- Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)
- "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)
- Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
- One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?
I could keep going for a while...it's difficult to avoid "politics".
> - Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)
Would be illegal, strawman.
> - "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)is- this is something they'd have to decide, however it should be framed as "we're going to <political event> this weekend, want to join?". On the other hand, if they're incorporated in a place where being gay and gay marriage is fully legal, I don't think gay pride can be considered political any more than independence day, in which case, of course it would be allowed. Someone responding by saying "ugh, gay people make me sick", OTOH, should be censored under this rule.
> - Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
- not political, however, if someone responds by saying "ugh, I hate the military, you guys are terrible", that would be political and they should be warned to simmer down (I say this as someone who does dislike the military - but I don't think that gives me the right to say nasty things to people who have escaped and are trying to move on).
> - One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?
This is a business decision and should be discussed in that context. It probably shouldn't get discussed in the casual slack channel regardless of this rule.
Try examining this post again but in good faith rather than trying to poke petty holes in it - by which I mean, assume that they are trying to reduce division in their company instead of assuming their end goal is censorship.
If course, maybe it will turn out to be a bad thing in the end. But I don't think we'll reach that conclusion by listing minor problems with it.
Ironically, I think you are not taking tyingq's comments in good faith.
It is fine if you think tyingq's points are straw men, but it does not mean that everyone agrees with you. It doesn't mean that someone with a different POV is being "petty" or not acting in good faith.
I found the discussion between the two of you useful, but I don't think it was helpful for you (all considered) to question tyingq's intentions.
How about Jodie says, "No thanks"
"Aw, why not?"
"Not really my thing"
"What, do you have a problem with gay people?"
I mean I see that as likely as any outcome from that conversation starter.
"No thanks"
> "Aw, why not?"
> "Not really my thing"
and then the next line would be something like "It's a lot of fun" or "Straight/Cis allies are totally welcome" and if Jodie was like me the response is "I'm sure, but I just don't want to" and that's the end of it.
There is an oft-repeated idea that non-queer people are getting in any way harassed to alter their lifestyle by threat of accusations of homophobia, despite being unfounded.
No actual union will encourage or allow union business on company forums, for example. If you want to talk to Jodie about marching in a parade, give her a call or message her offline.
I’ve worked for employers where it is illegal to discuss politics with their systems. Honestly, it made for a great work environment... I don’t need to know or care whether you’re a Baptist minister, a drag queen or both in your spare time. I just need to work with you.
Work isn't college. Once you get beyond a certain size, by making a public debate and exploration of stuff that isn't work a thing, you're going to go down rabbit holes that probably aren't particularly healthy for the organization. That's where the whataboutism comes in.
My personal preference is for my colleagues to behave in a manner of mutual respect. I get to know my immediate colleagues and folks I work with, but I don't see any value in anything beyond that. The company should treat you with dignity and respect, but I don't care or need to know that some person on the other side of the ocean is a non-binary veteran dealing with whatever.
If a person's conduct is inappropriate, that's an entirely different matter.
I'm not following your use of the word. I think we may have different ideas about what it means.
From Wikipedia:
> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3]
Where did tyingq say someone else was a hypocrite? They didn't.
Veteran here. Yes it is. It's identity politics, especially in hyper liberal areas. I'll express some thoughts I have around this.
Some veterans, especially campaign veterans which are a protected class, will struggle when being introduced to the workforce. When I got out, shortly after a year long stint in Afghanistan and subsequently more combat training, I was given a class called SEPS & TAPS. TAPS is an acronym here, but let me remind you foremost of what "taps" is.
Taps is the bugle song played every night at base. When taps plays you are under military order to stand at attention and salute the flag. Taps is a reminder of those who lost or sacrificed their lives that day. It is a daily reminder that your choices are often dangerous ones much less ones that don't just involve your life. For that minute, you are relegated to appreciating their sacrifices in utter silence.
In my course (SEPS & TAPS) the first power point we received covered a page filled with telemetry data about Marines you didn't want to be. The drunk, the drug user, the domestic abuser, the college drop out, the person with anger problems. I wish I had screenshot this slide because words cannot capture how uphill that battle would seem. When I finally did get out, I realized why all these shocking statistics make sense. I've heard people talk about "hero worship" and I'm from the South where veterans have a decent reputation. Where Southerners probably do give a lot of credence to the military because most of the military is generational servitude from the Midwest and the South, likely due to a perceived lack of opportunity in many areas. Hero worship is little more than lip service to veterans though. The real substantive outcome of me getting out was watching all my friends lives reset, facing a lack of opportunity (again), and more bills, pressures, and externalities like school all while trying to return to being a normal human being. It was immense and for a time my life would fall apart in one way while bounding forward in another. It felt like I was literally Flubber, and it was killing me.
If you've followed my posts on this forum life is okay now. But I can see why veterans may need a group at work where they can be veterans or talk about issues. What I don't agree with is if these groups tried to influence the work force. I wouldn't agree with them sending out lecturing messages about veterans or memorial day, even if they're right. I wouldn't be comfortable with them making statements for the veteran community. I wouldn't be okay if they set hiring parameters on top of what is required by law.
I also understand there are people who hate veterans. Some people at work I actively ensure that I don't bring up being a veteran, that I'm particularly good at marksmanship, that I've been to Afghanistan (or any sub-experiences thereafter). No amount of advocacy that a veterans group can do will change that person's mind. I cannot overcome people who equate military service with fascism, nationalism, or even the train of thought that leads people to believe all or most veterans are conservative. I can't fix a broken mind like that; only personal experiences that challenge the thinkers opinions will, which means likely, one day, some veteran will be on the other end of that. Maybe someone like me who can listen to a dissenting view that feels dehumanizing, but maybe not. That's just the way personal growth goes; thinkers don't really plan on who or how their minds will eventually be changed. I accept that reality as a fact of life. I embrace it to some degree and actively work to avoid it in another.
So, is that group political? Yes, but there are things they can choose to do that are decidedly more political and that is where you'll get disagreeance from me as a member of said group.
The "you can take it to private channels" can play out either way I guess: it can be a completely valid replacement of using company channels, but it is an additional hurdle if you have no signals to go by who to talk to. And if you actually have a problem with work channels getting out of hand, I feel like it's a gamble to hope it works better in the dark.
If my employer told us we had to move the more social/less technical chat channels outside of company infrastructure, I'm not sure that'd be better overall. And sort of odd to go with each new hire "oh and btw there's this second chat without the bosses, come join".
if only.
Do we? For any potential example I could think of, you’re telling anyone who is directly affected by or cares deeply about that example that their concern is not one of the political issues acceptable to discuss, but rather one of those types that we all know can’t be discussed.
Now that I think about it, banning some kinds of political talk (discussing pay disparity, forming a union) is probably illegal.
Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine.
Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps!
Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded.
Or China wants to sign a deal but <fill in the blank>
Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies.
Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol....
Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”.
Or “the leadership needs more X”
Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples.
HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.
If your reason is the former, I’m curious how far you would take that. Is there any conceivable case where the company should not do business with some organization or government because of political issues? And if your reason is the latter, then shouldn’t the company try to be upfront (at least internally among employees) where it stands on these issues?
And yes I don’t think the debate is relevant to a business organization. The elected government decides who business can be and which business can be conducted. If you don’t like it then by all means, petition your representatives. But please do it on your own time.
You can do business with the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood. If you’re keen to then use your earnings to crush one org or the other.
I think its pretty clear at this point that social justice in the workplace lead to more conflict and resentment than its worth. It also makes excellent people doubt if they were hired due to a quota or because of expertise (or the reverse for other groups).
Someone else (and me too) had the same question
There's no reasonable line, because unless you're stupid as can be, politics isn't some abstract thing that happens over there; it's a thing that happens everyday in your life.
I'm immensely disappointed in DHH for this take.
From my POV, they're taking a difficult stance to rid the workforce of the extreme forms of toxic distraction (which happens across the political spectrum and is pretty recognizable) and for the most part, doing exactly what you articulated: returning to reasonable adult conversations that 99% of people are capable of doing.