Hacker News Reader

Comment by kiliantics | Hacker News Reader

Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you.

James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo. He made the mistake of not organising with others and building power as a group that challenges the status quo. This is why unionising is important: a demand from a mass worker movement that can pose a real threat to the status quo is the only demand that has a chance of being met.

View on HN

> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you.

No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions.

Even though their opinions might almost completely agree with what their peers think, it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food.

edit: I can no longer delete this, but I would if I could. I'm not defending nor condemning any partisan stance. I am not stating my own opinion on any matter at hand. I'm giving what I think could be a reason for someone not wanting to be politically active.

> No, not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions.

Support of the status quo is a political choice. There is no neutral.

Also, the option to "stay out of politics" is something not afforded to everybody. As a financially comfortable white guy with in-demand skills, I can do it. But if you are on the sharp end of any of America's ingrained biases, you may not be able to.

See, for example, all the women now able to come forward about workplace harassment. Their speaking out, their striving for workplaces where they are free of abuse: those are inevitably political actions. So too is ignoring or resisting that movement.

I don’t care about sports. Does that mean I support the latest Super Bowl winner?

Not everyone can afford not to care about sports. Does that mean I have to care about sports?

Your argument only makes sense if you view politics as optional entertainment and identity-decoration.

While this is increasingly the character of American politics, this is not what politics is about. Politics is ultimately a contest over resources (financial, social, etc). Whether or not you get them determines whether you’ll have a short life of misery or a long life of luxury.

Politics is the contest over who gets them, framed as who deserves them. If you have no interest in this contest, then either you have the luxury of little incentive to change it, or you genuinely believe that the current system is fair and equitable.

I’m yet to meet another human (of any political leaning) in the latter category. It is difficult to reconcile saying that you care about other humans, but you don’t care about politics. The same cannot be said of the Super Bowl.

You (and probably others) have dramatically shifted the goalposts here. It went from "not wanting to voice political opinions in the work place" to "not caring about politics." Those two things are drastically different and cannot and should not be considered the same.

To accommodate the apparent desire for sports analogies, my intention was to play the ball, not the man from the parent into it's own very deliberately planted goal posts.

WRT the discussion above the parent, I'd say that the two opposing posts are are actually in agreement:

> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself - it's taking the position that the current state of politics is perfectly agreeable to you.

> ... not being political in the workplace means someone values their stable income more than they value the need to talk about their opinions.

If you accept that we have power to impact the real world in our professional lives as technologists, then these are perfectly compatible descriptions of the same stance.

I should say, I myself am at least partially in this camp. I firmly re-orient many discussions at work when I deem them to be unproductive, and pretty often this is because they drift into partisan 'badge-flashing'.

But, I'm not shy about speaking up about things at work where the actions of the company affect the balance of power out there in the real world and real people's lives. These decisions are important, if if they're going to be made, the impact of them should be discussed explicitly. This often means breaking the (political!) spell that user and investor interests are inherently aligned, for example.

Admittedly, this may be something which is probably felt more by people at large consumer Internet companies, as opposed to the technology/software industry as a whole.

Not voicing a political opinion is distinct from not being political. Spending 40+ hours a week supporting the status quo while helping maintain the norm that "political" opinions (that is, ones that take issue with the status quo) shouldn't be voiced is unavoidably a political act. It may be a reasonable one, and I'm not taking issue with people who do it. I just object to taking about it in a way that pretends that it isn't also political.

Pardon me while I refuse to indulge in your war over definitions. Meanwhile, the meaning of the phrase "I don't talk politics at work" is perfectly clear.

Sure. And if xupypd had said that originally, maybe it would have been clearer. But what he said was it'd be "wise to separate work and politics". That's not possible.

It is possible: don't talk about it. It's only impossible if you see the world in black and white.

You're the one seeing it a polarized way, your imaginary perfect separation between work and politics.

Consider, for example, unionization. In our culture, it's seen as heavily "political" right now. Consider the actions that trigger unionization: stewards of capital using their bargaining power to disadvantage laborers. That too is political, but is often treated as if it weren't.

There are places where the opposite applies: unionization is seen as normal, and therefore apolitical, while the power of capital is seen as strongly political.

What makes something accepted in some places and not in others? That too is politics. You're being political right now by trying to control what is even classified as political.

You completely missed my point. My point is that you're language lawyering by co-opting words by interpreting them in their loosest possible sense, even when it's clear the original arbiter of those words didn't invoke the word in the loosest possible sense. If you see the world in black and white, then this form of language lawyering make sense.

This language lawyering of yours is a straw man in disguise. You build up a claim that nobody is making ("I literally never ever participate in politics even though politics actually means 'every possible interaction with society'") but that everyone would agree is absurd. So... you win, I guess?

Meanwhile, when I talk to people in real life and say, "I don't discuss politics at work" or "I try to keep work and politics separate" they know exactly what I mean. But on HN? Forget about it. Language lawyers are here to ruin the day!

So what does "I try to keep work and politics separate" actually mean then? Well, you've shown an apparent attachment to the word "politics" to mean "literally every possible action" so I obviously can't use that word to explain it to you. And of course, many people might interpret the phrase slightly differently, but if I had to take a reasonable shot at it, I might say, "I try not to discuss current events in the same terms that politicians or pundits discuss them" or perhaps, "I try not to discuss perceived contentious or controversial issues at work" or perhaps "I try not to discuss my voting preferences at work" or perhaps "I try not to evangelize political candidates at work" or perhaps ... Well, I'm hoping you get the idea by now.

So why the heck do people say "politics" instead? Because it's pithy and vague, but somehow, some way, most folks seem capable of reasonably interpreting the statement to mean roughly some variant of what I said above. You know what's unreasonable though? Interpreting the statement to mean something that is trivially nonsensical.

I agree being too persnickety about language is a problem on HN. I deny I'm doing it here. Let's review.

This is in response to an article about Maciej Ceglowski's very clear advocacy of becoming politically active at work. About tech workers organizing to become politically active.

The comment that started this thread said, "I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. [...] I think people should be free to hold any political belief, but are wise to separate work and politics."

Kiliantics said "Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself [...]"

Jake Basile replied saying he just wanted to stay out of politics. I pointed out that itself was a political choice, and one only afforded to people who are sufficiently well off, that there was no way to be out of politics. Jptssn disagreed with this, comparing politics to sports, suggesting both were equally ignorable. Confounded pointed out the error in this thinking.

Then you jumped in to complain about goalpost-shifting, and here we are.

If somebody say they didn't like talking about politics at work, that'd be fine with me. That's a statement of preference. I don't like it either. If somebody were just saying they didn't talk about politics at work, that would also be fine by me as long as they understood that a) that was also a political choice, one that in practice means supporting the status quo and b) that was a personal luxury afforded to them by their position in society.

But in this thread we have a) the notion that we shouldn't have progressive activism or even talk about politics in a work context, and b) a claim that politics is both as separate and as dispensable as which group of guys moved a ball around more.

I (and others) object to that. I especially object to the notion that politics is distinct from "normal" or "just going to work". That's a way that people who benefit from and actively support the political status quo try erase cries for change from those who think the status quo should change.

In sum, if people want to actively argue for preserving the status quo, great. When people try to cut off discussion of changing the status quo as "political", not great, because that's just a sneaky way to defend the status quo. Make sense?

> Jake Basile replied saying he just wanted to stay out of politics. I pointed out that itself was a political choice

And that was exactly where the language lawyering began. If you think there is "no way out of politics" and someone else says "I stay out of politics" then it is manifestly obvious that both parties are using different definitions of the word "politics." Any further discussion that ignores the discrepancy in the uses of words such as perceived pithy points about "HAH! gotya! that is actually a political choice!" is just confusing the entire issue, knowingly or not.

Next time, just clarify what words mean. Instead of, "hah gotya!" ask, "what do you mean by staying out of politics?" Or just charitably interpret it using one of the many variants I listed.

Yes. I understood his use in that fashion and responded to it. You'll note that the bulk of my point was clearly about how his choice was a luxury, not about the language used itself.

If every white dude who "stays out of politics" understands that a) they can do that because previous political activity of white dudes has given them that option, and that b) they are supporting that system if they participate in that system while not talking about politics, then I have no beef with them.

My issue is with the erasure of that, the pretense that "staying out of politics" really is staying out of politics. An erasure performed in many places on this page, including by the politics-is-sports dude. Or by xupybd, who suggests the separation of work and politics.

If you think Jake Basile gets that and was not participating in that erasure, great. I'd say that at best it wasn't clear. But given his follow-up edit about "not being politically active", I'd still disagree.

OK, fine, then next time just say "assuming you're a 'white dude', check your privilege please" and be done with it. It's much shorter and makes your point much clearer.

> If every white dude who "stays out of politics" understands that a) they can do that because previous political activity of white dudes has given them that option, and that b) they are supporting that system if they participate in that system while not talking about politics, then I have no beef with them.

You are literally still assuming that everyone is using your definition of the word "politics." I don't know what else I can do to explain this to you. Re-read my comments I guess? Because you still haven't gotten it.

Buddy, I understand your point, I just don't agree. I've been thinking about the topic longer than you've been alive, so I'm unlikely to be persuaded by you just repeating your point ad nauseam.

I also didn't hire you as an editor, so you can take your amateur writing advice and fuck right off.

So since politics is important, not caring mean I support the winner?

You make a strong case for caring about politics. But I’m not convinced why low interest in an argument puts me on either side of it.

I’m sure a sports fan could make an eloquent case for caring about sports. But I don’t think they would say I’m anyone’s supporter by virtue of not watching the game.

If you could be mostly uninvolved in the game, sure. Move to the country, grow your own food, etc. But you participate on a daily basis. You're doing it right now.

It's like somebody saying they have nothing to do with engines when they drive a car every day. They may not know how the car works, and they may have low interest in raising the hood since it has always worked for them. But refusing to look at the machinery doesn't mean it isn't there.

I’m saying I can hardly support a regime by virtue of not caring about politics.

A new born child doesn’t understand and can’t care about politics. Would you say this child supports the ruling party? Never mind whether politics affects the child or vice versa.

Say you're living in 1930s Germany and you have the opportunity to either vote for or against the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If you're Aryan, you may have the luxury of thinking, "meh, same shit either way, I don't really care about politics". Other people in that society - Jews, Roma, homosexuals, etc. - don't have such a luxury. As minorities, they depend on what you and the rest of the electorate choose. One could argue therefore, that you have some of the burden of blame to bear if that outcome does end up impacting them with some kind of negative consequences...

Trolley problem. If I don’t pull the lever, maybe I can be blamed for it. But does it mean I support trolleys?

You can say that, but you're wrong.

A newborn child takes no actions and makes no statements. It is utterly dependent, contributing nothing. Is that you?

It's perfectly reasonable to say that you are happy enough with the status quo to support it. It's also reasonable to be afraid enough of the status quo to refuse to be in visible opposition to it. What's unreasonable is to be a beneficiary of and contributor to an intricate system of economy and authority and then act like it has nothing to do with you.

Luckily, I never claim politics has nothing to do with me.

Politics, sanitation, planetary orbits all affect me, and I contribute. But I don’t necessarily care about them all.

Your central thesis, that there “is no neutral”, is unworkable. Examples that fly in the face of it abound. Carve out the special cases, like you did for children, and there will be nothing left.

If you believe it is unworkable, demonstrate it. I'm making the claim for the average adult participant in the socioeconomic system, so I believe there's plenty left.

You claim you don't care; let's grant that for the moment, even though your energetic participation here suggests otherwise. Nobody's saying people can't not care. They are saying that taking a "not caring" stance while both benefiting from the status quo and contributing to the status quo is in effect supporting the status quo.

If you want to support the status quo, godspeed. There are many good things about it. I only object to people pretending the status quo has nothing to do with them when they quite obviously are an active part of it.

Support of the status quo is a political choice. There is no neutral.

The "status quo" is "the person who was elected gets to be President". It's OK for you not to believe in democracy per se, or in a specific flavour of it, that's Freedom. But let's call a spade a spade shall we?

It's far, far more than that. It's who has the wealth and how we divide wealth we create. It's the rules we make together, and the rules we follow without ever explicitly making them. It's who we hear from and who we don't. Who we trust and who we don't. It's how we frame these topics we're discussing.

Humans are social animals. We exist within a power structure that we help shape. We can't escape that. But we should be honest about it.

The "status quo" is "the person who was elected gets to be President".

He gets to be President until he's impeached, loses an election, or is declared unable to discharge his duties using the procedure in the 25th Amendment.

And... that's it. He doesn't get a guarantee that nobody will criticize him or his agenda. He doesn't get a guarantee that nobody will try to rally legislative support to prevent his agenda being enacted. He doesn't get a guarantee that nobody will use the courts to challenge his executive orders. He doesn't get a guarantee that the courts will allow any executive order he issues. He doesn't get a guarantee that state and local governments will assist federal initiatives. He doesn't get a guarantee that large donors will support him or his preferred candidates and causes.

There are many, many ways to challenge a sitting President without removing him from office. You don't have to challenge him, but the fact that you choose not to is a political choice, not an apolitical one, since it constitutes acceptance of and complicity in whatever he manages to do as a result of not being challenged.

Neutrality and "apolitical" stances are never neutral or apolitical. They always constitute acceptance of whatever will happen in the absence of your explicit action, since if you didn't want that stuff to happen you had an opportunity to challenge it and actively chose not to.

it constitutes acceptance of and complicity in whatever

I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now.

Just as an experiment of course.

I'm not sure you believe the premise of your own retort, which is that all people must at all times be either 100% absolutely good or 100% absolutely evil, and that expressing a preference for one candidate over another is equivalent to absolute support for 100% of that candidate's positions and actions.

All I have to do to avoid your oh-so-clever and original knock-down checkmate demolition of a response is point out that it's possible to express a preference for A over B while finding neither to be ideal, and to endorse A while also wanting to influence A to change their position or behavior on certain things. And this is perfectly consistent, since my position is that silence and nonaction are complicity, and what I advocate here is speaking up and acting. I can even head off the inevitable further send-me-fleeing-from-the-room-while-an-eagle-sheds-a-tear-etc. complete killer retort of "well why aren't you busy denouncing Hillary Clinton with your every breath then" by pointing out that I can in fact prioritize issues and say "I acknowledge this thing was bad, and want to return to it, but there is another thing currently happening that I consider worse and am prioritizing at the moment".

(like most people who try to fight on this, you're a bit formulaic; would you like to at least try raising something original?)

>I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now.

I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train.

> I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train.

Oh, cool, do you have some actual evidence about the alleged HRC corruption and graft scandals that you can share?

Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it. Money meant for down-ballot races was being funneled to the HRC campaign, and both HRC and Obama had left the DNC in heavy debt. From the stories, it sounds like the Party didn't like Obama much more back in 2008 than they liked Bernie in 2016, and as a result, they basically rejected Obama's attempts to reconcile and merge his electioneering efforts back into the Party. This basically fucked them over completely on down-ballot races.

The Democratic Party sounds like a terrific lesson in the Iron Law of Institutions, and right now, much of the American Left (that is, actual left, social-democratic and leftward) is behaving the same way, too.

> Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it.

Her claims that the DNC rigged the primaries were quickly shot down as bullshit and she walked them back the very next day.

Maybe so, but nonetheless, it shows how the DNC has traditionally been a device for funneling money from ostensible members of the Democratic Party, to whichever presidential campaign is on at the time. If you ever wondered why the Democrats lost so many down-ballot seats, the basic answer is: because they sent all their money to Hillary, Obama, and then Hillary, including the money meant for the down-ballot races. Pay nothing, play not at all, lose by default.

>>> Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about [HRC corruption] >> Her claims were bullshit and she walked them back. > Maybe so, but nonetheless, it shows [...]

No, look, you can't say "this proves it", have that proved to be bullshit, and just go "maybe so but" and carry on with your disproven argument!

Why would they? Weinstein supported Hillary, not the other way round.

Support is not the same as toleration, indifference, or complacency. That being said, they are choices, as you say, though awareness and fear do affect culpability (something that seems to be implied in your comment).

For a system you are outside of, sure. But we're talking about a system that people are actively participating in. E.g., the people who spend 50 hours a week working at Uber are supporting Uber, whatever their attitude toward it. I suppose the possible exception is somebody who goes in and consciously sabotages the place for 50 hours a week, but that's the edgiest of edge cases.

To a point, there is a reason why I don't wear on my sleeve some of my beliefs be them political, social, economical, or whatever.

Morally, ethically, fill-in-the-blank, there is a variety of spectrums I am happy to hold my tongue on until my personal limit is reached. Yes, it varies on any given range. I'm not sure it's fair. No, it's not consistent because I'm Human; don't sue me.

> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself

I agree. I don't know why this is necessarily wrong. Maybe I like the current political stance, whatever that is. If any one of us thinks it's wrong, we can act and speak and accept accordingly.

I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo. These things don't follow. They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up.

>I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo

What do you think about the notion of "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept?"

>They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up.

That would make sense under some fantastical rule that exlcuded speech (or silence) from being political whenever "risk" is involved; but deciding to speak or be silent based on a risk/reward tradeoff is still a political decision.

Perhaps ‘implicitly support’ is the better phrase to use than support. But: “Qui tacet consentiret”

> it's abundantly clear that deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy within tech can be disastrous to one's ability to pay for their home and food

This does not square with reality as I've experienced it. Hell, I've worked with someone who thought von Mises had a point--and he'd argue with you about it. Loudly, in public, and in written formats. There are receipts. And yet somehow, despite the mustachio-twirling machinations of the "orthodoxy", he's still thriving in the industry. Promoted regularly, big fat stock-option grants, the works. Despite not being anything special technically, just another guy. Somehow, disagreeing but not being an odious prick about it seems to go okay, and he's certainly not the only well-paid-and-respected person I know in the industry with loony views. (He's the only one I know who I like, but that's another thing.)

But I left a catch in there. There's that "being an odious prick about it" part, isn't there? There's the "writing manifestos impugning your coworkers based on their gender" part, there's the "throwing money at political factions bent on making the lives of your coworkers worse" part. Yeah, that's going to get people mad. That might make people not want to work with you. But why should they? When you're an active threat to their well-being, of course they want to see the back of you. And it sure sounds like you're mixing that up with "deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy".

> And it sure sounds like you're mixing that up with "deviating even slightly from the orthodoxy".

You're just proving my point with your insinuation that when I explain why some people might not be comfortable sharing their political views in their workplace that I am somehow condoning whatever negative political ideology you disagree with. I have said absolutely nothing of my own politics.

His whole manifesto was riven with statements that he was explicitly not claiming his female coworkers shouldn't be there.

The fact that people keep repeating this lie is disturbing. The document is public.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...

> "throwing money at political factions bent on making the lives of your coworkers worse"

That would describe every political donation.

I don't think that's a universally accepted position.

Are you saying James was being an an odious prick? Have you read what he wrote? Or heard that he was encouraged to give feed back?

Has there ever been a study on the effectiveness of "you're either with us or against us"? My sense is that forcing everyone to pick a side, even if by declaring the silent or fence sitters as an opponent by default, brings one's side a short term increase in supporters as those who are fearful of being seen as the enemy are pushed into tepid support while the vast majority who had been keeping their heads down either openly become the opposition or continue to keep their heads down while silently agreeing with the opposition out of resentment for those who forced them into making a choice.

Interesting question. I don't want to claim I have an answer, but I am reminded of an experiment that Bob Altemeyer mentions in his book https://theauthoritarians.org/.

They tried some United Nations simulations with people who he calls authoritarians (of which one trait could be described as subscribing to either with us or against us mentality), and the result was always a total nuclear war.

I think you're making a false equivalence, to a degree. No one has said that you're "with us or against us". The point is more that "if you remain silent, you stand on the side of the oppressor"

Here's an MLK quote better to that effect:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Would you also say that “not being religious is a religion in itself?” Or that “not being sick is a disease in itself?”

Maybe there are games I’m just not interested in playing.

There are many different ways to frame the human experience. “Democrats v. Republicans” is only one.

Politics is not a game or a religious belief. It is a literal matter of life and death for millions of people who have very little power. (Hint: not tech workers.)

Politics is the result of ethical values, which according to quite a lot of philosophy is a form of belief. Religion can and in many place do play a major role in forming such ethical values, which is partial reason why religion has so close connection in forming politics.

Ethical values impacts literal matter of life and death for millions of people. This is true. Ethical values differs also from people to people and is a deeply aspect of personal identity. As such, challenging coworkers on a political level also means challenging coworkers personal identity, and that just something which the workplace is poorly designed for.

You have the right to advocate for these people. You do not have the right to use the tech industry as your personal tool for doing so or to shame people who have other priorities.

But again, these two things are connected. IBM is in the tech industry, wouldn't you say? It had ties with the Nazi regime during the Holocaust [0], taking advantage of the crimes of Germany for profit. There were many companies at the time which did so.

Your work is directly linked with exploitation and oppression of people around the world, in almost every industry. The tech industry is directly linked to child slavery in the Congo, mining Cobalt for hardware. And tech players have a big role in worker's rights in the US too, think about Uber drivers. There's every reason why tech workers should use their united power to do something about these issues.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Everything is connected. Society is a fabric. You're not going to win me over to your side by talking constantly about how we're all guilty because we're all connected or nonsense like that. The tech industry and the people working in it have no special responsibility to work toward social causes and I'm going to oppose any attempts to hijack it.

"not being religious is a religion in itself?"

Possibly. It's certainly possible to experience "religious discrimination" as a result of not being religious. The right to be non-religious is essentially a political one.

> “Democrats v. Republicans” is only one.

That's an extremely narrow view of what politics is. I can't blame you for that because a lot of people want to jam everything down to that narrow view, but there are plenty of things in politics other than factionalism.

> James Damore was made an example of, yes, because he went against the politics of the status quo.

No, he was "made an example of" because he made working with him untenable when he said 30% of the company weren't capable and only there due to quota filling and tried to justify that with utter bullshit non-science (showing up his critical thinking skills as non-existent - not good in a software engineer context.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com