Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace. Some employees are uncomfortable with discussing politics at work as it may create unnecessary tensions.
Those who like debating about politics can always gather after work.
I don't see what it has to with a level of privileges.
That being said, I also don't like being told what type of conversations I'm allowed to have.
>Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace.
Because the discrimination laws as they are currently setup in the US do not protect LGBTQ folks in the way they protect others. For example, in many states people can still be fired based off their gender or sexual identity [1].
I don't have to give a second thought to bringing my significant other to an office holiday party. If my coworker needs skip that same party out of fear of being fired for bringing their significant other, that is a workplace problem.
If you're in an area where discrimination against LGBT people is still widespread, then keeping politics out of the office most likely benefits LGBT workers.
In San Francisco, almost everyone expressing a political opinion will support gay rights. In rural Mississippi, many of those workers will be bringing out their anti-gay inflammatory baggage when discussing politics. I'm virtually certain that far more anti-LGBT vitriol occurs within political discussions than the average non-political conversation.
This isn't unusual either. Throughout history oppressed groups have very frequently found refuge in the apolitical world of commerce. Just look at the history of Jews in Europe. Even when surrounded by a bigoted culture, trade and business ties encouraged tolerance and cooperation. The worse periods always tended to be the points where some ruler decided that politics all of a sudden needed to be injected into every sphere of life. Just look at the Spanish Inquisition or the Nuremberg Laws.
I don't think the closet ever benefited gay people. Also commerce is probably the furthest you can get from being apolitical so I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.
The point the comic is trying to make (from the satirist's perspective, not the fictional Kelly's perspective) is that both of the depicted scenarios only exist in the flawed perspective of highly-priviledged people who don't have to think about racial issues on a regular basis. When interpreting this comic, keep in mind that it is being told from the perspective of the fictional character of Kelly who is very white, very middle-aged[1], and moderately conservative (in the sense that Kelly is vaguely patriotic and doesn't like changes to the status quo that do not directly benefit him -- as far as I can tell Kelly has no coherent politics beyond this).
The first panel depicts Kelly's perception of race in America in his everyday life: people of different races exist (as horrific outdated stereotypes) but there is absolutely no tensions between them. The second panel depicts Kelly's perception of what it feels like to him when racial tensions are discussed. Kelly, like most white people in America, experiences "white fragility"[2] when race is discussed. Because white people have usually not been regularly exposed to racial issues discussions of such create mental stress which can feel like a personal attack on them which Kelly depicts as a general riot. To white people, the easiest way to alleviate this stress is to shut down the discussion altogether and return themselves to the ignorance depicted in the first panel.
> Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work?
Because what if you are an LGBT person and such things materially affect you? What happens when you bring your same-sex spouse to a company party? What happens if you realize you were born the wrong gender and decide to (publicly) transition? Suddenly you are not just "discussing" politics, your very identity is political (and that distinction is something imposed by society on you).
Also note that in the US not every state has laws against LGBT discrimination. There's currently a lawsuit before the SCOTUS to decide if the existing federal ban on "sex discrimination" also applies to sexuality and gender identity but with the current composition of the court it's likely to be decided that those categories are not protected under the law.
> "Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace."
In the United States, right now, trans people can literally be fired for being trans. The "laws against discrimination" that you refer to do not protect trans individuals, and those laws themselves the product of people organising together and deciding that certain kinds of discrimination should not be allowed.
That you included trans people in your example suggests you are currently unaware that laws against discrimination do not provide trans people the protections given to other groups.
> Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work?
If you're gay and you mention the gender of your spouse, you are going to get a reaction. People consider the existence of LGBT individuals to be political. It's hard to have anything other than surface level conversations without family and relationships coming up.
Companies (including Gitlab) have public statements about these things. Discrimination being illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and attempting to address it (or defending current practices) then also quickly becomes political. One of many areas where politics can easily leak into normal operations of a company.
>There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace.
because it is entirely unfeasible that any social problem that arises is immediately delegated to a court. workspace problems that are not necessarily criminal are most effectively solved directly where they occur. This requires that discourse at work is allowed so that information can be exchanged freely.
Carrying every conflict into a legal battle because employers don't like the fact that human interaction on occasion results in tension and is messy is quite ridiculous. You might as well start pouring Xanax into the water dispenser to calm the employees.
Those who like debating about politics can always gather after work.
I don't see what it has to with a level of privileges.
That being said, I also don't like being told what type of conversations I'm allowed to have.