Yes you’re right no one wants their work slack to turn into the worst parts of fb and Twitter, but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it? We’re talking about employees being able to discuss current events and how they’re being affected by them, in a world where everything - even mask wearing - can be deemed political. This doesn’t have to happen on the main slack channels, but where’s the harm in letting employees still communicate in separate slack channels that are not mandatory to join and that employees can just ignore if they’re not interested?
They have every right to introduce any rules they want - it’s their company and I’m not contesting that. But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
>It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are.
This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies."
Of course those are nonsense stances.
On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive.
>I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder.
This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all.
>This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic.
Straight out of the Marxist handbook.
>But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world.
Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.
No, its not, it avsolutely is not.
> You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED.
>Limiting the scope of activism
The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time.
>always serves to protect the status quo.
Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
>The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.
> If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality.
No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
> The scope isn't being limited.
Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
> [...] company time.
That’s the excluded scope.
> > always serves to protect the status quo.
> Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo. To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
It, by definition, does not favor the status quo. Staying silent on a topic may be against the status quo, or it may be for it. That by definition makes this neutral.
>No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
No it's not as explained above. Pushing may be for or against the status quo, and prohibiting pushing by this logic means neutrality. The status quo may be under threat by staying silent, or the status quo may not change by staying silent. That is neutrality.
You're essentially creating a non-falsifiable here by just assuming that "silence = for status quo".
>Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
Except nothing is out of scope, just time and place. You still have unlimited scope outside of work.
>That’s the excluded scope.
That's not a scope. You're company is not limiting your scope, you agreed to be there, during business hours, to conduct business.
>Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo.
Yes, which in the long run means no one side is being heard or pushed over others... True neutrality.
>To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
Exactly, and it proves my point. The net of it all is neutral. QED.
Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group.
The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place.
QED?
> It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed.
>I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair.
Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before every table meal. The "default" state is fair.
The fact of the matter is multiple different "default status quos" exists.
>The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side.
Except the straw man because internal company dealings are not gagged.
>According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
Yes, external politics not related to work are gagged, which de facto makes it neutral.
A place where you have to only "be about work" is impossible to achieve. Even sweatshops in Bangladesh have unions and places where they can talk politics.
I would say a healthier choice for them would've been to cut out the people that were bullshitting and causing toxic environment. For sure those exist and should be spotted if they cause negativity at work.
Funny thing is that doing this top-down, as they are doing, is literally "cancel culture".
Apples and oranges. Politics triggers people at an entirely different level, to the point that many can't let it go.
Basecamp's decisions may not make sense if you've only worked with level-headed coworkers who are capable of disagreeing with each other on politics and still maintaining respect for each other. However, once you've seen what happens to offices where people let their angry political debates from Facebook and Twitter spill over into the office, it makes a lot more sense.
Company chat shouldn't look like Twitter flamewars or Facebook rants. Some people can debate things and then check their feelings at the door when it's time to get back to work, but many can't.
I think it's fairly easy to make the argument that our minds are especially tuned to tribalism. Not only that, but what comes out of discussions focused on political/social tribalism is especially toxic. It's one thing to have a little banter about football teams, it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake.
huh? their lives (and livelihoods) sometimes are at stake...
Can you explain what this means without using the word "cancel"?
By cancelling in this context I mean trying to ostrasize those they disagree with. Talking negatively about them, excluding them as much as possible from social and professional activities. Ignoring their advice and opinion at work. Being rude or negative when they do have to engage with them etc.
In short, acting without the respect and courtesy we would want colleagues to show each other.
Hard cancellation is when you get others to gang up on them and go to HR to try to get them fired. Afterwards, you publicise whatever got them fired offline in the hopes that they become 'radioactive' to employers and so that they and their family fall on hard times.
I'm a little confused as to why people don't understand what "cancel" means in this context. Isn't it quite a popular topic nowadays? Is it possible that they're claiming ignorance, because they want to argue against the meaningfulness of the term?
But it would also mean people who belittle or demean others because of their gender. Or people who belittle, demean, and bully people with less experience.
One of PayPal’s founders once bragged that they declined to hire an engineer because they said they liked to “shoot hoops,” and PayPal was not a company where people liked to “shoot hoops.”
All of that would be “cancelling” people too, by your definition, and it’s all just as worthy of discussion.
It's the same reason unions only work in the biggest, most established companies. Everything slows to a crawl otherwise.
> cooperatives tend to last longer and are less susceptible to perverse incentives and other problems of organizational governance than more traditionally managed organizations.
Who wants their work slack to look like the worst parts of Twitter and Facebook? With employees cancelling each other and demanding they recognise various political points? Not me.
You can tell there have been a lot of difficult discussions with various employees behind the scenes. It's all a distraction.
Work should be about work.