Honestly, why don't people keep their politics out of the workplace entirely? Unless you are working at a lobbying firm or whatever, work should be about work, not about being a place to discuss gun rights, abortion, or immigration.
> Honestly, why don't people keep their politics out of the workplace entirely?
Because the US is in the middle of a cold civil war that's heating up fast. Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably effective.
I completely agree, which is why I said it's heating up fast and also why I believe violence is unavoidable now. "That attitude" has been prevalent on both sides since Trump was elected and it continues to spread.
That attitude became prevalent long before the Presidential election. SJWs were calling for people to be fired back in 2013, perhaps earlier. I might also argue that that attitude has been prevalent in some circles - particularly academia - for decades, and spread from academics to their students (the SJWs) to Republican backlash against the SJWs to widespread Democratic backlash against the Republican backlash.
Still, I'm optimistic, because I have seen softening after the recent incidents of violence, and some mainstream rejection of leftist extremism.
For example, this CNN article treating the plight of their ideological opponents with sympathy rather than gloating.
> Because the US is in the middle of a cold civil war that's heating up fast. Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably effective.
Dan Carlin is right [1]. People have completely lost their minds. Whether or not someone has the same political beliefs as you is not an indicator of whether he/she is a good or bad person. This kind of thinking is reductive and scary.
Trump may be a monster, but whatever happened to treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect? Everyone is the end result of a specific upbringing and a specific environment. People don't necessarily vote one way or another out of malice or hate.
This has nothing to do with whether people vote republican or democrat, or who voted for Trump and who didn't. If that's your entire understanding of the situation, then none of this makes any sense and it looks like everybody involved is crazy. If you want to have any hope of understanding the situation (WHY people are acting the way that they are and WHY Trump was elected in the first place), then you're going to have to dig deeper.
Or last night's football game, which just got political?
What are colleagues allowed to talk about, exactly? If we "just don't talk about politics" the end result will be everyone talking and engaging less on any mildly controversial topic (which now includes "the game last night"), and since this cannot be avoided, they will simply talk and engage less altogether.
I don't think that's acceptable, so I don't think "keep politics out of the workplace" is acceptable.
(And what if you are a journalist, coal miner, wind turbine installer, or any number of professions that is in some way involved with the government or politics, which a non-trivial number of jobs?)
Ideally, we'd be able to talk about any topic. But right now, the country is divided into two equal halves, each of which thinks the other is the ultimate evil, the enemy beyond reason, the Other which must be excised from the tribe for the safety of all.
Given this political climate, which isn't changing soon, and given the business need to work together toward common goals, then no, we can't let politics into the workplace. At all. Even if it means that we need to skip talking about the political aspect of last night's game.
Extreme ideologues have ruined it for everyone. This is why we can't have nice things.
You are envisioning employees loudly inserting their politics into the workplace. When in reality it is more like litmus tests that if you don't give the right answer you are ostracized.
Side note, if you work for a lobbying firm can you also not discuss gun rights, abortion, or immigration in the work place... or anything... In fact, can you just find a new job and stop trying to make your voice heard louder than others.
One of the tough pieces of democracies is ensuring that any group outside of the majority gets equal treatment. For example, the majority of Americans don't know much about agronomics and agriculture policy, so it helps if farmers can ensure that politicians and regulators also hear their voices. The problem arises when you have super-lobbyists like the Jack Abramoffs and Paul Manaforts of the world manipulating politicians on issues that are clearly detrimental to society, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"John: If I walked into work with a "Make America Great Again" hat, there would be repercussions. Quite a few people would take it as a personal affront, and I would expect to be out of the company within weeks, if not a month."
If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just categorizing them as stupid). Is this really about politics?
It's not because they're 'conservative', it's just given access to the same available information some conclusions are just weak and it's reasonable to lose respect for people when they hold them.
Among the very smartest people I know, I count both Trump supporters and anyone-but-Trump supporters. If you don't know any smart people who disagree with you, consider the possibility that you may be living in a kind of intellectual Mauritius.
>Among the very smartest people I know, I count both Trump supporters and anyone-but-Trump supporters.
Not the guy you were replying to, but I can't say the same. I know plenty of smart conservatives, and plenty of smart republicans, (some of whom may have voted for Trump), but of the very few Trump supporters I know, I would definitely not say they're among the smartest I know.
An even fewer number of times have I talked to someone with a MAGA hat, and every single one of those times the hat's owner has said something blatantly ignorant, racist or sexist.
Are there smart trump supporters? I'm sure there are some. Do I feel like I'm losing anything by not associating with them? No, not really.
Would you expect the Young Creationist to create personal offence in their co-workers and expect them to be out of the company in weeks? Because I don't think that would be the case.
I think it is reasonable to question their competency. I think we all do it to an extent with coworkers.
The mistake is concluding it based on this type of scant information.
You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than the information you gleaned from that hat.
>If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just categorizing them as stupid).
And yet I've worked with a young earth creationist who was the best coder in his team (the rest of whom were not creationists). From my general experiences in life, his example is not much of an outlier.
Science Nobel laureates have believed in stupid things, as did many well known mathematicians of the past. Given that, why would you question his abilities?
Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence.
You mention scientists having stupid beliefs. Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools. Our tools are obviously imperfect; thus, imperfect observations are made and imperfect explanations can form as a result.
Biblical literalists, on the other hand, don't even try to ensure that their beliefs are supported by empirical evidence.
People have argued that this behavior of biblical literalists is limited to issues relating to their religious beliefs only, so as long as their professional responsibilities don't encompass issues relating to their religious beliefs, there's no problem.
Unfortunately, the beliefs of biblical literalists encompass a wide range of issues. If I run a renewable energy company, do I really want to take a chance by hiring a biblical literalist who might now, or someday, believe that his unsubstantiated god wants humans to use fossil fuels[1] or that climate change isn't real because his unsubstantiated god promised to not flood the Earth[2]? No, thanks, I think I'll pass.
And how would you figure out if someone was a biblical literalist or a garden variety Christian or an athiest anyway, unless it’s somehow relevant to work?
>Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools.
In matters of their expertise. I'm guessing your fellow coworker is not a biologist.
If you think most scientists apply this to all their beliefs, then I think you should spend more time amongst them. Virtually every physicist I worked with in a top 10 school had some stupid belief that was easily invalidated with a few days of research. For me to judge their analytical abilities based on silly beliefs they have would be saying more about my abilities than theirs.
I think that's fair and it's important to dig deeper.
People in the past did believe stupid things, but it's also a mixture of what information was available to them at the time to reason about. Some ideas that may have been the best option at the time should be discarded today given that we know more. I'd think if you brought those people from the past to today they may discard some of their ideas (though changing your mind is hard).
It's not that a creationist can't be a good programmer - people seem to be able to apply their reasoning abilities selectively and I've met smart religious people that jump through crazy hoops to justify why they're religious. It is a data point against them though and it would reduce my impression of their intelligence.
> I'd think if you brought those people from the past to today they may discard some of their ideas (though changing your mind is hard).
Possible, but unlikely for any beliefs they hold dear. And thinking that other people stick to crazy beliefs because they are less smart than you is a great way to end up with a lot of crazy beliefs yourself. After all, why would you ever question them? You're too smart to believe something crazy!
"Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck
I don't think people stick to crazy beliefs because they're not as smart as I am - I think sticking to old/comfortable beliefs is a problem in general with how our minds work and something you have to fight against basically all the time, it's the default behavior.
Part of the way of doing that is trying to evaluate what evidence is available and update how you think accordingly. It's when people refuse to do this that it's a problem (or worse when they think they're doing it, but really they're just trying to come up with 'evidence' for what they already believe to be true).
It should be a struggle towards whatever is true - not trying to prove what you already believe to be true.
I think it's sad that so much time and effort is spent spinning in circles when we could make so much more progress if we were collectively able to fix these issues with how we think.
If you assume that anyone who reached different conclusions than you is stupid by definition, then you'll quite literally never be able to change your mind.
I don't assume that - it depends on the conclusion and the reasoning that leads to it (obviously I can be wrong).
I think some conclusions are stupid based on the available information. When people hold a lot of stupid conclusions or a few really strongly I doubt their ability to think critically in general.
When someone has a different conclusion than I do, I'm curious about what reasoning lead to it, but often it's not an attempt to understand what's true based on available evidence. It's usually a conclusion they have for other reasons (identity? group association?) and they either can't articulate why they think the way they do or they retroactively come up with stuff that already fits their answer. The conclusion came before the reasoning about it. It's not about figuring out what's true.
This is a problem outside of politics - it's a problem with how our minds work by default and how people think.
> Lots of people are provably stupid by very short chains of reasoning, e.g. flat-earthers.
They're provably wrong by very short chains of reasoning. That's not the same as provably stupid. Even very smart, educated people can hold beliefs that are completely bonkers though a combination of cognitive dissonance and misinformation. For a very prominent example, take a look at how Steve Jobs dealt with his cancer [1]:
> Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors' recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[117] instead relying on a pseudo-medicine diet to try natural healing to thwart the disease.
And that's setting aside the apparent confusion in this thread between intelligence and morality. Just because someone holds a stupid belief, doesn't mean they're a bad person, a threat to their coworkers, or unable to do their job.
Thank you. Not all conservatives voted for the Cheeto nor Hil-dawg. It's not red v blue, we're all Americans and we all should want for all of us to 'win.'
I've worked places (not in tech) where I was not allowed to talk about my support for Barack Obama for fear of being shouted down, mocked, or forced to listen to racist diatribes about his history. I have been on the other side of this kind of bullshit. I moved from the small, Midwestern town that harbored these people and their insane beliefs to a liberal, coastal city that "gets" me a little more. I'm happier for it. I work with other coastal liberals and none of us have much respect for anyone who out-and-out supports Donald Trump, and we probably won't any time soon. A lot of us share this background.
I suggest these men do the same. Move to Dallas or New York or somewhere where conservatism is a little more appreciated. Move to Denver or Atlanta. Find somewhere that feels like home, where there are other conservative techies. Claiming the victim status as a white man in the most expensive city, in the highest paying industry comes off as a little entitled, at least to me.
I did that recently, moved from the Bay Area to a red state. But, what about the concept of engaging with and challenging people who have different beliefs?
People don't really change their minds when you call them a racist, fire them, etc. When I am talking to a liberal who I know wont try to cause problems for me (like getting me fired), I will ask lots of questions.
Why do you believe X? What facts support that opinion? I believe Y because ..., where do you think the flaw in my logic is? Why do you think value A is more important that counter-value B?
It's really depressing that someone such as yourself, who has known what it is to be descriminated against for what you think are reasonable beliefs, would perpetuate the same against others.
If you think someone's views are wrong, then ask them why they think that. At worst, you'll get a better insight into how to point out why they are wrong. At best, you'll have a chance of convincing them that your position is better.
I'm not saying I can't/won't/don't do that. I love discussing politics with my family, who are very conservative, and it's always nice and respectful. I just don't want to live in their society. Generally, they don't want to live in mine either. Not every liberal around me believes exactly the same thing. We'll quarrel about whether Black Lives Matter is doing good or whether UBI is actually an evil capitalist plot or whether someone like Hillary Clinton really represents what we're about. It's not as groupthink-y as the men in this article claim.
When I meet informed conservatives, I quietly rejoice because it's so interesting to talk to them. One of my best friends is also a "free market" type guy and we get along amazingly well, even when we talk politics. However, I haven't found many educated people who out-and-out support Donald Trump, and those I have found often express very caustic beliefs that get in the way of polite or fulfilling discussions. Hence, I just don't do it. There's a level of "coming to the center" that those people just won't do with me, so it ends up devolving into a series of fallacies that just don't need to happen.
It's nice that you have some friends that you can discuss opposing views with. I also cherish some of my liberal friends who I can have a genuine discussion with.
I've also had some bad experiences with family members who support Trump and are super emotional, vocal, and resistant to any discussion about him either on the policy- or simple behavior-level.
IMO there is a hidden wedge in politics between people who are willing to engage with their opinions and others who will take your beliefs in the worst possible context. It's not necessarily a right-left thing, or even a centrist/extremist thing either. I've had some of the most enlightening discussions about politics with people that are super extreme in their progressivism, communism, or conservatism, because they are so knowledgable about political philosophy or the data supporting their beliefs.
That'd be fine with me if it was enforced equally. I haven't worked anywhere that attempted to do that, so not sure if it'd work or not. But, I'm skeptical.
I think what may happen is that it'd go underground. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. It may be a kind of secret reason to cause strife between employees.
It would have to be supported as a broader part of the company culture. No discussing things that aren't relevant to work.
A "We're here to work and that's it." kind of policy.
It is very odd that you assumed I was talking about setting a company policy. When I wrote "What about not doing it at work," I was talking about a social and behavioral norm.
I don't think it's that odd. This norm doesn't really exist currently. How do you think a company could encourage their employees to not talk politics at work?
I'd suggest the golden rule should be applicable here. There are enough divisions in our society as it is - I don't believe that literal segregation by political preference is a good solution, an any timeframe
Yeah there's definitely some things that are taboo to talk about because it's too political. I for one, am a liberal gun owner, which gives me a unique perspective in that I understand where a lot of liberals are coming from, but I also understand how conservatives feel when liberals constantly attack their viewpoints and try to silence them. It's funny how many debates I get into with other liberals about guns when they've never held or shot a gun in their life and yet claim to know everything about it. And the amount of moral superiority they hold around their viewpoints is staggering, truly a "I'm right you're wrong and an idiot" mentality.
If there's one thing I recommend everyone to do is just listen to the other side and at least TRY to see their perspective even if you disagree.
As someone who is in no way a part of Silicon Valley: does anyone really care how fiscally conservative or liberal you are? I always thought it was the social issues that caused the problem. Whether it's misrepresenting statistics to justify sexism or saying that some people deserve less rights because of their sexual orientation.
It may have been the social issues at one point, but the Marxist influence is so significant that there's no longer any real separation between social and economic issues on the left. In their minds, economic disparities breed social inequities and vice versa. They may be right in principle, but it doesn't leave a gray area or room for common ground.
...as was Carter.
...as wasn't Ronald Reagan, H and W and as isn't Cheeto.
Republicans are in no shape or form, fiscally conservative. They are anti-tax. But they'll happily spend the seed corn on defense, or rather, on right wing socialism.
One of the problems that we face in the US today is that our two political parties, which once divided the electorate across fault lines of policy or values, now appear to have reshuffled the electorate across epistemologies. I sincerely believe that one party now provides a happier home for those who prefer empirical science.
It depends on the issue (edit: and how it fits with their world view). The left can also be irrational when it comes to science on some issues as well:
>The bottom line is that the CDC data makes it very difficult to argue that conservatives and liberals share equal blame in the anti-vaccine war. Anti-vaxxers are clearly more associated with the political Left.
I would tend to agree the left's leadership, however, tends to be less anti-science.
Everytime I read one of these viewpoints I hear: 'I think others should be descriminated against and for that I am getting descriminated against? How dare they descriminate against my right to descriminate!'
The reduction of conservative beliefs to "discrimination of others" is a lot of the problem here. Conservative politics is a broad space. Sure, there are racists and misogynists among them and they get a lot of publicity, but there are also people who believe that all human beings are equal and that something like laissez-faire capitalism leads to a more just and prosperous society for everyone. They might be mistaken in that, but it doesn't warrant accusations of malice. The fact that you sum up conservatism as "discrimination of others" is no different than any form of racism or sexism that generalizes people based on a single label. The inability to treat someone like a human being before you get to know them is why conservatives are terrified of speaking publicly in the workplace.
While it is true that there are economic conservatives who are not racists and misogynists, the Republican party platform is pretty discriminatory against several groups.
Someone can certainly vote for a candidate like Trump and not be pro-discrimination, but that person is saying they are willing to accept discrimination for the sake of the policies they do agree with.
That is certainly their right, but you can't act shocked when the marginalized groups and those who support them have a negative reaction when they find out you support candidates who want to take away their rights.
> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change.
That's not a voter who has the luxury of setting aside their own livelihood and making discrimination (against strangers) a deal-breaker.
It's interesting how the full quote played out. Trump supporters assumed the deplorables she was talking about was a smear against them personally, rather than identifying with the 2nd half of the quote.
But then they also never heard the 2nd half of the quote as much as the 1st.
Sure, but that also isn't the case for software engineers like the ones in the OP. These guys aren't coal miners in Appalachia, they're software engineers in Silicon Valley.
The subjects in the article seem to invite such reductionism themselves by expressing a desire to wear MAGA gear, despite being socially libertarian/liberal. MAGA and Trump are almost explicitly (through Trump's words and actions) associated with aggressive social conservativism (Muslim travel ban, transgender military ban, cancellation of DREAM act, etc.) I doubt anyone would give two flying fucks if they wore, say, a Tax Foundation T-shirt.
Laissez-faire capitalists are a dime a dozen in technology. You cannot swing a cat without hitting a libertarian (so, you know, put the cat down). To the extent that a conservative is claiming to be discriminated against, they're not suffering for the fiscal dimension of their beliefs.
Libertarians aren't conservatives. Libertarianism is a different branch of the same tree as other forms of liberalism. The goal is maximization of individual human well being and potential. The disagreement is over how best to achieve that.
Fiscal libertarianism aligns much closer with fiscal conservatism while the social component is closer to liberal social views, unfortunately US Libertarians have drifted further into the conservative realm due to movements like the Tea Party and now generally endorse the full GOP fiscal package, increasing debt to lower taxes in an effort to spur growth.
I always found it funny that the word "libertaire" (french translation of libertarian), come from the word liberal with the word "proletaire", and is now used to qualify some members of the american far-right.
It was used to criticise liberal anarchism (Proudhon) because it was not socialist/egalitarist enough, and later inspired Marx (who built his theory of communism with anarchist fundation). So people in US that call themselves "libertarian" could change their names to "communists cousins", really.
Libertarianism is a big tent. There are right-libertarians (like the ones you describe), left-libertarians, anarchist-leaning libertarians, Randian Objectivists, etc. These camps differ in numerous ways but there's a general undercurrent and large areas of agreement.
I'm a liberal, I have a co-worker who's a NeverTrump conservative, and we've bonded a lot over Trump's lack of decorum, professionalism, and basic respect for other human beings.
Unfortunately, NeverTrump conservatives like him are few and far between. Sadly, the majority of conservatives I've encountered have completely sold out their principles to support Trump.
I would argue that by befriending and bonding with your conservative coworker over shared ideas, you are doing a great service to your country. You are talking to someone that disagrees with you, finding common ground, and co-existing in peace. That's all that's required for democratic government to function properly. The problem is that many people on both the left and the right refuse to do their duty in this regard and instead choose to vilify and hate their opponents.
Shaming people for their opinions is a terrible tactic in a democracy. In a dictatorship it works amazing, just shame them, jail them if they persist or make them disappear if they're really stubborn. The problem with shaming people for their opinions in a democracy is that they will keep them secret all the way to the voting booth and take their revenge for the shaming there, and then everyone is surprised when candidates holding those ideas win. Maybe, if they were allowed to share their opinions publicly without being ostracized they wouldn't feel so strongly about them and they could easily be debated and proven wrong. What you're creating by shaming them is a huge hostility and a feeling of unfairness, and it just makes their will to their opinions stronger. Just some thoughts.
Another point, most of our grandparents were by today's standards homophobes, racists and misogynists, should we be shaming them too? How about people living in isolated parts of the country or other countries where these opinions are still popular? When I was growing up as a kid in Syria, I remember talking to people who were totally into islamism, if it weren't for my tolerant parents, I could be holding the same beliefs today. Here's another reason for not shaming people for their opinions, most of our opinions we hold for accidental geographical or parental reasons. Shaming people for where they were born or who they grew up with has a name for it, what could it be? Discrimination.
I can say from first hand experience that this has happened. I know several closeted conservatives at my workplace and we all know that you shouldn't share your political leanings with anyone. Luckily there is some internal diversity of opinions. So, we can confront each other without consequences on things like immigration, labor issues, free trade, and social programs.
But, there are naturally areas where we all agree: guns, some other economic stuff, etc. So those opinions go completely unchallenged, where it'd be healthier to have liberal people to test those opinions.
Your rush to the assumption that anyone that thinks "all conservatives" do anything as a monolith is the same class of fallacy that you suggest of others.
I think everyone realizes intuitively that there is far more nuance to the world than what we type in a small comment box. I personally don't even have a sufficient vocabulary to constantly describe the nuance -- hedging every phrase in every statement just makes for muddy reading.
The ultimate irony is that many conservatives will hesitate before commenting on this here, because people don't want to be on the receiving end of a torrent of downvotes.
Anyone who cares about downvotes is a shallow idiot. I can think of more serious consequences, but caring about getting greyed out on HN is not one of them.
My main account is my reputation on the internet. That means there literally would be "serious consequences" if I posted conservative opinions. So, yeah. I'm a shallow idiot for not wanting to get fired.
dang has chastised me in the past for discussing politics, so I won't. I'm not going to get downvoted, I'll get yelled at (at best) or shadowbanned or outright banned from the site. There is only one acceptable opinion of political discourse here and I will not oppose it (here, anyway). It is, after all, a very big internet out there, and we are all guests here, and I'd like to thank pg and dang and the rest of the gang for letting us visit and talk (about other things). This site is a very nice service for non-political discussions, thanks well earned to everyone "in charge".
I'll talk about emacs and vi instead of politics; what could possibly go wrong?
As a person who tries to uphold gentlemanly behavior, which boils down to trying to make people as comfortable as possible, imagine I found a vi echo chamber, perhaps a vi oriented IRC channel or web discussion board or vim editor marketing team mailing list where in excess of 99% of the people there were avid vi users.
It would be quite rude of me to discuss emacs in their little non-emacs echo chamber. Its simple politeness.
Its interesting that the original social network that being amateur radio had a variety of explicit and assumed codes along the lines of discussion will not involve political or religious topics. Also freemason lodges ban religious and political topics. Any technology that advances enough, eventually bans discussion of politics and religion or descends at absolute best into something like CB radio or graffiti or even worse, the cesspool that is twitter.
In America left wing politics is implicitly a religious belief and right wing politics is explicitly religious (generally Christian) so merely banning individually politics or religion isn't going to permit discussing the other. Also religious belief was arrived it by indoctrination and propaganda not reason or rational thought, therefore no change will occur via reason or rational thought or calm discourse. Presumably that's how the world was centuries ago, leading to the amateur radio code from the (19)10s and ancient freemasonry etc. Everything old is new again...
"Managers and supervisors can now legally require their workers to participate in politics as a condition of employment. For instance, in most states, managers have the legal right to mandate worker attendance at a political rally for a favored candidate—and fire or punish workers who decline to participate."[1]
"On August 14 th 2012, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney visited an Ohio coal mine to give a speech attacking the energy policies of opponent Barack Obama. A campaign stop such as this one might not seem that unusual in the midst of a heated presidential election. But this event was different, as the owners of the coal mine had told their workers that attendance at the rally would be both mandatory and unpaid." [2]
"Private employers can distribute materials that tell all their workers the company's positions on political issues. And if your boss were to send an email urging you to attend a rally for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton this weekend, because electing his favorite candidate is 'essential for the future of the company,' legal experts say he'd be within his rights to do it." [3]
A surprisingly large number of people wear their political opinions on their sleeves. During the election last year I saw a few people in my office with Hillary Clinton action figures. (this was in NYC)
Why would you not expect your co-workers to take a MAGA hat as a personal attack? The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them from the country. Remember that even some green card holders were briefly barred from reentering. [1]
What if you don't have the hat but don't favor liberal immigration policies? Would expressing this political stance be taken as a personal attack?
If so, that level of "we must stamp out the heresy!" is generally associated with more extreme religious types, not supposedly rational open-minded people. And that's where the danger lies: once you stop permitting the expression of contrary views, your ability to argue against them will atrophy.
The problem, of course, is that there's no way to tell from outward appearances what someone believes. A good example of this is the appropriation of Satanic imagery in rock music: few of these bands are theistic or LaVeyan Satanists, most of them are just doing it to send a message. The connotation of pentagrams and upside down crosses is "watch out, I'm evil, I like evil things, etc". Conservative Christians, however, often don't realize this and legitimately believe these people to be agents of the Devil, when usually they're just trying to provoke a reaction.
There's a layer of semiotics that's important to any outward appearance. Wearing a swastika but saying "Nonono it's a Hindu symbol of fertility" probably wouldn't go over well. Nor would saying "Well I didn't like the Holocaust but I really did think the Nazis had some good ideas about things". Similarly, wearing a hammer and sickle shirt will get you into trouble in more conservative places.
The MAGA hat's obviously on a different level than that, but it does explain some of the reasoning. That hat in particular represents (sometimes fanatical) appreciation for a man that liberals believe is doing immense harm to our nation, it's citizens and its image via racist, reactionary and backwards-looking politics. Because of far-right extremists, I get scared when I see that hat, to me it signals some form of white supremacy that I need to stay away from. So yes, wearing it at work might make people uncomfortable.
I completely agree that trolling your coworkers is not good behavior, and I also oppose the idiots playing nazi for similar reasons, as it's bad for the level of public discourse. But I don't think saying "I think we should be restricting immigration from some areas so we don't end up with isolated, un-integrated communities that might lead to extremism[1] like elsewhere" fits the same bill, even though my personal approach to the problem would be different.
If that would hurt someone's feelings so much to be a "hostile work environment" then that's the same problem shown by right-wingers getting incensed over Colin Kaepernick. There are a lot of publications out there, left and right, that try to fan flames more than they try to inform, and we need to get past that.
But, in the short term, I'd take it as a kindness if we could just stop talking politics at work. I don't want to hear you whining twenty minutes every day about Trump, and that's coming from someone mostly in the "the democrats are too conservative and centrist" camp.
I've actually come to hate the "whine about Trump lunch". After a while it's just rehashing old truths and there's no novelty in the discussion. Just weird, random venting. Then again, I do have coworkers who have been publicly called terrorists because of their race. To them, Trump represents a much greater evil than he does to me, because he literally does that kind of thing on television. To people with illegal Mexican family members, he literally is suggesting that we should split their family apart. It's not as much about conservatism broadly as it is about this one specific guy who is poorly behaved and downright mean.
> That hat in particular represents (sometimes fanatical) appreciation for a man that liberals believe is doing immense harm to our nation, it's citizens and its image via racist, reactionary and backwards-looking politics.
Of course, many people believed that the previous president was doing immense harm to our nation, its citizens and the world at large … but I don't think many were fired for wearing their Hope & Change or Yes We Can hats …
> Because of far-right extremists, I get scared when I see that hat, to me it signals some form of white supremacy that I need to stay away from. So yes, wearing it at work might make people uncomfortable.
And yet people have no problem whatsoever bringing stuff expressing the opposite viewpoint into the workplace. It's normal to hear people expressing moderately- and far-left opinions in the workplace. It's not to hear them express even centrist-right opinions.
FWIW, I don't subscribe to pretty much anything a MAGA hat conveys, and I didn't vote for the current president.
I mean, I'm not saying anyone should be fired, but people should understand the context of their fashion choices and the persona they cultivate. Aside: conservatives like to say "life's not fair" until it comes to things like this.
FWIW I occasionally express centrist positions at my left-leaning job, I don't get fired or reprimanded. Nor do I get reprimanded for advocating for socialism. I don't think anyone would be either for expressing conservative positions. Maybe I'm naive.
They might, however, face social sanctions or get in an awkward debate if they were arguing that two people on my team should not be allowed in this country as immigrants, or that my gay coworkers shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. There's obviously going to be a clash of beliefs and they should recognize that. Similarly, if any of us were to make sweeping generalizations about white people, it'd be awkward for the white people on the team, and it might spur a big debate. No one likes to feel attacked, especially at work, so we learn to feel out what's allowed or what's out of bounds and then work with that.
Without a doubt, if one of my coworkers came to me and said "Look, I like working with you but you have to stop shit talking conservatives at work" I'd be more mindful of it and avoid making it awkward. I'm not sure why these men feel that they aren't able to do that.
It's not like I have much of respect for out conservatives but I have even less for closeted conservatives when I eventually find out.
Got the hat? Wear it and defend your ideas. I am open minded and rational, or at least I think I am. But if you think I'm stamping out heresy because I don't tolerate bigotry, tough.
BTW, my paternal grandfather was an illegal. Paid his taxes. Stayed out of jail. The grand kids, at least on this half, have been amazingly successful and contributed a lot to the economy, society and our national defense.
I don't have the hat or the beliefs, but way to illustrate that you can't even imagine someone being able to understand opposing positions. You certainly don't sound open minded or rational, since you're assuming bigotry could be the only possible root belief for similar policy goals.
How you want to react is your business, but again, you should be aware that it's going to impact how effective your fight against those views is.
The article suggests the novel view that showing one's political side in the workplace should not be considered offensive nor for it to be taken personally.
Hard to not take someone's political views personally if they would destroy your livelihood, personally.
I am lucky to be a citizen. Were I an Iranian green card holder visiting family abroad when the first Muslim travel ban was implemented? I would now be facing losing my job and my home. A transgender member of the armed forces now? Facing losing my livelihood in a matter of months. An undocumented immigrant who is the only support for his documented family? Now the entire family is homeless and fatherless.
At best this argument applies to Hillary/Obama through some hand-waving abstract argument about environmental regulations and international trade agreements that ignores economic opportunities created by their policies. Someone banned from their livelihood because of their identity has no recourse.
>The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them from the country.
That's essentially saying that people have to agree with the whole platform or none of it.
As an example, there are many liberals who voted for Obama and did not agree with all aspects of the platform (healthcare reform or military policies). Would wearing a "Yes, we can" shirt/hat be offensive, then?
That kind of argument seems very reductionist.
Finally, the very format of your question is problematic, for two reasons.
First, making claims that someone is trying to offend by wearing a slogan is what is referred to as "attribution of intention". Instead of having a dialog about it, you're concluding the person's intention. As someone who has often been on the receiving end of that (I'm sure we all have on divisive issues), that is very offensive.
Second, this type of reasoning is what I often call, "From ignorance comes uncertainty." You are indirectly admitting you cannot understand any other reason someone would act in a certain way, and then imply you know the "true" reason.
Usually such statements are phrased as "I cannot think of a good reason X would do it, therefore it must be because of Y".
I'll grant that you did not use this exact template, and if your question really was borne out of curiosity, I apologize for my own "attribution of intent". But I do hope I have given you something to think about on the topic in question.
Your elected officials own the messaging on your political brand. You don't actually get a choice on this one.
If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.
>If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.
Where we disagree is this:
1. You don't have to get a read on someone before interacting with them. That path is the path to stereotyping.
2. We disagree on whether those going-in assumptions are useful.
There are plenty of professions where someone has to "read a room/person/situation" before having a chance to interact with people. As an example, many types of consulting require someone to "take the pulse of a room" before directly interacting with any one person. To be sure, there's a price for being wrong, but there's also a reward for being right.
If someone is wearing a Boston Bruins jersey in public, I think it's reasonable to believe that they're a fan of the Boston Bruins hockey team. I _could_ ask them if that's the case, or if they're a New York Rangers fan that's wearing it ironically, but that would (probably) be wasted effort, because I have a good idea of the answer I'm going to get.
It seems reasonably straightforward to apply that to other team insignia, especially one that is so clearly affiliated with a specific political leader, and their political outlook.
False equivalence. (There's a lot of that in the Trump age.) Obama never explicitly ran on a platform of implementing a policy which would immediately destroy the livelihood of upstanding individuals based on their identity or associations. (See: Muslim ban, immigration policy, transgender ban.)
>Obama never explicitly ran on a platform of implementing a policy which would immediately destroy the livelihood of upstanding individuals based on their identity or associations.
He did, however, run on a platform that was about escalating a conflict in another part of the world, and did implement it, and many people did end up being killed, which is a lot more than what Trump did.
Nice little plug for Quora there. Probably tells us something about who "John" really is. For the record, Quora is a very poor place to have such debates. It's a very strict question and answer format, with many "why did Obama kill a hundred babies and drink their blood" questions on every political topic. Just about any other place, including here, is better for a political debate.
Ignoring for a moment the moral judgement of whether conservatism is "right" or "wrong" ...
I imagine this is probably how closeted gay people felt for a long time, and still do outside of places like the Bay Area. It's poetic justice. The playing field will probably wobble back and forth for a little while and white conservative men will learn to play by the new rules - claiming victim status is as good a place to start as any.
I am saying that it's wrong to shame people at work for their political opinions and I can't fucking believe that this stance is controversial. I will go further and say that politics doesn't belong at work.
I guess you are talking about big issue politics when you say they don't belong at work, because it is absurd to say that people shouldn't consider the political consequences of the things they create or actions they take on behalf of their jobs.
Sorry, but if you don't have the courage to speak your truth, then you deserve the chains of slavery that you choose to wear and the dearth of self-respect that comes with it.