[aurelian15]

Well, I see where you are coming from, and I don't necessarily agree that the examples he chose are very good ones.

However, I think the overall point he makes is worth some consideration. Many technical books (consciously or unconsciously on part of the author) frame software as something that primarily satisfies commercial or business interests. If you want, that in itself is a pretty polarising agenda, and I often found myself moaning when reading yet another database book that gives "managing employees" as an example. Why not use something mostly unbiased, such as "invitations for your birthday party"?

That being said, I also agree with the author on the lack of public discourse in North America. I recently moved to Canada and I am astounded by how little politics are discussed here, even in those places where they should be discussed (e.g., take a look at the trifle on the CBC News website "Politics" section). Democracy lives from talking about controversial matters, and I always get angry at people suggesting "not to talk about these things at work (or family dinner for that matter)". This is not how we move things forward! This is how I radically changed my mind on many matters over the course of years. So, I'd suggest that we should embrace the extremes, discuss them in a civilised manner, and meet somewhere in the middle. Avoiding these topics altogether is only strengthening polarisation. Whether a book about technology is the right place to do so, is rightly open for debate.

[slavik81]

> I recently moved to Canada and I am astounded by how little politics are discussed here, even those places where they should be discussed

If you're in Ontario, take a look at The Agenda with Steve Paikin. It is the gold standard of Canadian political discourse. It fills some of that niche you refer to with well-moderated interviews and discussions with various experts and stakeholders on political topics of regional, provincial or national interest, airing five nights a week on public television and the web.

But, speaking as a Canadian looking in on the US, I often get the feeling that Americans hate each other. I'm glad we don't have as much of that dysfunctional political animosity here. Our conflict-avoidance has its own issues, but we're definitely getting a lot out of the values of peace, order and good government.

[watwut]

The birthday party example makes database look pointless. I can imagine company big enough to need database for employees, birthday party is more practical inside a text file.

I strongly prefer those democratic controversies not affecting my work. One reason for keeping it out is so that people who think each others opinions are horrible/unnatural can still produce work together.

[aurelian15]

I fully agree that my "birthday party" example sucks. I just couldn't think of anything better.

Regarding the "no controversies at work" matter, I feel that coming to a situation where you dismiss each others opinions as "horrible" is a problem in the first place. Having worked with people ranging from Christian fundamentalist to extreme left, I always have the feeling that we come to agree that our differences are funded in a relatively small set of assumptions about the world, and it is far easier to accept one another once you've come to grasp these assumptions. If any discussion about these topics is widening the divide instead of advancing mutual understanding, society is truly doomed.

So, if you don't want to discuss these things at work, why not at least be curious about other people's thoughts and honestly ask them in a non-condescending way about why they think about something in a certain way?

[watwut]

They don't divide when the topic actually does not matter to you. That is when you can easily be detached. When the outcome of the discussion affects you personally, then it is much different. Speaking about Christian fundamentalist specifically, if the consensus in work ends up being that I was supposed to be more with children anyway or that I should be naturally submissive, then my position and career will be fundamentally different then if the consensus ends up being radical aggressive feminist women-are-always-right stance.

Those debates have consequences and that is why they are heated. Alternatively we can make work about work where impact of these things is minified.

"So, if you don't want to discuss these things at work, why not at least be curious about other people's thoughts and honestly ask them in a non-condescending way about why they think about something in a certain way?"

Because I am here to do the job. I picked up this job because I liked programming and problem solving. If I would be interested that much in someones that was randomly assigned to the same team opinions about my gender, motherhood, health care or tax policy, I would pick up different job.

I also strongly hate when people discuss topics like that for hours, then have to stay late and then frame themselves as hard workers who stay late or demand that I stay late too, because they need my support.

Discuss those things after work, with or without colleges.