Kill em with kindness.

“Thanks for letting me know how you feel about this, I consider this a valuable opinion and think deeply on it”.

Then go ahead and do whatever you were going to do anyway, but at least let them know you’ve heard and acknowledged what they had to say. Sometimes folks just want to be acknowledged, that doesn’t seem like too much of a burden.

I this this is a good approach that I've used before.

I think it starts to crumble when people start to demand you to do stuff like posting on your social media or showing them donation receipts.

I think the unfortunate reality is that some people are intolerant of others who are insufficiently supportive of certain causes, and the only way to deal with those people is not to deal with them. The subject of this thread seems to be one of those people.

I think the unfortunate reality is that this isn't about individual people expecting support for certain causes. What you're looking at is fundamentally a social phenomenon - a belief that's been spreading from person to person and community to community that every person in the social group must support the correct causes in the correct ways, that anyone who doesn't go along with this is actively going against the cause and must be shamed and shunned until they do. It's the social spread via peer pressure that gives this its power. This isn't a new thing, it's been spreading amongst the tech community and elsewhere for probably well over a decade at this point.

I agree that this type of toxic peer-pressure is spreading, and I have no idea what to do about it. It reminds me of what Louis Fischer and Arthur Koestler described in their respective essays in "The God That Failed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed

I would go even further and say s/tech/human/ and s/well over a decade/millenia/ :-)

Not necessarily insufficiently supportive, but insufficiently supportive in public mediums.

It’ll crumble if you allow them to continue pushing the matter and imposing upon you, enforce your personal boundaries and if they continue intruding, probably HR time or at least sidebar with your manager. Good luck in your new job otherwise!

I have found that having a serial killer resting face precludes me from these type of workplace bullies (only kinda joking).

Why not just ignore them?

But do you actually acknowledge them? I think this is fine if you're taking it to heart and actually internalizing the discussion a bit. Otherwise, it's disingenuous.

Edit: this is very basic EQ and active listening, not sure why it's controversial to have good social skills.

If you want genuine don't ask people questions where the answer can give them negative backlash at work.

Getting upset when someone wont be truthful on things with you on touchy subjects at work is like being upset when someone wont be truthful with you on touchy subjects when you're pointing a gun at them.

Acknowleding someone’s opinions and feelings can be as simple as being quiet, letting them speak, giving them room to express themselves without interruption, objection objection or reprisal. You don’t need to automatically alter your course of action just to merely recognize and acknowledge something someone’s said, sometimes just shutting up and being deferential is enough.

“Thank you for your opinion but I’m going another way” is no more of a failure than establishing any other decent and respectable boundaries between peoples.

Manners maketh the man (or woman, or however an individual chooses to self-identify).

OK, I think I'm getting this a bit more. I believe this is a healthy way to think about these topics. I just wasn't sure if you were encouraging people to participate in active listening or passive-aggressiveness. It's clear you're focused on the former which I find commendable.

I encourage seeking clarity and being secure in one's own emotional intelligence to ask questions when things are ambiguous, so I appreciate your asking. Happy to have helped find a mutual understanding. Sorry your comments were so negatively reacted to here.

Not a lawyer, just my thoughts:

Assuming you're in the US, it's my understanding that political affiliation is generally not a protected category. So if it's at-will employment at a private employer, it's probably legal to fire you for your political beliefs / actions (or "no reason" when it's really about political affiliation). If someone is engaging in behavior that bothers you, tell them to stop. If they don't, report them to HR. Make sure everything is in writing. But, be aware that HR might not be on your side; but at that point you really need to reconsider whether you want to work at a place where you are harassed and not supported by the company for not discussing politics.

There are state dependent laws. California for example: https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.h...

Some high level laws by state: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...

Some cities have similar laws as well.

The City of Seattle "assure[s] equal opportunity to all persons, free from restrictions because of race, color, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, political ideology, age, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability."

https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...

This is how in soviet times and to extent how this works with china, unless you are vocally "independently" supportive of party line then you are hiding opposite dissenting view and need to be educated etc.

Unfortunately I've heard that drawing critical analogies to communist regimes is a "right-wing dog-whistle", so I'm hesitant to defend myself in public by pointing out these sort of parallels..

Usually this is spouted by people who know jack about communist regimes, much less witnessed one.

The way it works at my workplace is that in meetings with more than one person, we just say "times are tough and thanks for coping with the hard times and still getting the work done. We also recognize that times may be especially hard for some people." But in 1-on-1 convos some of my colleagues and I trust each other enough to say, for example, that we attended a protest.

Character: "Can you believe blah blah blah blah"

Response: "Crazy"

Only way to survive in a tech company.

I think other people gave you some ideas already.

I'd like to portray another question for you to consider: Do you think being able to have this policy is an inherently privileged position? For the record, I don't disagree with you. I have the same one.

I don't want to assume anything about you, so I'll speak about myself: I'm a het cis white male. I'm well-educated and well paid. Politics basically don't affect me unless it's taxes (which is why our industry ends up leaning so heavily libertarian." I am able to CHOOSE when to discuss political/social issues because i am able to CHOOSE when they affect me.

This is not the case for many others, including I bet your coworkers. If you are a woman, non-hetero, non-cis, or a racial minority, you don't get to choose whether politics/society affects your life - it is automatic. There is no clean separation for a lot of people between work and life and it spills over, and even if they intend to not bring it up, it sometimes will.

I say all this not to get you to change your policy, but to keep in mind why others may not be able to have the same one. What will naturally follow from that, is that people invariably look for allies. So if someone asks you to discuss a subject, one that violates your policy, you should really consider whether your policy actually makes sense in the world, or if it only helps you while actively harming those around you.

So if you're an ally, you should consider flexing your policy, and trying to help.

And if you're not, well...then your silence IS complicit, and you shouldn't be surprised if it affects your career accordingly.

>> If you think that it's not true (that silence is not complicit), then shouldn't you attempt to explain that?

You aren't entitled to a conversation.

Wanting to be silent at work and thinking that silence is being complicit are both compatible beliefs.

Work isn't your entire life, you can be loud outside of work and yet still be silent at work. Think of the phrase, "Don't shit where you eat".

It’s absolutely relevant. Whether it’s a public open source project or a fight over sports in a pub, there is a line you cannot cross if the other person is a co-worker. Context is everything.

You’re purposefully using language to make it seem like not a big deal. It was clearly more aggressive than simply asking.

And, again, context for where you are “saying they didn’t do it” matters. If it’s an internal company board vs Twitter or github matters.

> Intentionally not making a statement is already political. Consider that next time you think of Recoil.

This part right here, pal. Asking is proposing something, and politely accepting whatever answer is given back.

What he said was closer to coercing and appealing to community shaming, which is evidently not professional.

That is not coercion or appealing to community shaming. Those are both terms that have meanings. Telling people to consider the actions of the developers of a software project is not coercion or an appeal to community shaming.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No one's rights were violated. Apparently you have a different definition of what constitutes appropriate public speech for employees than Facebook does, but so what? You're not his employer. This guy said something and got fired for it. That is the system working how everyone wants it to.

Whether Facebook has the legal right to fire him is not what is being discussed.

What are we discussing? Whether Facebook was justified in firing him? By definition if they didn't fire him for a prohibited reason, it was justified, right? Is your argument that it was "unfair" to fire him for an act of speech?

Mentioning a private conversation on Twitter that didn’t go your way is 100% aggressive. There is no purpose other than to drum up harassment for the person you mentioned.

The purpose is to inform interested people of the reason for the action (or lack thereof). That is the purpose of communication. Beyond that, you are only speculating about secret intentions, with absolutely no evidence.

There is no legitimate reason to inform the public of someone else’s private conversations in this scenario. It’s not the public’s business to begin with.

I’m not speculating about secret intentions. It is the only reason to call out a private conversation that didn’t go your way.

The right to speak is inseparable from the right to not speak. One doesn't have to explain their decision.

A workplace is not supposed to be a debating society.