Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with Snowden's notion that "all work is political work". That requires a stretch of semantics that most people simply would not agree with. The word 'political' has a definition. It doesn't just mean "everything".

If we're saying everything affects everything else, then that's not really interesting or useful to note. Meaningful decision making and meaningful discussion requires compartmentalization. Words like 'political' do have boundaries.

I remain in favor of workplaces that stay out of politics and the culture wars, and instead adopt as close to ideologically neutral stances as they can. This is very possible and is where businesses largely were just a few years ago. If people have an issue with where they work, they should quit. But leave political warfare to the sphere of actual public-facing politics. Increasingly, overt ideological warfare is taking over every space - work, media, leisure activities, etc. It's unnecessary.

View on HN

How can we separate politics from work when making products for people?

Being ideological neutral is still a political stance, because it's an implicit backing of the status quo.

That "with us or against us" status quo stance is sophistry not logic. At very best it may be strategy.

One example that is should be especially obvious in the era of a pandemic that some tasks are effectively neutral because everybody needs it to not die. Food production, limiting the spread of disease and treating it, etc. Even those "against the status quo" don't usually support everyone dying of starvation. Putting aside that said binary is useless as a descriptor. Where Q = the status quo !Q includes all of "pay workers more","steal the businesses and give a share of the profits to the workers instead of a paycheck" ,"enslave the workers" , and "kill literally everyone" as against the status quo. I guarantee that those related !Q are not one big happy family.

Nowhere did I mention "with us or against us". The status quo is a multi-dimensional set of normative values.

Being "apolitical" is still a political stance, you're signaling that the current set of norms is acceptable.

What am I signaling if I say I don't believe in Santa Claus?

But food production during the pandemic was and is a matter of political discussion. Canada and Mexico recently came to an agreement to accept Mexican labourers due to the shortage. This means migrants and this scares some people.

The demand for meat (though nutritionally unnecessary) and the potential anger from citizens denied the option to buy meat rendered meat plant workers essential workers and thus put at risk for covid.

Food production and delivery is a matter of political deliberation also because we have to ask, "Who works?" It would've been neutral if everyone got time off work, got stimulus checks, and a rotation of ALL people of working age worked at the grocery store to shelve and man the cashiers. But that's not what happened.

The political nature of work isn't only on the material nature of the task but on the people involved.

Taking an "I was just following orders" sort of stance doesn't really mean you're apolitical, and this is the point. It doesn't really matter that you have a "neutral" stance against, say, producing spyware, the fact that you actually do tells the whole story.

Totally agree. This is just peeling the skin of an onion.

Who are the people in Russia that help Snoden live his day to day life anyway? Of course you can make the argument that of anyone in the world, Snoden has no choice...however then it just becomes an argument as to what constitutes not having a choice.

Actually, he did have a choice. He decided to sacrifice an objectively better living to alert the public of what was happening in their names without their consent. He also decided not to go home because he believes it is best for his country. If he goes home, he won't be allowed a fair trial under the Espionage Act, which would set a terrible precedent. He has repeatedly voiced his intent to face trial at home if he's allowed a public interest defense in front of a jury.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com