Preach. Politics being silenced in a work place is so short sighted and dumb. We should strive for a world where disagreement is not the end of a good working relationship, not one where crypto-politics is the new normal in the workplace. Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional.
Would you please clarify what you mean by, "Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional?"
Here's the problem: at least in SV, you're going to be restricted to a sub-set of very narrow beliefs which are acceptable to express. I may hold a personal belief that, say, trans-sexuality is not a "real thing" or ought not to be treated with surgery. Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? You may believe my belief is just too "in-tolerant" or "bigoted" to be expressed, but who are you to be the arbiter thereof?
Now let's take the other side of the coin. If you work in the energy industry, heavy manufacturing, etc., you probably couldn't express support for trans-sexuals without having problems. On the other hand, you'd likely have no issue saying you didn't believe in such a thing. I know someone in energy who wore a rainbow flag pin during one gay month a few years ago; he wasn't fired, but many of his superiors became noticeably cold toward him and he left after realizing he probably couldn't move up at that company. Again, why ought that to be the case?
The biggest issue is that when people start talking politics, you are expected to participate. Some one looks over and says, "Hey Big Chungus, what do you think?" In such a situation, I cannot reasonably say, "Oh, I have no opinion." Certain issues are simply so partisan that such a response, even in the rare circumstance that it is true, will anger both sides and damage me.
So, I avoid talking politics at work and try to work at places where others do the same. People I work with generally never know my politics. I am more than happy to bloviate about political stuff with friends and family, or to go be mad online after work. At work, it is best to stay non-partisan.
If you can have political discussion as long as you have the right opinions, that's not really a discussion is it? It's "affirm you agree with my political beliefs or be fired".
And a few parallels - what do you do about the person who's afraid of being shot if the government comes to take their guns (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning that way), or the person who's afraid of their kids being shot at school (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning towards fewer restrictions on guns)? You can't satisfy both of them without banning discussion, and a lot of issues are like that.
I think we're all conflating social and political opinions here. If you aren't comfortable with gay people, then that's super lame, and we're probably not going to be friends, but I wouldn't want to try to get you fired. However, if you support denying equal rights to gay people, then I don't want to be associated with you in any way.
So I don't see some things as political issues at all; they have political components, and extend into politics, but they start somewhere else: I see them as human rights issues, and issues around empathy. If you're going to deny someone their existence, and are arrogant enough to proclaim that your lived experience is the be-all, end-all of everything, and that your exclusionary way of life should be enshrined in law, then I frankly just don't think you're a good person. And that has nothing to do with politics.
(To stop the expected rejoinder: no, this isn't a way to justify things like pedophilia. Everyone should be able to live their life they way they want to, but the key component is: as long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process. Gay rights doesn't hurt anyone else. Pedophilia does.)
Regarding guns, I've had many productive discussions with people who own guns and staunchly support the 2nd Amendment. (My personal view is that 2A should be repealed, and we should have strict licensing and training requirements around gun ownership.) I don't know that I've changed anyone's mind, but I do feel like I understand some people better, and vice versa. With a few people I just hit an impasse; then I agree to disagree, and get on with my day.
And regardless, there's plenty of room for common ground there, too. Most of the gun owners I know think it's ridiculous how easy it is to get hold of a gun, and support more restrictions and requirements. Some even agree with me that "assault style" weapons should be restricted to gun ranges (or banned entirely) and not sold to the general public. And I've fired guns at ranges before and totally get how fun it can be. I'm generally skeptical of self-defense arguments, and think defense-from-government-tyranny arguments are laughable, but there's still plenty of common ground and productive discussion to be had.
This is one of the most overused, vague and inaccurate arguments. Nobody is denied from existing. These kind of extreme claims cause more friction than any actual discussion of the issue at hand.
I don't think it's that extreme. There are quite a few people who deny that being gay is real, and is just a mental illness that can be fixed. I would say that sexual orientation is a big part of a person's identity. It might not be "existence" in the strictest sense of the word, but it's certainly not hyperbole either.
Regardless, if you don't like it, remove that phrase from your reading; my point still stands without it.
Ok, I doubt there's really any significant number of people who care to deny these things but I'll rephrase:
If your identity requires acceptance by others for you to consider yourself valid then it's not really your identity at all. If that sounds strange then replace gender identity and sex orientation with religion. Nobody needs to accept your faith for you to have one. You remain fully independent and capable of having whatever identity you want.
> Regarding guns, I've had many productive discussions with people who own guns and staunchly support the 2nd Amendment. (My personal view is that 2A should be repealed, and we should have strict licensing and training requirements around gun ownership.) I don't know that I've changed anyone's mind, but I do feel like I understand some people better, and vice versa. With a few people I just hit an impasse; then I agree to disagree, and get on with my day.
> And regardless, there's plenty of room for common ground there, too. Most of the gun owners I know think it's ridiculous how easy it is to get hold of a gun, and support more restrictions and requirements. Some even agree with me that "assault style" weapons should be restricted to gun ranges (or banned entirely) and not sold to the general public. And I've fired guns at ranges before and totally get how fun it can be. I'm generally skeptical of self-defense arguments, and think defense-from-government-tyranny arguments are laughable, but there's still plenty of common ground and productive discussion to be had.
To me, this looks like you're so far to the gun control side of things that you're having conversations with milder gun control advocates and then thinking they're second amendment supporters. Have you ever had such a conversation with a true, "machine guns and artillery should be unregulated"-tier 2nd Amendment advocate? Or any 2nd Amendment advocate that doesn't support increasing gun control?
> "Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood."
Identity is whatever a person decides it is, according to progressive doctrine, therefore it's not intrinsic to the person either. There's no objective identity-o-meter.
What if you have a co-worker who is an Arab immigrant and does not believe in trans-sexuality due to his cultural and religious background? Should he be able to express that? Why or why not? Ought the trans-sexual to be able to express his beliefs if it makes said co-worker uncomfortable?
When two deeply-held elements of personal identity are in conflict, the only way to resolve it is for both sides to keep silent or for a third party to insert himself and pick the side in which he believes. In either case, you are telling someone he must change who he is.
The alternative is to simply not discuss such matters at work.
And yes, I believe both sides have the right to express their beliefs and that the comfort of neither trumps the right of the other to speak. I just think time, place, and manner are generally reasonable constraints.
Yes, not discussing it doesn't mean you can't accommodate them. Just because you don't discuss religion in the office doesn't prevent you from having halal/kosher meal options. Not discussing transgender issues doesn't prevent you from having a gender neutral bathroom.
Whether one gets uncomfortable hearing a statement isn't good evidence for whether that statement is correct or wrong.
This asymmetry of feelings is actually an argument in favor of not talking about some topics at work, unless all involved parties voluntarily agree to it. A less controversial but essentially equivalent example would be religion. It's widely recognized that you shouldn't spend time at work trying to invalidate your co-worker's religious views (or lack of them), unless they specifically ask you to. This applies to everything people build their identities around.
The absolute answer is yes. You have a right to say it. Nobody is owed comfort.
However this clearly won't lead to a productive workplace, which is why it's not a good idea to allow these discussions. There are plenty of other restrictions within a private company to create the best conditions for the work they're paying you for. It's perfectly reasonable.
Where's your line on what constitutes politics then? Is a discussion on let's say patterns of harassment of female employees by senior staff and ways to avoid that a political discussion? Is a discussion of salary disparities at the company among employees of different genders and races a political discussion?
The point is that instead of drawing a line around topics to say which ones are acceptable and which ones are not, there should be a line that says any discussion that causes harm/hurt to colleagues is frowned upon and to be avoided?
It's quite easy to say let's avoid politics because it causes problems at work, but that stance ignores the nuance in the situation.
Actual harassment is harm, and harm is not politics. It should be discussed and resolved.
Salary disparities based on completely arbitrary physical characteristics is not harm, it's politics. What does gender and race have to do with your salary? Aren't you negotiating your salary based on experience and competence? Is someone actively being harmed? How so?
Work hazards are not politics. There is a major difference between a construction worker wanting to discuss democrat vs republican, or if they need to bring up the lack of hard hats and steel shoes at work. If you need to bring national politics in order to address work safety then the issue is no longer between the employee and employer. Unions sometimes mix work place issues with national politics but it can also limit the effectiveness of unions by splitting members along national political lines. Having two construction unions, one that is republican and an other that is democrat decreases the power the union have to push against the employer, so even for them a policy of not discussing politics might be a good strategy in order to be as inclusive as possible.
A salary disparity is also not a political discussion but its not a easy topic to bring up as in any company there will be multiple disparities. Work hour disparities. Work freedom disparities. Perks disparities. External disparities such as commuting distance between work and home. Flexibility disparities. Skill and social contact disparities. Education disparities. There are even game theory issues such as optimizing for retention might not always end up with all employees being identical cogs that can simply be replaced.
Just recently I know a very skilled employee that left his company after almost 10 years because the company had a policy of having every employee under the same title, same wage system, and same heavily rotating schedule. That place suffer a very heavy turnover and looking at their strategy for handling employees it is not that surprising, but in fairness they have no salary disparities if you account for hours worked. Everyone is treated as an identical cogs in the machine.
I think you missed the "and because allowing people to state the 'wrong' opinions would be bad, we'll ban expressing all the opinions" component of his statement.
Spreading a view that being trans isn't "a thing" takes away the rights and agency of people, denies their experience, and arrogantly espouses the experience of the speaker as the be-all, end-all of how life is. This is something I consider a "negative view", not because the view itself is "bad" (though IMO it is), but because it's a view that pushes or causes negative consequences upon the group it is about.
Spreading a view that trans people should be supported acknowledges that everyone is different, and even if the speaker is not comfortable with the concept of people being trans, recognizes that someone else's gender orientation has nothing to do with them, and that people deserve to live in a way that makes them feel whole. This is a "positive view": it acknowledges the experience of others, even if that experience is incomprehensible to the speaker, and advocates support, not ostracism. (A simple test can also be: "does supporting X cause actual harm to anyone", and if the answer is "no", then one ought to support it, or at least not oppose it.)
So yes, I certainly take a dim view toward people who have the first kind of view (regardless of what the topic is about). I would feel uncomfortable working with someone like that. But if we didn't talk politics, and I didn't know -- is ignorance bliss? Perhaps? I'm not sure. I mean, it's certainly possible that I work with people right now who have views that I would find gross, and maybe we get along (professionally) just fine? Is being in the matrix better?
But what about the larger implications? I would refuse to work for a company with leadership that was actively anti-trans. Take Chik-fil-a for example. They've come out against LGBTQ rights, and have donated to anti-LGBTQ groups. I'm very glad I know this about them, because I would never take a job with them if offered, and I boycott their restaurants. On the flip side, I'm pleased that I work for a company whose CEO speaks out publicly in favor of diversity and inclusion, and I respect him for using his position of (relative) power to promote good.
I think it's important to recognize that companies are made up of people, and people have political opinions. It's hard to say that political opinions are always unrelated to work; sometimes those opinions do actually intersect with what the company works on. For example, if I were at Google, I would definitely have pushed the company to cut ties with China; I don't think it's worth supporting a repressive, authoritarian government in exchange for profits. Should I have been prohibited to talk about politics at work and let that go? Should my only recourse be to quit in protest?
