[nickff]

Why did you make two logical leaps just to arrive at an accusation?

From the HN Guidelines: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "

[eyelidlessness]

Having backed out of including a reply with my downvote—which I seldom do, but couldn’t find a productive response in me despite some effort—I’m curious what your charitable interpretation is. I went through all of mine, and none of them reflected well on the commenter.

[bitcurious]

Bizarre but illustrative that I have to defend myself against a nebulous “uncharitable interpretation.”

Are you free (according to corporate policy) to ask your coworkers about religion, health, romance, politics, ethnicity, etc.?

I’m comfortable discussing all of the above with my friends, yet each is to some extent restricted in the professional context, either by default or with seniority.

[MrJohz]

Not the previous commenter, but yes? I have literally never worked in a place where talking about that has been forbidden. I mean, talking about it offensively is obviously not on the table, but I've discussed literally every single one of those with colleagues before.

Is this a cultural thing? I'm from the UK, and I'm working now in Germany. Perhaps things are different in the US?

[bitcurious]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600848

Here is an example of how corporate risk aversion prevents authenticity.