Hacker News Reader

Comment by plorg | Hacker News Reader

"Insane" is a pretty charged word for a person deeply concerned about jumping to the most caustic framing possible.

I can't say that I know how every person means the things they say, but "my existence is political" is a relatively common statement, and I have never understood it to strictly mean that "I am alive subject to political whims." Every time I've encountered it the person saying it described how the mere act of being somewhere was enough to get people unhappy with them or to make someone else feel threatened. That regardless of what they did they were treated like a threat.

View on HN

> I can't say that I know how every person means the things they say, but "my existence is political" is a relatively common statement…

This is in fact not a common statement, and is only found in select coastal cities with high populations of people who have elite educations. More than half of the country has no idea what you’re talking about.

So have you encountered this phrase before or not? If not, why are you so confident that the person you are talking to is the exemplar of some hyperbolic, overreactive activist and not, say, someone talking about an experience you are unfamiliar with? Why do you assume there is a fixed, single meaning to a word or phrase when, simultaneously, you understand that other people may have no idea what it means?

GP said it's not a common statement, not that they haven't encountered it before.

The issue is that it’s possible for that person to not “be political”, even typical in large parts of the world, so if the person thinks they always are, they’re not seeing correctly. Insane is way too strong a term but such a person does risk their misperception harming relationships and wasting good opportunities.

Sure. A person's existence may "be political" in certain spaces and not others, and it is helpful and necessary to be able to sort out where your existence challenges other people, whether it should, and whether you are projecting undue fears onto other people based on a biased history or an unexamined worldview. It is further useful to examine your worldview to understand what is fundamental to your self-understanding and to your beliefs. Sometimes you write a sign or a headline and it doesn't include the nuance that you exhibit in the world around you.

If you "are not political" in a space it is because you do not challenge it, either because you agree with the existing culture or norms or have decided that it is not worth the cost of doing anything about it. If someone else does challenge those norms or that culture, they become political, but if that comes from something that is fundamental to their identity their choices are to either suppress that part of themselves to fit in or to stick out, "be political", and experience whatever reactions to that challenge.

My claim, here, is that creating workplaces that "are not political" is a way of enforcing the authority of people who already have it, and encouraging people not to challenge what they may see as unethical or inequitable practices in a business or other organization. It is a form of authoritarianism, soft-sold under the guise of civility.

I understand. The trick is that a person can believe and practice all that and still not actually be any sort of meaningful political or ethical challenge to their coworkers, even though they imagine so. Leaving the only available challenge to be trying to work with someone who doesn’t understand themselves or their environment.

Companies are publicly committing to a priori support of one or the other of the conflicting views rather than do the more difficult work of helping someone get past this, in the US, but in other parts of the world it seems possible for culture to exert itself and heal the misperception over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com