Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

"Don't discuss politics at work," is a political statement. It rules particular views in bounds and rules others out.

Similarly any business ends up making moral choices. It's unavoidable. To act in the world is to have impact. To consciously act is to intend particular impact. Commerce is inherently social; you choose to serve certain people in certain ways, with particular outcomes intended. These choices are inherently moral.

The notion that we should ignore that sometimes is of course a strongly political view. And when it pretends to be non-political, I think it's also incoherent.

View on HN

You're stretching the definition of "political" to such a degree that it renders the word meaningless. You're basically claiming that any act that has any impact on anyone is political. That it's basically impossible for an organization to be non-political or even less political than any other organization.

And that simply flies in the face of common sense. Only the most hardcore post-modernist would deny that the NRA is a more political organization than the IETF. So obviously some dimension of "politicization" exists beyond just "acting in the world".

And if an organization wants to be less political, one way to do so is by relying less on political considerations when making decisions. With "political" simply meaning topics that are widely and commonly considered to be political. In the same way that the NRA is widely and commonly considered to be political in a way that the IETF is not.

You can debate about whether it actually is a lofty goal for an organization to strive to be non-political. Certainly there are many counter-arguments for why organizations should be more political. But I don't think you can deny that the dimension exists in some meaningful and actionable way unless you completely throw common sense out the window.

> to strive to be non-political.

To strive to be "non-political" is an intensely political position. It's basically a complete support of the status quo.

To not take a stand on a position is as much of a position as taking a stand. We live in this world. It's literally impossible to disengage.

Not saying anything, or not disagreeing is as much a statement as saying something, or disagreeing. Neutrality is a political position. Deal with it.

----

The IETF is absolutely a political organization, but it's focus is in areas where there is much less discord and a general interest in actual practical problem solving, with hard, measurable outcomes, so there's much less room for gaming of facts. Go look at the discussion of any contentious RFC if you don't agree. Just because it's not advocating a extreme viewpoint that's completely divorced from reality (as the NRA is) doesn't make it "less political", it just makes it less contentious.

> It's basically a complete support of the status quo.

I've seen many people spout this off as if it's self-evident, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

The status quo isn't some neutral, natural resting state that will continue on until otherwise affected, it needs to be _constantly_ maintained.

Being non-political doesn't maintain the status quo, because maintaining the status quo is an _active_ endeavour, in the same way a plane doesn't keep flying forever just because its engines turn off.

You are mostly right, except that the actions of gitlab _are_ an active endeavour in various respects:

- putting a stop on political discussion at the workplace

- making it clear in the handbook as a matter of policy that gitlab will sell to whomever they legally can

- sending a clear signal that any time spend on considering not to do so and expressing an alternative opinion is seen as a violation of the values of gitlab and waste of time

- engaging in commercial activity with anybody, assuming you don't rip them off and they actually benefit from it, can also be seen as support in a very weak sense

However, 'support' also has the meaning of condoning. It's like a bystander not taking action when somebody is sexually harassed. You don't say he actively caused the harassment but his lack of action betrays an implicit support.

It fits as a "total war" mentality essentially. Delivering food to a city is supporting a siege. So is paying protection money supporting an armed group of criminals. Technically right but a matter of nuance. It may be effective in some cases but like nearly anything assuming automatic morality is a way to leap off the slippery slope.

Even the advocates don't take it literally usually because of how barking mad that would be in a "strangle infants for not supporting the cause" way. But that isn't special because any philsophy can be twisted into something horrific.

I suspect its popularity is more for the memetic effectiveness than a deep philosophy - regardless if it is right.

This is true but misleading. The status quo is much less of an active endeavor than changing the status quo.

As an obvious examples, the American Revolution was clearly more active. And surely the revolutionaries were seen as more "political" than people who just wanted to go about their lives. Said lives of course including a variety of actions that directly or indirectly supported British rule.

I agree "politicalness" is a spectrum. I just disagree that it's possible to be anywhere close to zero if you are running a company.

The current American notion of "nonpolitical" is based on a post-WWII period where there was a broad consensus on a bunch of issues, and I think that consensus was in large part driven by the moral clarity provided by the war. But that started to decline circa 1980: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/

It was still propped up for a while by common interests between southern Democrats and non-northeastern Republicans. A big common interest being an opposition to civil rights. But most of the blue dog Democrats are now Republicans and liberal Republicans are basically extinct, so that middle ground has basically vanished.

For you "common sense" is doing a ton of work here, as is "widely considered". But as far as I can tell, it's tautological. You want your priors (or those of dominant groups) to be considered nonpolitical, while those of others to be political.

> claiming that any act that has any impact on anyone is political

What is politics if not people regulating the impacts we have on one another? Of societies deciding whose pain and whose gain is most important?

> it's basically impossible for an organization to be non-political

This is exactly the point. It's impossible for an org to be non-political. Any choice made has wider socitial context and effects for the workers at that company. Politics is basically the effect of decisions on people. Not all political decisions are as extreme and sensational as NRA etc. most are mundane but still important.

Your definition of this political spectrum seems to be focused on politics that generate controversy rather than their importance or number of people they effect. Mundane politics are also politics, you just don't necessarily notice them

GitLab has to define what are acceptable politics to discuss and draw that line. This is a decision that has to be made and will be based on their political views and what they think is normal or extreme which won't be the same for everyone who works there. The whole thing just seems very naive.

Good to hear a sane voice here. It's weird how people are able to convince themselves and others they can just not take a position. As if that is not an position in itself, usually supporting the status quo and conventional morally of the time.

I think people conflate 'I don't want to think about this' with 'I am neutral and not a party in this issue'.

Spot on. This whole thread on HN reeks of "I was just following orders".

It is also incredibly luxurious to not engage with politics and the ramifications of our actions on both micro and macro- levels.

Thank you for writing what I was thinking so eloquently.

Everyone's life is effected by politics and GitLab is making a political decision as to which politics are acceptable to discuss at work. Politics will still be discussed, but only the politics that those deciding deem acceptable and this inherently political.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com