Hacker News Reader

Comment by zapita | Hacker News Reader

I can’t agree enough with your comment.

The act of defining what and isn’t “political” - is itself a political act. It used to be unacceptably “political” in the majority of Anerican businesses to be against racial segregation. Now it’s the other way around. Whether you agree with that change or not, you can’t deny that the boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable discourse at work have changed over time. When you’re bringing up a topic or opinion at work that makes others uncomfortable, you’re trying to move that boundary, which is a political. When you’re complaining that the topic is “too political” and doesn’t belong in the workplace, you’re trying to keep the boundary where it is, which is also a political act.

View on HN

This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me". Going down this route, you are forcing me to take a position on issues I don't nearly feel having sufficient amount of data, or nuance; nor motivated to acquire them, because giving a shit is a rapidly depletable resource, and I have my own life, and my own stuff to take care of.

Please do not take the position of neutrality away from me. Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine, regardless of coincidence of wants.

In way of a reply, I will juxtapose two quotes from your post above. I think it preserves context, but please tell me if you think I left out something important.

Quote 1:

> This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me"

Quote 2:

> Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine

> please tell me if you think I left out something important.

You did: the position of neutrality. The position of not taking a stance either way. The position of actually doing stuff, like, in the real world, orthogonal to that of politics. The area outside of politics.

I observe, based on your comment 3 above, that you consider politics as all-encompassing. I reply: politics, as practiced currently, is a virus, which attempts to stick itself to everything, every act, every stuff; and until nuance, tolerance, and understanding re-enters the picture, I will not take any part of it.

I understand you personally don’t want to engage in what you consider politics at work. I don’t think anyone here has a problem with that. But you seem to feel like other people are forcing you to say or do political things.

I don’t understand who those people are, or how they force you to say or do political things. All I see are people who are saying things at work, like “everyone should march for lgbtq rights next weekend”, and those things annoy you because you don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss them at work. So, in this scenario, now you’re annoyed by unwanted speech... what happens next? Are you forced to go march, or forced to say outloud that you agree, under threat (explicit or implied) of retaliation? That might be illegal depending on where you work, but ianal. If that’s not what’s happening, then can you explain in more detail what harm is done to you, beyond being annoyed?

> You did: the position of neutrality. The position of not taking a stance either way. The position of actually doing stuff, like, in the real world, orthogonal to that of politics. The area outside of politics.

Everything is political. Pretending it isn't is a luxury that you yourself have, as a person who is privileged enough that they aren't in any way forced to think about the politics of any action they take.

> politics, as practiced currently, is a virus

Again, it always was. You were just privileged enough that you could safely ignore it without it impacting any part of your life.

> Everything is political.

Can you support your claim with evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political

Rather than speaking in generalities, can you specify particular political positions that you feel have been forced upon you?

I'm not the one you're asking, but...

I'm a conservative Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. The one co-worker who I knew was gay, I told him that straight out. I also continued to work with him, and kept him as my friend. (Lots of my friends are sinners. For that matter, so am I.) I continued to be someone he felt he could confide in - he'd come talk to me when he needed to gripe, because he knew he could tell me sensitive stuff and I wouldn't burn him with it.

Now here comes company diversity training. It includes LGBTQ stuff. If it says "treat people professionally; whether they are LGBTQ or not is not something that affects how you treat people in the office", well, I'm fine with that. It's what I do anyway.

But if the diversity training moves on to "you should have a positive view of gay marriage" or some such, well, that's forcing a political position on me.

Note well: I have never experienced that. But I think I've heard of such things happening (and no, I can't document even hearing it).

Sin is not for you to judge though. That is for your G-d alone if you follow your scripture as I assume you assume you do.

"He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored."

Mark 3:5

I don't think that verse proves the point you're trying to make.

But yes, God is the judge. I'm not. But God has called something sin, I can safely rely on His judgment.

He's not judging though. Judging someone and knowing how the god you believe in judges something are two different things, and it's not really fair to conflate them.

His interactions with his coworker illustrate this pretty well. Isn't that all we can ask of someone with a different view?

> But if the diversity training moves on to "you should have a positive view of gay marriage" or some such

So, again, the concern is of a hypothetical nature.

I would disagree, if you don't bring up any politics at all then you don't move the boundaries as the boundaries do not exist. There is no minimum level of acceptable politics to move any boundary. In that case, defining "political" is no longer a political act.

On the other hand you can also simply ban all tribal issues, ie the ones that cause coworkers to go at eachothers throats. This would be minorly political but the workplace atmosphere would improve greatly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com