|
Lets say I really like basketball, like a lot, so much so that I want to work at a basketball company doing something. In doing so I accept that a basketball company will want to promote politicians that will build sports centers and will promote basketball (or whatever). On the surface this is fine. However, a politician is not only a basketball advocate, this person will have thoughts on abortion, civil rights, healthcare, etc. Now, just because I like basketball so much I want to work for a basketball company doesn't mean I like basketball more than my healthcare, right to bodily autonomy, or my right to marry who I want to. So is it not within reasonable expectation for me to be upset at a company that actively supports politicians that want to end my marriage or strip me of fundamental civil rights? This is why a strict "no politics", (while still a cop-out imo because taking no side is implicitly siding with the oppressor), is the only logically consistent attitude to take if you don't want to "be political" at work. You don't get to use basketball, or crypto for that matter, as a shield against criticism for supporting someone that wants to raise taxes or cut healthcare spending. The argument is not "I don't think crypto companies should support crypto politicians" the argument is "You cannot ignore the negative externalities of single-issue voting". If you vote for a pro-crypto politician that also supports, say, killing toddlers if they don't pass 1st grade math class; you can't ignore the fact he wants to kill toddlers just because he is also pro-crypto. It's ethically negligent to do so. ---- For your 3rdly point: You forfeit this option when the boss decides to talk THEIR politics at work. |