Politics is an expression of your moral values. It's always been an important part of a person.
Politics is divisive and agressive. Some people are put off by the easy narratives of good vs bad
Only dictatorships have historically wanted to permeate every aspect of life with politics. The USSR used to say "everything is politics". There are plenty of examples... politics needs moderation. I wish that people could vent their passions with football like in the old days. At least everyone knew no one was "really serious" about why their team deserves world domination
There is a time and place for politics (not at work). God knows how many times I've had to put on my earphones just to disappear from the latest office brawl about politics
It's also a privilege enjoyed by those who are allowed to think of their normal lives and needs as "nonpolitical".
There are people living in the US for whom "I would like not to get murdered for no reason" is a political opinion.
People should not be murdered by the establishment without consequence, and the fact it happens regularly is an indictment to our culture and society.
Less facetiously: you’re trying to pigeon hole someone into your own belief system. Stop, you’re being a dink.
I responded to a comment that was essentially saying “all viewpoints are political” in response to a comment that literally said
> Only dictatorships have historically wanted to permeate every aspect of life with politics. The USSR used to say "everything is politics".
The communist jab was due to them using the same strategy that the USSR used. I’m not sure if they were doing that intentionally or unknowingly out of habit or ideology, in either case they were being obtuse.
And yes, invoking communism is very much an identity politics signifier in this discussion. One side of this debate is endlessly calling everything they don't like "communism" and "(cultural) Marxism". Which is pretty bonkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...
> Only dictatorships have historically wanted to permeate every aspect of life with politics. The USSR used to say "everything is politics"
Being responded to with
> That is one way to see it, aka a political opinion.
I’m genuinely curious in how you interpret that differently. If they had ended the comment with “comrade” it would have made a good joke.
Nobody lives their life outside of politics. At best, they ignore partisan politics. But they can only do that because the political status quo is one that favors them and the people they care about.
I agree that an "office brawl about politics" is bad. But that's because brawls are bad, not because you can somehow have an office untouched by politics.
Take the very simplest example: how many hours do you work a week?
That number is determined by a political process. It always has been. When it was set purely by the rich people who owned businesses, 80 to 100 hours work weeks were common. Workers pushed back over decades; eventually we ended up with things like a 40-hour work week and overtime pay. Due to politics, that number has been rising in the US, with legal protections for workers decaying. Meanwhile, some people with more political and economic power have been pushing for shorter weeks. There's a long history to this, and it's all political: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/how-the-8-hour-workday-chang...
Note also that your insistence that no "politics" happen in the workplace is political. So you can either hold true to your views and stop mentioning it or give it up and instead advocate for some more reasonable change.
Politics is today's religion, and in religion there will always be zealots who put their idol above everything (and everyone) else. All I ask for is respect. Today's open offices will turn into torture chambers if we bring politics there. Please use restraint, be kind to others
There are also plenty of on-topic conversations that will get ruled out under a "no politics" rule. For example, the question "Why is everybody here white?" is an important workplace conversation, as is "Why do we pay women with similar experience less money?" and "Why are we letting the VP of Sales bang the interns?" But these are seen as highly political. And I think those are the real target of "no politics" bans.
Just look at Basecamp as an example. Turns out they had for years been making fun of customer names. When that was brought up, one of the complaints was that making fun of ethnic names can be racist, and that low-grade racism lays societal support for the more obviously dangerous kinds. That so enraged one of the powerful white dudes in the company "politics" was banned and the DEI committee was scrapped. Which in turn led to more than a third of the company quitting. They're bidding those staff goodbye and sticking with the ban on "politics".
Refusal to discuss racism is an obviously political move, so if anything the quantity of "politics" at Basecamp has increased. I think the real meaning of the bans is "the comfort of people doing well under the status quo should be preserved", which is deeply political.
I don't want to be subjected to company-sponsored political struggle sessions, nor do I want to subject others to company-sponsored political struggle sessions. Yes, this can superficially be construed of as a political belief. If you want to find some other mutually-agreeable term for the idea that one's workplace should not be dominated by partisan evangelizing, then I'm open to suggestions.
This is a strawman. I was not advocating company-sponsored political struggle sessions.
Does a company-sponsored presentation discouraging unionization count as a "political struggle session?" I have been subjected to that before, and the company would not describe that as political -- no, they're just protecting their investments. For the employees whose lives the question of unionizing actually impacts, unionization is a furiously political question.
I wasn't saying we need more corporate presentations about LGBTQA+ pride or BLM. But minorities exist, they're people, and their normal lives will often be "political" to those who are able and willing to ignore the problems those minorities face.
"NO POLITICS PLEASE!" will silence those whose ideas are considered "political" while implicitly endorsing ideas that have been promoted to "apolitical."
Here's a quote from an Innuendo Studios video[1] which has some relevance here:
>The adage about bros on the internet is “‘political’ means anything I disagree with,” but it’d be more accurate to say, here, “‘political’ means anything on which the community disagrees.” For instance, “Nazis are bad” is an apolitical statement because everyone in the community agrees. It’s common sense, and therefore neutral. But, paradoxically, “Nazis are good” is also apolitical; because “Nazis are bad” is the consensus, “Nazis are good” must be just an edgy joke, and, even if not, the community already believes the opposite, so the statement is harmless. Tolerable. However, “feminism is good” is a political statement, because the community hasn’t reached consensus. It is debatable, and therefore political, and you should stop talking about it. And making political arguments, no matter how rational, is having an agenda, and having an agenda is ruining the community.
Would you agree that to publicly descent from the majority would more often result in ridicule, not discussion?
Let’s put it this way: I shouldn’t be socially expected to express anything which would suggest that I will be voting for a particular party.