[FussyZeus]

Everything is political, and politics affect everything. If you think there are no politics in something it's likely that the politics involved in it are not close to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Identity isn't political, until you have one that isn't an accepted norm. Sexual orientation isn't political, until people want to deny you insurance over yours. Race isn't political, until people refuse to sell you houses because of it. And so on.

"Keep politics out of $thing" is the purest expression of privilege. Doesn't make you a bad person or anything, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Shifting back to topic some: this idea that Google has had for years about platforms and now about it's internal one, that you can somehow keep the ugly elements of our society out and just have a nice, clean, advertiser and marketer-freindly area (ala YouTube) has permeated everything they've made. The problem is any place that people gather and collaborate will, eventually, get political. It can't not. As a species we have dragged politics into everything since long before we tricked silicon chips into thinking. I don't know why people keep thinking the Internet can be different, but it can't.

[magashna]

If you demanded the "privilege" of discussing politics at work, I'd promptly not hire/fire you.

[t0astbread]

The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo.

* edit: changed "competition" to "opposition"

[manfredo]

It does not silence anyone, it just means that their speech needs to take place outside the workplace.

In my experience, most people who complain that curbing political discussion in the workplace amounts to silencing them have views that are well in line with the status quo at the company.

[t0astbread]

I meant "silencing" in general. Of course you're free to talk about what you want in your free time.

In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.

[manfredo]

> In the context of work "silencing" could mean preventing workers from raising (valuable) concerns about the ethics of their work.

And again, the only people I've seen making this argument have ethics and hold values that are in line with the company's values. I've never seen a liberal at a conservative company call for more political discussion, or vice versa. It's always been conservatives in conservative companies or liberal in liberal companies making this argument. People who hold views contrary to the company mostly stay quiet, because making their views known results in ostracism and other negative consequences.

I think the primary motivation is that people whose views are in line with the company enjoy the situation of voicing their positions while being immune to challenge because people who disagree with them are pressured into silence. It produces a gratifying sense for the people in th majority, but comes at the expense of people in the minority. For that reason, there's good cause to not allow political discussion in the workplace.

[t0astbread]

Interesting POV but you could apply it in the opposite way as well: As management, I could issue a "political ban", then start changing corporate policy and my employees couldn't say anything against it. Without a ban, they could at least spark internal debate.

[magashna]

Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.

[FussyZeus]

Except by virtue of being neutral/centrist/apolitical, you are in fact still making a political statement in favor of the status quo.

I’m not commenting on Google allowing or disallowing. I don’t really care and to be honest, if my workplace has a discussion board internally I’d probably not talk politics on it anyway. What I will say though is I think it’s interesting that google found it appropriate to allow it when google itself was disrupting the status quo, and it now disallows it when it more or less has become the status quo.

[mancerayder]

He didn't say he had neutral views, he said he wanted a neutral work environment.

The attempt to guilt people into rolling around in the mud, or perhaps 'resistance' as you call it, is exactly the mentality that's ruining political conversation for everyone else.

[FussyZeus]

But again, that presumes it's possible to detach politics from everyday life, work included. It isn't. You can pretend they aren't there, but before you just sign up for that, you might want to consider which groups of people benefit from you doing that.

I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything. If anything, I'm putting forth the call to action to recognize that being apolitical hurts almost everyone, yourself included. You may be apolitical, but your boss probably isn't. Your landlord probably isn't. Your local politicians definitely aren't. The owner of your workplace almost certainly isn't, either. And all of those people have the capacity to make their lives better, by politicking in a way that will make your life worse.

I don't care what side people want to get on. I just want them to know that whether they've chosen one or not, they are on one.

[TheGRS]

I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion.

If you believe diversity is not a worthy topic of discussion or debate at the workplace, well, therein lies the political divide. Silencing political discussion is then its own form of getting a leg up in that debate.

[lacampbell]

I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion.

What if the opposite happened, and political discussion resulted in people arguing for less diversity?

The status quo might seem pretty appealing at that point.

[FussyZeus]

What exactly is this point you keep trying to make all over this thread? Accept the status quo and don't talk too much, or it might get worse? What on Earth kind of philosophy is that?

[t0astbread]

Of course I don't want total mayhem to happen but workers should have the ability to talk about issues at their workplace or raise concerns about the work they're doing and the resulting discussion will probably be political. Shutting down political discussion entirely (100%) will prevent employees from raising concerns.

[lacampbell]

The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo.

By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it.

Would you accept both sides of it being allowed to speak freely in tech companies, or just the side you are on?

[dragonwriter]

> By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it.

That is not true “by definition”. It would be true invariably (but still not by definition unless the conditions were also) if political variation were unidimensional, linear, and unbounded in actual (not merely potential) range.

[lacampbell]

It's pretty clear that the main, salient, tribal divide is between left and right. But I will agree to disagree there.

My key point is that if you open up the floor to politics so people can try and change the status quo, you open up the possibilities that people will want to change the status quo in a way that makes it even further away from where you think it should be.

When people advocate political discussion at work because they are against the status quo, I don't think that's a scenario they consider.

[ixtli]

If you consider the ability to discuss your conditions a privilege for a worker then I'm extremely happy I don't work or live anywhere near you.

[paulddraper]

You point out the truth: Everything controversial is political.

Political aka controversial topics should be avoided, unless they are relevant to work.

For example, unless you work at a real estate agency, it would be a poor idea to discuss federal or state law for racial guarantees around the sale of houses.

(Not that you can't discuss them; certainty do. But your workplace will make a poor forum.)

[ixtli]

Excellent comment. I agree with the parent's notion that google is trying to force their employees not to point out the bad things about their conditions, but this notion that there was ever a time where politics were absent is 1) ahistorical 2) reactionary. Politics is what happens when two or more people try to discuss an observation or explain a thought.