The counterpoint to this is that in order to motivate large groups of people to get stuff done, you need to be 'involved.' A good leader cannot be someone who says "we're above all of this" -- they have to be involved, they have to influence, and they use their influence to productive ends.

You actually cannot be solution oriented without politics. If you are "not involved in politics," that means that politics is involved with you, and you'll be forced to go wherever it lands, instead of attempting to influence the outcome.

The problem is way more "involved in what exactly?" than whether people should be involved or not.

The GP is right that people tend to name stuff as "politics" when there is no external goal. And getting involved on those is just bad.

But also, the GP is wrong if you go with the formal definition for that word, like you are doing.

It turns out in the end, we are solving problems for real people, and so all the messiness of real people: the pettiness, the tribal nature, the bickering, the facts-bent-to-justify-feelings... That's in the problem domain.

(For software engineers in particular, who can trend towards wanting to think of themselves as little logic-machines divorced from that kind of behavior: I also think it's a good exercise to keep that stuff in-scope because we are not immune to our own humanity, and recognizing when others are being tribal and petty makes it easier to recognize it in ourselves.)

If you're not involving people in the problem solving, you're probably solving the wrong problem.

> I don't get the feeling people discussing politics are trying to solve any problems

It depends on what you view a "discussing politics". To borrow a quote, "politics is the art of the possible." You have to use politics to define what problems are even considered, much less the possible ways they might get solved.

For instance, unlimited spending on political campaigns is either a problem, or not a problem, depending on your politics, never mind if it should be solved via amendment, court packing, or congressional act[1].

I agree, many people go hardcore on tribalism. I would likely agree it is a bad thing that many Americans define politics as, "us" and, "them". If you want to be results oriented, you have to convince people it's a problem, you're going to need to use politics to do so.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

> Tribeless suits me just fine.

Just because you’re not a part of the prominent tribes that you see around you does not make you tribeless.

— […] and I have no culture of my own.

— Yes you do. You’re a culture of one. Which is no less valid that a culture of one billion.

— Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 6, episode 16, Birthright, Part I

tribelessness itself is a poor result and does not solve any problems. It's a dead end. It's irrelevance. It's being an animal that eats for a while then dies and does no one else any good in the mean time. By arranging things so that no one else is a part of you, you are also not a part of anyone else. What is the point of that existense? It's the same as living in a vr where all you do is self-gratify and it has no effect on the world.

Sounds fun, I'm in. Didn't ask for the ride/responsibility and the only reason it hasn't ended by now is sheer cowardice

Why did you come here to express the opinion that that sounds good?

The church door was open, that simple. Many conversions lately?

I walk by countless open doors. I only enter the ones that I have some interest in. This door contains other people, who you claim to have no interest in.

No interest in spending a lifetime of service, happy to waste time with them [and usually without]. Guess I don't need to be so selective ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not that it matters, but why did you choose to start proselytizing?

I responded to an assertion that I viewed as faulty. It was never illogical or inconsistent for me to do so because I never claimed to have no use for other people. You said a life in a vr that has no effect on the world sounds fun. I never tried to claim that. I am responding "bullshit". As in, merely being here, expressing something to other people instead of just thinking it to yourself belies that claim.

Do you have just a single hobby? This is shitposting, not meaningful impact on the world (lol). I'll play VR later if you're so worried.

I replied for much the same reason, calling bullshit. It doesn't mean anything.

Anyway, keep up the truly good work. I will admit you're a better human. I'm not beyond admitting selfishness, I just never claimed consistency.

So... you can express your opinion and it's a reasonable thing to do, but when I do the same it's not a reasonable thing to do.

Perfectly reasonable, just disagree. Not like this matters, either, though. Not expressed to convince: catharsis. Meetings, you know? [burning time, thanks for going along]

I might have fallen asleep if not for this thread; truly awake for too long. But there I go, overly participating again. Oops. Count this as your good deed for the day. Tribe remains whole, or something.

Did you read the article?

> feeling people discussing politics are trying to solve any problems

it's explicitly about how you need to work in political ways to solve problems at work. It's not about country-wide politics or something.

I actually was thinking specifically about the office politics at one of my previous employers when I wrote that comment.

Yes it's also applicable to the other kind of politics. The two are entirely too similar imo.

All the more reason to steer clear if you ask me.

> Did you read the article?

FWIW, the HN guidelines[1] specifically ask that we not do that.

Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We can go by the guidelines or we can look at reality. It’s blindingly obvious that he in fact did not read the article and based everything he said on the title

You realize the article is about “politics” in the workplace or more accurately learning how to deal with people and getting your ideas across?

Your comment doesn’t address the article at all.

Politics and discussing politics are pretty much unrelated things.

Actual politics is 100% solution oriented. It's about getting other people to do what you want to achieve the outcome you want. Disagreements are about which outcomes are desired, or which actions will best achieve them.

Discussing politics is, at best, about saying what you wish other people would do.