Is a wedding supporting the status quo by asking guests to dress appropriately and sit quietly during the ceremony? Is a movie theater supporting the status quo by running the movie from beginning to end without an intermission for political expression? Is there any neutral zone where people can gather and connect for any other purpose than politics? How can we hope to forge bonds with other people based on our common humanity if there is a demand that every space is filled with confrontation over our differences?

Yes, weddings enforce a certain formal fashion and culture. That it is normal and widely supported and not a problem for most people. It is only when these practices infringe on some right or induce some harm (as in your example, weddings that do archaic purity tests as "tradition") that we decide these thjngs should evolve. If we didn't do that, weddings would still include the time old tradition of women being traded for goats/cash.

Of course there are important social changes that have happened with respect to weddings and marriage. The question is: did those things change because of political confrontations that happened at weddings themselves?

A wedding is a celebration where people have often come from far and wide. It may be the only time the two families will ever gather together at such a scale. It would be totally inappropriate for a guest to co-opt that moment to advance their own ideas about marriage, even if those ideas are just. Not every moment in life can or should be political.

> Not every moment in life can or should be political.

It's a good thing no one is making that argument. This article is about CEOs of large companies which handle millions of dollars daily and control about 1/3 of the lives of their employees:

> BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities

I was responding to your claim/question (not the article):

> Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status quo?

If we accept your premise, it allows for no neutral zones or moments in life. Every space is either actively political (by welcoming political expression) or is passively political (by excluding it).

Yes, we spend much more of our time at work than at weddings. But a workplace is also a captive space that people enter to support themselves, not for the purpose of associating with a particular group of coworkers. To me the captive nature of the space should lean even more towards political neutrality. A street preacher with a megaphone you can simply walk away from.

That's not my premise though, that is a misinterpretation. There will be issues discussed at work by you and your coworkers that involve how the business affects your community. That's an example of what I mean, there will be (a nonzero amount). Nowhere did I say politics must invade every aspect of your life (a 100% amount), so I don't know why you keep saying that.

No. Not anymore than the "don't bring up politics at Thanksgiving dinner" attitude is.

Thanksgiving dinner is an apples to oranges comparison to what a CEOs job is. From the article:

> BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities

CEOs think about how their business interfaces with the world around them. Some weild power on the order of states/countries, so that would make sense.

It is not true that every aspect of your life needs to be in service of political activism. It doesn't mean you're supporting the status quo because you don't spend 100% of your time doing politics.

That is a very black and white strawman interpretation of what I said.

That thinking is the same as "either you're with me, or against me".

You can support the status quo without taking an extreme position.

My point is that rephrasing what it is doesn't change what it actually is.

It's the same illogic as: "If you pay taxes, you support bombing children in Iraq. You support the status quo."

Work is for work, movie theaters are for watching movies. Should moviegoers stand up and make political statements during a movie? No, "movie theaters should just be for movie watching" and "work should just be for work."

Precisely. The only people who complain about others bringing up politics at work are those who are privileged, as they have the luxury of not exposing themselves to politics because it doesn't affect them negatively like it does, say, minorities.

It's the other way around:

Minorities have the privilege and luxury of politicizing EVERYTHING. Whites do not enjoy such privilege and luxury.

>because it doesn't affect them negatively like it does, say, minorities.

Source for this claim? One could say politics negatively affects white people more negatively than minorities because white people foot the bill more so than minorities.