> Leave it to the pub and Hacker News.

Actually, it would be nice if you left politics out of HN, too. In theory you could talk about politics and policy in a way that's conducive to intellectual interest and curiosity, but I've literally never seen this happen here with any consistency.

The political threads are always littered with knee-jerk hot takes that just don't belong here from an intellectual POV. To be very clear about what I'm saying, this is not about ideology; I've seen this behavior come from all parts of the political spectrum, and I find it even more annoying when "my" preferred side is doing it.

I agree with you - but the standards elsewhere seem to be so much lower even than here that I think it's (possibly) worthwhile having political discussions on HN.

Of course, I would love to know of a place that discusses things even more sensibly.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "apolitical space" - it is kind of like trying to remain stationary on a moving train. Even if you don't discss contentious issues, political parties, etc, you are still part of social and economic systems premised on political views.

For example, one might say they don't talk about climate change/sexism/racism in the work place and therefore it is apolitical, but to another viewpoint not talking about these issues is political.

Which hilariously is leading to the pushback.

People were willing to live and let live when the psychos were confined to gender theory classes and unsuccessful bookshops but now that they are so prevalent and demanding that people indulge their delusions every waking second it seems people are starting to get sick of it.

I disagree with this, firstly on the principle that if you ask someone on a moving train to stand still they know exactly what you mean, and secondly because politics are acceleration rather than velocity - applying energy to push, rather than drifting in a direction.

> Even if you don't discss contentious issues, political parties, etc, you are still part of social and economic systems premised on political views.

Even if you don't rub it in my face, you're still sitting on an ass.

Having one doesn't make the work place a strip club, even if someone there likes to spend their off moments imagining how your concealed taint might look.

I think this is missing the thrust of the issue which is that is, for some groups, certain kinds of politics invariably involve work and are a moral imperative.

If this were about issues likee 'big vs. small government' then it wouldn't be a problem.

But it's about political issues like 'diversity in the workplace' and 'Corporate support for Social Justice' (such as BLM) - as the big Elephant in the Room subject.

So things like 'Thanksgiving is Covert White Supremacy' as part of your job training [1] and 'we must achieve certain diversity targets or we are racist'.

That kind of stuff.

There's a group (part of the 13%) that thinks unless you're on board all of that, you're a problem, basically it's a moral imperative and anything else is racism. There's other groups that believe in some of those things, but are open minded with respect to other's views. And of course a wide array of other opinions.

I really don't believe that most other political subjects are entirely so sensitive. 'Privatization of Amtrack' or whatever is simply not going to engender in/out groups.

Abortion, Gun Rights are probably trigger issues for some, but they are really easy to just avoid at the office.

[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/only-white-people-can-b...

> But it's about political issues like 'diversity in the workplace' and 'Corporate support for Social Justice' (such as BLM)

but the problem with this view is that we are implementing a policy in a political way. There are many ways to argue for diversity that are either purely economic or practical. The issue here isn't the policy, its who and how its sold/pushed through.

There are companies that are run by, or full of shouty political types. Part of the interview process is to sniff out that kind of company and avoid like the plague. The post you linked to is evidence of that.

The other thing to mention is that US based companies are far more willing to let their works talk politics in the open. In the UK you are rightly looked at as suspect if you speak out on politics or religion.

It’s a valid point that some political issues are workplace-oriented, but in my organization they manifest as HR policies and are not up for personal debate round the water cooler.

One problem is what counts as politics. For a past example, someone talking about their opposite gender partner would not be seen as political as someone talking about their same gender partner. Someone talking about getting married may not think it is political, but when that action is denied to another group then merely bringing up marriage would be a political action. Even today there are still groups who cannot get married.

Politics has a tendency to seep in. For example, at a job a long while ago a colleague made a "joke" about a gang rape that had recently been in the news. He started humming the Batman song and sang "Na, na, na, na, GANGRAPE, na, na, na, na, GANGRAPE, ...." I told him his joke was tasteless and offensive. He said it was "just a joke" and our colleagues mostly sided with him. Was he bringing politics into the workplace by joking about gangrape? Was I bringing politics into the workplace? "Politics free" just means that the politics of the majority dominates.

Um, I don’t think gang rape is political. That’s just poor taste and gross behavior.

Seems like people are conflating politics with decency...

That just sounds like bad parenting and poor social adjustment. Actually, most of the problems in this entire thread could probably be tracked to bad parenting.

you mean, reddit

By reading the other threads about work-from-home, i realize that for a lot of people work is one of the few places where they can talk politics with a group of real people, which is the reason why it happens so often

If you hire women, you're acting politically. And if you don't hire women, you're acting politically. Pretending that you're not political is the comfort of being in a position where those politics don't effect you.

Maybe in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but not in the west where unemployment rate is higher for males.

In the West there are people that think women shouldn't work, or shouldn't work professional roles. And if there are countries where employing an individual is illegal, there are citizens of those countries in yours, or companies that work with those countries.

No, you choose to interpret it as such. Maybe it was only women who applied or a man would be utterly useless in the job for physical reasons or . . .

Of course you can put a gloss on anything someone says but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a substantive contribution to the actual circumstances which apply for that time and place.

Women were banned from being priests in the Church of England before 1994. The same Church of England sends 26 bishops - until 2015, all men - to sit in the house of Lords.

Personally I have worked in a small company where the owner wouldn't have hired a woman regardless of ability.