4 ms·

Two things: "Party politics" is ill-defined, and so a "no politics" rule becomes an arbitrary hammer that bosses can use to smash employees. If I say "I'm goin

Two things: "Party politics" is ill-defined, and so a "no politics" rule becomes an arbitrary hammer that bosses can use to smash employees. If I say "I'm going to get a COVID vaccine this afternoon" is that discussing party politics? In the UK, where I live, the vaccine was provided by the government, so I'm implicitly discussing the actions of the government. That is under any reasonable definition a discussion of politics. "everyday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics" is how "no politics" rules are usually justified, but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules (37signals, Coinbase). 37signals in particular tried to spin it this way, but it was the actions of a group within the company approved by the founders that caused the problem. (Coinbase was just completely incoherent from the start. Their mission is something like "End economic inequality" which a reasonable person could take to mean anarchist or communist discussion is on topic.)

graemep 2y ago
The covid vaccine example is a good one in terms of something in everyday life that is politicised. It is also illustrates the problem with discussing politics in an international forum. The KCL study of covid conspiracy theories (carried out during the pandemic) found that in the UK young people and those who identified as left wing were more likely to believe conspiracy theories. I am pretty sure this is significantly different from the US. Also matches things I have heard (e.g. my daughter met people at university who refused the vaccine because "we don't trust the Tories". It is pretty common for Americans to assume that the Conservatives are equivalent to Republicans, and Labour are like the Democrats, which is very far from the truth. It has always been far from the truth but the reasons why change - e.g. in the 80s Thatcher and Reagan were not far apart, but that that time Labour were far to the left of the Democrats (actual socialists).
perching_aix 2y ago
There's no way to define any modality of politics such that someone like you won't come around and start going off about how it's a leaky segmentation, and is actually just an excuse for censorship. Every artificial segmentation of the real world is leaky. Just like the recognition that politics is everywhere, this too is not actually inquisitive. It's like arguing that stairsteps are chairs. They can be, but that doesn't make the word "chair" ill-defined. > but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules There is no such thing. These may be notable cases in your cohort, for me it's the first time I heard of these. And I've seen my fair share of these rules.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  What's the purpose of a "no politics" rule at work? Is to stop people starting shit with their coworkers, or is to give those in power an arbitrary hammer to apply to those without power in the organization? If it's the former, 1) it should be just that and 2) it isn't needed because it's never ok to start shit with coworkers that is unrelated to work. If someone spends all their time starting shit, whether about politics (however that is defined), sports, food choices, clothing, or anything else you can just fire them. No need to have a "no politics" rule.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    I think it's more simple. Just avoid any conflict. As you pointed out "don't start shit" already covers this but they specifically call out politics because some might not think it would cause offense.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    What if you speak about something with no intention of creating conflict, but a few people around you get riled up? You haven't done anything wrong yet the divisive topic isn't a good fit for the workplace. Some employees either can't or won't see this, hence rules such as "no politics".

graemep 2y ago

The covid vaccine example is a good one in terms of something in everyday life that is politicised. It is also illustrates the problem with discussing politics in an international forum. The KCL study of covid conspiracy theories (carried out during the pandemic) found that in the UK young people and those who identified as left wing were more likely to believe conspiracy theories. I am pretty sure this is significantly different from the US. Also matches things I have heard (e.g. my daughter met people at university who refused the vaccine because "we don't trust the Tories". It is pretty common for Americans to assume that the Conservatives are equivalent to Republicans, and Labour are like the Democrats, which is very far from the truth. It has always been far from the truth but the reasons why change - e.g. in the 80s Thatcher and Reagan were not far apart, but that that time Labour were far to the left of the Democrats (actual socialists).

perching_aix 2y ago

There's no way to define any modality of politics such that someone like you won't come around and start going off about how it's a leaky segmentation, and is actually just an excuse for censorship. Every artificial segmentation of the real world is leaky. Just like the recognition that politics is everywhere, this too is not actually inquisitive. It's like arguing that stairsteps are chairs. They can be, but that doesn't make the word "chair" ill-defined. > but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules There is no such thing. These may be notable cases in your cohort, for me it's the first time I heard of these. And I've seen my fair share of these rules.

noelwelsh 2y ago
What's the purpose of a "no politics" rule at work? Is to stop people starting shit with their coworkers, or is to give those in power an arbitrary hammer to apply to those without power in the organization? If it's the former, 1) it should be just that and 2) it isn't needed because it's never ok to start shit with coworkers that is unrelated to work. If someone spends all their time starting shit, whether about politics (however that is defined), sports, food choices, clothing, or anything else you can just fire them. No need to have a "no politics" rule.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  I think it's more simple. Just avoid any conflict. As you pointed out "don't start shit" already covers this but they specifically call out politics because some might not think it would cause offense.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  What if you speak about something with no intention of creating conflict, but a few people around you get riled up? You haven't done anything wrong yet the divisive topic isn't a good fit for the workplace. Some employees either can't or won't see this, hence rules such as "no politics".