[newcomputer]

Individuals are also free to sink as much of their resources into it as they want.

The fact of the matter is political conversations have high risk of annoying/frustrating/alienating their participants. To have these conversations at work is just making employees less productive and asking for a controversy.

[namuol]

> To have these conversations at work is just making employees less productive and asking for a controversy.

I dare say it might be time for some employees at Facebook to pause and think about how their work may have an impact on the world.

[fxtentacle]

That would be frustrating. And it might lower their productivity.

As Facebook, I'd rather pay for some yoga classes so that people don't have time to think about their actions.

[kelnos]

I'm not the parent you're replying to, but I think we're talking about two different things here.

I agree that there's no need to bring up politics in the break room (or worse, during active work) and risk alienating people. It's a bad idea, just like talking about or advocating for particular religious beliefs.

But if your company is being politically active in ways you find unethical, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to just put their heads in the sand, ignore it, and get their work done. And not everyone has the luxury of quitting a job whenever their don't agree with the company's politics.

[Talanes]

And you believe that people being asked to quietly do work for a company advancing politics they disagree with are going to be MORE productive? I know I'd be quietly fuming and doing minimal work for weeks after a mandate like that.