251–260 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. You may just think that the costs of the discourse outweigh the benefits in some specific context.
The costs outweigh the benefits to you , probably because the status quo is pretty favorable to you. This may not hold for other people, except now they're gagged from doing anything about it.
Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion. Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups: — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality becau…
As a wealthy white male, I couldn't agree more. For people like me, politics is a choice. But as my female friends of color often remind me, politics is not a choice for them.
^^^ privileged white male
I'm sure everyone who has to earn a living to support their family will appreciate this move. Nothing is worse than politics at work, where you may lose your paycheck if you don't align with the correct factions.
I should bring up in this light that its still legal to fire people for being gay in much of the USA and there's a current supreme court case coming up to determine federally if discrimination on the basis of orientation or gender identity is covered under current antidiscrimination law. In that case you're at risk for losing your paycheck if you aren't born the correct orientation and are found out.
GitLab are being hypocritical[1][2]. Let's not pretend the "women in tech" and LGBT movements aren't political. Frankly, I think more women in tech and LGBT representation are probably good things, but GitLab is being profoundly disingenuous with their guidelines. To clarify my point: if you open the gates to the marketplace of ideas, make sure it's an actual marketplace . [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/10/08…
FYI: If you say you don't care about politics and you ban political speech in your workspace - that on its own is a political statement that you're fine with the status quo.
GitLab are being hypocritical[1][2]. Let's not pretend the "women in tech" and LGBT movements aren't political. Frankly, I think more women in tech and LGBT representation are probably good things, but GitLab is being profoundly disingenuous with their guidelines. To clarify my point: if you open the gates to the marketplace of ideas, make sure it's an actual marketplace . [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/10/08…
Movements are broad, and one way of reaching the goals that people in movements seek may be through political means, but that goes for a lot of things, and there is always a lot of of other ways of reaching those goals that one can work on without bringing politics into the picture.
For example, political legislation is one way that we may bring more women into tech, but there are many other ways too. The GitLab page you linked is focusing on inspiring the next generation of women to work in tech, and telling stories about successful women inside of GitLab. I did not immediately see anything inherently political on that page, though I only skimmed through it briefly so I may have overlooked something, in which case feel free to point out any examples of anything political that you see there.
Certainly, blanket saying that talking about politics is not allowed may well turn out to lead to situations where something becomes challenging to talk about because politics may be intertwined. For example, a speaker might go into politics territory in some talk, and how should they handle that? But that could happen in any area of discussion.
Equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal treatment, which is at the core of both the women in tech and the LGBT movements, is not political. It is about human rights.
I don’t see any hypocrisy in simultaneously wanting to talk about certain issues at the company level while at the same time saying that national politics are to be avoided. But like I said, the two may intertwine more than we’d like and it could be difficult to distinguish the two in some or even a lot of cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the initial demand to not discuss politics must also be political and therefore self-contradictory, so it should be ignored.
"recently changed its company handbook to declare it won't ban potential customers on "moral/value grounds," and that employees should not discuss politics at work." I'm assuming that "should not" means it's discouraged as a culture and not enforced somehow, because otherwise I would think something different. If so the article seems to try and persuade you against this because politics is somehow important, but the…
The wording of this statement sounds very poorly thought out. Does a customer have to pay them? What if I argue I don't believe I should have to pay, or I have a moral objection? What if my belief in freedom says it's OK to ddos them? Presumably they'll fall back on something like "our contract says you have to pay us to use our services". Great. So you can and will refuse to work with a customer for a reason you cho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? The health of the democracy is far more important than your company's profit margin. And besides, enforcing silence is still a political move that strongly favours th…
The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. What GitHub is doing is giving individuals rooms to breathe, think, and live. It's preventing the rule of the intolerant minority, the forced homogenization of thought and suppression of dissent. We banned…
Exactly.
> This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians.
Exactly. Hence why we need to acknowledge the right to speak your mind.
> a place like Google I know I'd have to be deeply closeted as others flagrantly denigrate my identity and ideas around me.
The Google case is interesting. Maven was pretty equivalent to a peaceful demonstration. Management had one opinion, (many) employees had ethical objections and eventually got their way.
Damore's case was.. messier, and more relevant to your point. Then again, this policy would just subject everyone to the same thing, while sacrifing the previous benefits. And it's all ultimately enforced by humans anyway, so if anything I'd expect it to lead to further polarization.
> Here at least everyone can be closeted together, and live in a pluralistic way with different beliefs alongside each other.
Many decisions don't have a neutral option. This policy just means that you won't have any say once those crossroads become relevant.