Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnFen | Hacker News Reader

Those are good tips. I would also add "don't engage with them on anything that isn't work-related".

I have a coworker who is difficult to work with because he insists on political conversations. "Don't engage" is working well there. Every time he tries to talk politics, I immediately shift the conversation to a work topic. I keep hoping that he'll catch the hint, but even if he never does, doing that still avoids unnecessary workplace strife.

View on HN

Avoiding political conversations at work is probably a good idea even with people you do get along with.

Getting along great doesn’t always mean two people will agree on every topic. And obviously people do not need to agree on every topic to have a fantastic time working together.

Also, depending on the context, other people might overhear part of the conversation and disagree, get offended, etc.

But do you want to work with people you cannot disagree with? Like, at some point we will probably disagree on work related topics as well, and I'd expect it to go somewhat similarly.

The dose makes the poison. So it is with disagreement, why opt into more of it?

Disagreeing on work-related stuff usually isn't about opinions, it is usually about ways to get things done. I _want_ to hear why I'm wrong about things in my job, I want to learn. I don't care about hearing why I'm wrong about life in general.

There is a blurry line with things that are indirectly work related (ex: opinions on cloud vs self hosting, etc). Those are for friday afternoons :)

I mean maybe if you aren't in the USA but based on the intense political divide there the vitriolic teams cannot stand one another. I would never risk work stability over anything other than a direct work related topic.

The problem is that our culture provides us with few models of how to effectively agree to disagree. Indeed we often elevate the most stubbornly obstinate in their views with unfortunate trickle down effects on all of our discourse. It's a shame that in cases like this we can't easily say things like: I hear you but I have a different take and I don't think this conversation will be constructive so let's stay focused on X. Or even, I agree with you, but this isn't the time or place for this conversation so let's stay focused on X.

The other problem is that no one seems comfortable saying "I don't want to discuss this with you".

Yeah, we have an overly polite culture, in that way

There's been a push where everyone is somehow required to voice their opinion. Remember that "silence is complicity" catchphrase?

And let's not forget the very fashionable "bring your whole self to work" which works great if you already have the same one true opinion as everybody else, but is a horrible idea if you tend to hold non-majority views which can easily lead to ostracism.

First it was silence is violence. Now words are also violence.

Best stay silent and let people assume you're a killer than open your mouth and prove them right.

> There's been a push where everyone is somehow required to voice their opinion.

It's a trap. McCarthy's Inquisition never ended. You don't need to go find those pesky ___ when you can pressure everyone into confessing their beliefs.

So where do you stand on Israel?

Silence from those who could do something matters, silence from Jeanine from accounts payable not so much.

That's not the lesson anybody took from the Holocaust or the civil rights, anti-domestic violence, anti-sexual assault, and anti-police brutality campaigns of the last few decades.

> [Bystanders] included those, for example, who did not speak out when they witnessed the persecution of individuals targeted simply because they were Jewish, or during the phase of mass murder, did not offer shelter to Jews seeking hiding places.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/bystanders

The Jews hold Fraulein Jeanine personally responsible for not speaking out against genocide when it was committed against them, and for not aiding in the concealment and escape of refugees. It's fair.

SIV was part of MLK's agenda in the 60s.

In the 90s, neighboring Jeanines were supposed to look out for abused women and children who couldn't advocate for themselves.

Then in the 2000s, it's once again the Jeanines of the world who were supposed to say something if they saw something.

The Jeanines were marching for BLM in the 2020s.

Policing has fallen out of fashion so now Jeanines are deputized in mandatory DEI "ally" programs at work.

First of all there's no unified voice of the Jews. And, even if there's some voice that says that bystanders are responsible, the question immediately presents itself, to what degree?

A guard shot in the direction of my grandma when she stopped at the railway station. She stopped because she heard people begging for water from the wagons.

What she could have done? And this is also very relevant for judging, let's say, Biden, or every head of state in general. People demanding action are usually completely ignorant of the actual agency of the targets of their screed. (And if they are in fact aware, then they are just demanding empty gestures, which is probably even worse, as it just makes more people mad.)

In general the biggest bang for the buck is voting.

Speaking up on Twitter is somewhere at the end of the list. Who knows where's speaking up when someone tells a joke with a punchline that is based some xenophobic/racist/bigoted stereotype. (Not to mention the complexity that comes from context, comes from the fun in safe transgressions against truly shared values, and so on.)

Of course there's an upside and downside to affirmative actions. Corporate mandated DEI bullshit is ... no surprise bullshit (eg. mandatory DEI training for everyone for no reason, just makes people fed up with the whole thing), but giving on the job training opportunities to disadvantaged people is not bullshit. (Plus also not without downsides and implementation challenges.)

> A guard shot in the direction of my grandma when she stopped at the railway station. She stopped because she heard people begging for water from the wagons. [...] What she could have done?

Nothing! The expectation is not that she succeeds, only that she tries. She tried, was shot at, and couldn't complete the task. That's not on her. The ask was that she try.

The most anybody can ever do is act when and where it is safe to do so, and remain alive enough to help as often as possible. Resistance and terrorism use the same playbook.

> Speaking up on Twitter is somewhere at the end of the list.

You say that, and it's true, but you miss the big picture. If it doesn't matter, so much effort wouldn't be expended on cancelling and censoring everybody who speaks out against Israel. Why does Israel give so much of a shit what people are saying?

(Answer: even if it changes nothing, it influences public perception. Capturing hearts and minds is usually necessary for a successful campaign.)

The amount od situations where it applies is fairly limited. As in, it makes sense to apply where you "would be complicit in something bad", but majority of disagreements do not cause actual harm.

I've gotten comfortable with that, and more. All I say is "This isn't a public square, and we're at work. I'm not paid to sit around and talk politics, and neither are you. Let's continue on doing what we're paid to do. I don't want to hear your opinions or your bullshit, and you shouldn't want to hear mine. Both are irrelevant to the tasks we're paid to preform.".

Seems to work well. If they insist on continuing, I like to go down the path of "Please stop. As stated, I'm not comfortable discussing personal matters when I'm on the clock being paid to do something else. If you'd like me to listen to your diatribe, I'd be more than happy to do provided it's at a 5-star restaurant of my choosing, where you'll be footing the entire bill for myself and my whole extended family in exchange for us hearing your opinions". Most have gotten the hint the first time, only used the second once.

Said no one never :-) but it is funny, huge if true! I’ll use it.

The latter has worked exactly one time (the only time I've had to use it), because it's effectively a nuclear bomb. The person was serious, but when I called to make the reservation, magically, the gentleman was not ready to plop down $200-300 a head for 20 people to listen to his political bullshit. He never talked politics with me at work again.

What do you think would be effective models? I ask because your final two statements sound like effective topic changers. Is the difficulty that it takes so many words to say? Or that people generally feel awkward about those kinds of statements

Society does provide ways, but people don't always care. They won't take a hint, because they want an argument. They'll keep trying to get what they want.

My grandmother was one of those people. She wanted to "win debates", in her words. I'm not sure the winning ever happened, but she tried for decades.

Sex and politics have traditionally been the two topics that are best avoided in social settings. It seems that tradition is gradually disappearing.

And religion

And football.

Unless fantasy

I wouldn't describe it as divisive but it does seem half the population has no idea that the other half has zero interest in football.

Yeah, I hate sports talk only because I find sports talk incredibly boring.

Do you mean work settings? I think traditionally Sex has been a staple of social settings; it's why a non-trival amount of people play novice sports (to meet future spouses).

What does playing novice spots mean?

Typo-o; Sports.

It's like all those bar leagues where people play softball for 90mins and then hang out at the bar afterwards for the rest of the day.

I was already engaged when my spouse and I played beer league softball. It's awesome even when not in the market.

Generally best to avoid talking about the specifics of the actual acts when in polite company.

Sex, Politics, Religion were the traditional ones to avoid. I'd also add 'childcare/how to raise children' as another one that can easily escalate/some people have very strong opinions on.

I thought the taboo topics were religion and politics.

And personal wealth or lack thereof. That said, a lot of office gab back in the day amounted to sexual harassment, so I'd be glad to include sex in the taboos.

Actually I think you’re right.

Not engage on sensitive topics: yes, even with people you like

Not engage on any topic outside the strictly necessary for work: a passive-aggressive way to keep the animosity forever

Reply on news.ycombinator.com