the present day and the past four decades or so.
- dijit 4y ago
  I'm not American, lobbying is corruption and that it's fully legal is one of the scariest things when looking towards America. BTW: I'm a big fan of your work. :)
  - karpierz 4y ago
    Where is lobbying illegal?
    - dijit 4y ago
      Well, campaign donations are fully illegal in the UK election process... not that our politics is better. Sweden has not yet decided what to make illegal, but lobbyists are avoiding doing anything that violates rule 0: http://www.aalep.eu/lobbying-landscape-sweden http://www.aalep.eu/lobbying-landscape-sweden Rule 0 is "Don't act in a way that makes me create more rules", in most old online communities.
      - phkahler 4y ago
        >> Rule 0 is "Don't act in a way that makes me create more rules" I love that!
    - blamestross 4y ago
      This is a little complicated to answer. "Lobbying" as a word without cultural context just refers to presenting issues to representatives, which is critically important in democracy. In the US it comes alongside "Buying time" via gifts and hosting and political donations which would be considered bribery and corruption anywhere else with a functional democracy. Basically, where it is illegal, they don't call it lobbying.
  - NoraCodes 4y ago
    > lobbying is corruption and that it's fully legal is one of the scariest things when looking towards America. Wow, I guess I need to move to Sweden. That sounds extremely nice. And in that context, I _absolutely_ agree with your statement that corporations shouldn't try to shift the political conversation. > BTW: I'm a big fan of your work. :) Aww, thanks!
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Is taking out an ad for an unrelated candidate legal? Can a person or a business do it simply because they like the candidate's policies?
iratewizard 4y ago
It's much appreciated. I try the best that I can to do the same from an EVP level, but the layer above me is intent on imitating the big 4 in every respect.
cjsaltlake 4y ago
Companies are entities with political interests like any other. The only way you can curtail their influence politically is through regulation. It is reasonable for entities to pursue their goals through any legal means.
- dijit 4y ago
  Companies by definition are collections of people with disparate opinions, the only unifying political ideology that can exist in that circumstance is continuance of the company as an entity unto itself and maximise its own profits. it's unethical, then, to allow them to make policy as they're considerably more powerful than the individual, much less empathetic and optimise for extremely self-serving behaviours.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Seems that a privately held company can hold a political ideology as it is owned by typically a limited number of owners, but a corporation is an organized charter within the society owned by an unknown and ever-shifting population that should discourage or ideally eliminate political ideologies within the scope of its charter, especially the type of issues “wokeness” elevates.
bcrosby95 4y ago
> No politics, you come to work to work, as long as you treat your colleagues with respect. Does respect include calling them what they prefer to be called? No matter how you answer this question, a large portion of the population will say you're being political.
- elldoubleyew 4y ago
  I don't think that calling someone what they prefer to be called is a political issue. I personally don't know any right-wingers that wouldn't call you by the name/gender that you request them to. These people probably exist but it is a very small group. Theres a difference between disagreeing with the concept at a societal level vs disrespecting someone on a personal level. Far fewer people do that.
  - nvahalik 4y ago
    > I personally don't know any right-wingers that wouldn't call you by the name/gender that you request them to I've never been faced with this problem personally, but what I can say that is that if you've known someone for any length of time say "Bill" and then one day "Bill" wants to be called "Jill" there is an ask that extends far beyond what is ordinarily reasonable. That's why I think "deadnaming" is totally stupid. That name isn't dead. You just don't like/prefer it. But it was there and people know that name. They know you—and you just changed your mind. That's not their problem—that's yours.
    - ThePadawan 4y ago
      Imagine I read your comment and didn't think of a trans person, but a Ms. Jones who had married a Mr. Smith and was now Mrs. Smith. Is your opinion the same?
      - nvahalik 4y ago
        Yes. Marriage is a union where two people make a lifelong commitment to each other: their identity is now united. This is a normal and good thing.
projectazorian 4y ago
But someone has to decide which topics are political. That is a political decision. Which means there are still politics, regardless of what your policy says. For example, I might say that calling me by my preferred pronouns isn't political, it's a matter of basic respect. Other people might think this is an act of political coercion, and report me to HR for violating the "no politics" policy. Resolving that dispute is a political act. Moreover companies are political entities granted a charter by the state, and don't hesitate to have positions on political issues that directly affect their business. So "no politics" doesn't mean "no politics" at all, it means (charitably) no discussion of politics beyond things the prevailing political consensus deems as apolitical, or (uncharitably) no discussion of anything that makes the dominant group uncomfortable.
- dijit 4y ago
  You can always make the argument that everything is everything else, everything can be traced back to religion, or monetary gain or trying to improve social standing; that’s not interesting because it’s extremely easy to make everything relate to everything. So, while I appreciate greatly the attempt to politicise the world and make this topic greyer than it needs to be: it’s a little at odds with reality unless you’ve entirely internalised the notion that everything is political always. This is the same argument as “silence is violence” but even that movement acknowledges the reason they consider it violence is because it supports the status quo. The status quo should not be considered political. In order to be apolitical one must live within the status quo; only excluding the inherently political things like protesting or denouncing/promoting politicians or parties. Similar to how theism doesn’t preclude denouncing other faiths or supporting any: whatever the current climate is with regards to the dominant theism; is what is usually understood to be normal by atheists wherever they are based- with the obvious exclusion of inherently religious things like going to a place of worship or praying.
  - projectazorian 4y ago
    > So, while I appreciate greatly the attempt to politicise the world and make this topic greyer than it needs to be: but it’s a little at odds with reality unless you’ve entirely internalised the notion that everything is political always. No, not everything is political, but many things are, especially when we're talking about how to govern corporations, which are political entities with a charter from the state and often have a great deal of power over their employees and the communities in which they operate. > The status quo should not be considered political. In order to be apolitical one must live within the status quo; only excluding the inherently political things like protesting or denouncing/promoting politicians or parties. And who defines what is "within the status quo"? Doing so is a political act.

by dijit 4y ago

NoraCodes 4y ago

> Companies shouldn't be changing the political landscape anyway, that would be a scary world. I'm curious as to how you think lobbying works in the present day and the past four decades or so.

dijit 4y ago
I'm not American, lobbying is corruption and that it's fully legal is one of the scariest things when looking towards America. BTW: I'm a big fan of your work. :)
- karpierz 4y ago
  Where is lobbying illegal?
  - dijit 4y ago
    Well, campaign donations are fully illegal in the UK election process... not that our politics is better. Sweden has not yet decided what to make illegal, but lobbyists are avoiding doing anything that violates rule 0: http://www.aalep.eu/lobbying-landscape-sweden http://www.aalep.eu/lobbying-landscape-sweden Rule 0 is "Don't act in a way that makes me create more rules", in most old online communities.
    - phkahler 4y ago
      >> Rule 0 is "Don't act in a way that makes me create more rules" I love that!
  - blamestross 4y ago
    This is a little complicated to answer. "Lobbying" as a word without cultural context just refers to presenting issues to representatives, which is critically important in democracy. In the US it comes alongside "Buying time" via gifts and hosting and political donations which would be considered bribery and corruption anywhere else with a functional democracy. Basically, where it is illegal, they don't call it lobbying.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  > lobbying is corruption and that it's fully legal is one of the scariest things when looking towards America. Wow, I guess I need to move to Sweden. That sounds extremely nice. And in that context, I _absolutely_ agree with your statement that corporations shouldn't try to shift the political conversation. > BTW: I'm a big fan of your work. :) Aww, thanks!
- mcguire 4y ago
  Is taking out an ad for an unrelated candidate legal? Can a person or a business do it simply because they like the candidate's policies?

iratewizard 4y ago

It's much appreciated. I try the best that I can to do the same from an EVP level, but the layer above me is intent on imitating the big 4 in every respect.

cjsaltlake 4y ago

Companies are entities with political interests like any other. The only way you can curtail their influence politically is through regulation. It is reasonable for entities to pursue their goals through any legal means.

dijit 4y ago
Companies by definition are collections of people with disparate opinions, the only unifying political ideology that can exist in that circumstance is continuance of the company as an entity unto itself and maximise its own profits. it's unethical, then, to allow them to make policy as they're considerably more powerful than the individual, much less empathetic and optimise for extremely self-serving behaviours.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Seems that a privately held company can hold a political ideology as it is owned by typically a limited number of owners, but a corporation is an organized charter within the society owned by an unknown and ever-shifting population that should discourage or ideally eliminate political ideologies within the scope of its charter, especially the type of issues “wokeness” elevates.

bcrosby95 4y ago

> No politics, you come to work to work, as long as you treat your colleagues with respect. Does respect include calling them what they prefer to be called? No matter how you answer this question, a large portion of the population will say you're being political.

elldoubleyew 4y ago
I don't think that calling someone what they prefer to be called is a political issue. I personally don't know any right-wingers that wouldn't call you by the name/gender that you request them to. These people probably exist but it is a very small group. Theres a difference between disagreeing with the concept at a societal level vs disrespecting someone on a personal level. Far fewer people do that.
- nvahalik 4y ago
  > I personally don't know any right-wingers that wouldn't call you by the name/gender that you request them to I've never been faced with this problem personally, but what I can say that is that if you've known someone for any length of time say "Bill" and then one day "Bill" wants to be called "Jill" there is an ask that extends far beyond what is ordinarily reasonable. That's why I think "deadnaming" is totally stupid. That name isn't dead. You just don't like/prefer it. But it was there and people know that name. They know you—and you just changed your mind. That's not their problem—that's yours.
  - ThePadawan 4y ago
    Imagine I read your comment and didn't think of a trans person, but a Ms. Jones who had married a Mr. Smith and was now Mrs. Smith. Is your opinion the same?
    - nvahalik 4y ago
      Yes. Marriage is a union where two people make a lifelong commitment to each other: their identity is now united. This is a normal and good thing.

projectazorian 4y ago

But someone has to decide which topics are political. That is a political decision. Which means there are still politics, regardless of what your policy says. For example, I might say that calling me by my preferred pronouns isn't political, it's a matter of basic respect. Other people might think this is an act of political coercion, and report me to HR for violating the "no politics" policy. Resolving that dispute is a political act. Moreover companies are political entities granted a charter by the state, and don't hesitate to have positions on political issues that directly affect their business. So "no politics" doesn't mean "no politics" at all, it means (charitably) no discussion of politics beyond things the prevailing political consensus deems as apolitical, or (uncharitably) no discussion of anything that makes the dominant group uncomfortable.

dijit 4y ago
You can always make the argument that everything is everything else, everything can be traced back to religion, or monetary gain or trying to improve social standing; that’s not interesting because it’s extremely easy to make everything relate to everything. So, while I appreciate greatly the attempt to politicise the world and make this topic greyer than it needs to be: it’s a little at odds with reality unless you’ve entirely internalised the notion that everything is political always. This is the same argument as “silence is violence” but even that movement acknowledges the reason they consider it violence is because it supports the status quo. The status quo should not be considered political. In order to be apolitical one must live within the status quo; only excluding the inherently political things like protesting or denouncing/promoting politicians or parties. Similar to how theism doesn’t preclude denouncing other faiths or supporting any: whatever the current climate is with regards to the dominant theism; is what is usually understood to be normal by atheists wherever they are based- with the obvious exclusion of inherently religious things like going to a place of worship or praying.
- projectazorian 4y ago
  > So, while I appreciate greatly the attempt to politicise the world and make this topic greyer than it needs to be: but it’s a little at odds with reality unless you’ve entirely internalised the notion that everything is political always. No, not everything is political, but many things are, especially when we're talking about how to govern corporations, which are political entities with a charter from the state and often have a great deal of power over their employees and the communities in which they operate. > The status quo should not be considered political. In order to be apolitical one must live within the status quo; only excluding the inherently political things like protesting or denouncing/promoting politicians or parties. And who defines what is "within the status quo"? Doing so is a political act.