Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work • Hacker News Board

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#271

Post by Kye » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

It's reasonable to not want to get into exhausting political battles at work. But such a policy falls apart fast. What about when a coworker asks about your dating life and you talk about a same-sex partner? A lot people see that as political because it's not status quo.

"We're not going to be political" sounds so simple, but a whole lot of status quo politics spills out when you try to apply it in reality.

Another example: a coworker is from a country bombed by the branch of government you're selling stuff to. What then?

Aside: Hacker News rightfully sees a lot of criticism, but it has improved some. This thread is full of people pointing out that apolitical is synonymous with support of the political status quo, making apolitical an oxymoron.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#272

Post by lazyasciiart » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

tengbretson wrote: post #259

lazyasciiart wrote: post #233

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…

You're conflating beliefs and actions. I can have a moral objection to paying for Gitlab's services and still pay for Gitlab's services. I can write article after article about how it is immoral to pay for Gitlab's services. As long as I pay for their services, I will get them.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Gitlab and other tech companies stop selling to ICE because they disagree with the beliefs of the organization, but because they object to the actions ICE is taking. If you think those can be treated separately, then gitlab would still be able to say "we won't work with any customer who sells guns".

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#273

Post by pfranz » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #100

pfranz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware I'm in a very privileged position, but I've tried to make a very strong effort throughout my career to live below my means. Maybe I'm pessimistic about losing my job or my company going under, but the freeing thing is if I'm unhappy for whatever reason I have options for leaving. I try hard not to assume or expect this from others, but I very strongly encourage it.

> I'm well aware I'm in a very privileged position This is indeed a very privileged position. Most people need to pay rent, buy food, save for retirement, pay for their kids clothes...

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to add here. I have to do all of those things, I'm in that privileged position partly because I've made it a long term priority at the expense of other things. I don't fault people who aren't in my position, but I encourage them to do the same.

The reason was never politics, but being beholden to a job because of disagreements with your boss, the work you're assigned, or being beholden to specific benefits like health insurance. I see so many people who are miserable because they're forced to do things they don't want. They're not even properly compensated because they can't say no.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#274

Post by dmix » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #266

imgabe wrote: post #240

Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?

To clarify I don't dislike Rogan. I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff. The point is he's divisive and I don't wan't this to become a Joe Rogan debate.

> I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff.

This is most people, especially the talking head types.

This new purity test we're giving every celebrity is unrealistic and culturally/intellectually self-destructive. Some people are even reaching back decades.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#275

Post by weberc2 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

Nullabillity wrote: post #107

vowelless wrote: post #18

I am glad Dang changed the title as the original one was unnecessarily inflammatory. 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? > Such a declaration could run afoul of legal boundaries in some circumstances. Whi…

> 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 the democracy is independent of discussing politics in the workplace. There are plenty of other opportunities to discuss politics and otherwise tend to the democracy.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#276

Post by justinmchase » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

This article seems to be laced with innappropriate bias. It appears to be judging gitlab for this decision.

Beyond that, its weird that this is not only an uncontroversial position to take but anything other than the only legal option. The government should be the only arbiter of morality with regards to business, where judging your business or actions to be illegal and/or issuing a court order to a company to stop service or remove content should be the _only_ legal way a company can refuse you service.

I do not think putting these kinds of decisions into the hands of unelected people or companies is a good idea.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#277

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

archi42 wrote: post #192

core-questions wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where we seem to find ourselves today is in a position where if you have very progressive politics, you can say whatever you like - no matter how radical - whereas if you have conservative politics you can't even admit that without any specifics without being thought of as evil. This is how we can get away with saying it's "encouraged" while really making sure any meaningful counter-argument is "forbidden" at the sam…

I meant middle ground as in "you can talk about it, but you're neither forced to nor is it banned". Also, there used to be a political spectrum and not just "progressive" and "conservative": This is something completely different than left/right - a right-wing person can easily be a progressive about his right views, while a left-wing person can be conservative [or even reactionary] about his left views. [Edit: Note,…

Your English appears to be excellent and your original point seemed quite clear to me.

@core-question's reply under yours wasn't an indication that yours was unclear; it was just taking the conversation in a slightly different direction (which is normal).

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#278

Post by chipotle_coyote » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #240

Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?

Is there a reason someone shouldn't make such a clarification if they choose? "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" gets brought up an awful lot in free speech discussions on HN, and that's fine, but we need to emember that it definitionally includes defending the right to say, implicitly or explicitly, "That guy over there is saying really stupid/dangerous things and this is why he should stop and why you shouldn't listen to him."

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#279

Post by imgabe » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #266

imgabe wrote: post #240

Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?

To clarify I don't dislike Rogan. I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff. The point is he's divisive and I don't wan't this to become a Joe Rogan debate.

Fair enough, I was just genuinely curious. I only started listening to him recently and didn't realize he was someone people would want to argue about.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#280

Post by neonate » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #129

I personally think this is awesome. I don't wan't some git hosting startup to be the arbiter of morality for society. The engineers, designers, and PMs shouldn't have an outsized voice in society because they have a specialized useful skillset and ended up on a successful product. If these users are breaking laws, then put them out of business via the courts and sieze the assets (the repos in this case) via legal mea…

Wow, that is such a clear analysis that someone should transcribe it. Here's the main part of what Naval says:

"If Google, Facebook, and Twitter had been smart about this, they would not have picked sides. They would have said "We're publishers. Whatever goes through our pipes goes through our pipes. If it's illegal, we'll take it down. Give us a court order. Otherwise we don't touch it." It's like the phone company. If I call you up and I say something horrible to you on the phone, the phone company doesn't get in trouble. But the moment they started taking stuff down that wasn't illegal because somebody screamed, they basically lost their right to be viewed as a carrier. And now all of a sudden they've taken on a liability. They're sliding down this slippery slope into ruin, where the left wants them to take down the right, the right wants them to take down the left, and now they have no more friends, they have no allies. Traditionally the libertarian-leaning Republicans and Democrats would have stood up in principle for the common carriers, but now they won't. So my guess is, as soon as Congress (this day is coming if not already here...)... the day is coming when the politicians realize that these social media platforms are picking the next president, the next congressman. They're literally picking, and they have the power to pick, so they will be controlled by the government."