Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED.
>Limiting the scope of activism
The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time.
>always serves to protect the status quo.
Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
>The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
> Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral
No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.
> If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality.
No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
> The scope isn't being limited.
Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
> [...] company time.
That’s the excluded scope.
> > always serves to protect the status quo.
> Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo. To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
>No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.
It, by definition, does not favor the status quo. Staying silent on a topic may be against the status quo, or it may be for it. That by definition makes this neutral.
>No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
No it's not as explained above. Pushing may be for or against the status quo, and prohibiting pushing by this logic means neutrality. The status quo may be under threat by staying silent, or the status quo may not change by staying silent. That is neutrality.
You're essentially creating a non-falsifiable here by just assuming that "silence = for status quo".
>Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
Except nothing is out of scope, just time and place. You still have unlimited scope outside of work.
>That’s the excluded scope.
That's not a scope. You're company is not limiting your scope, you agreed to be there, during business hours, to conduct business.
>Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo.
Yes, which in the long run means no one side is being heard or pushed over others... True neutrality.
>To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
Exactly, and it proves my point. The net of it all is neutral. QED.
There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other employees liked the rule. It was causing a stir, so I as CEO decided to prohibit any discussion on the matter.
Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group.
The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place.
It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair.
> It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion.
It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed.
>I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair.
Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before every table meal. The "default" state is fair.
The fact of the matter is multiple different "default status quos" exists.
>The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side.
Except the straw man because internal company dealings are not gagged.
>According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
Yes, external politics not related to work are gagged, which de facto makes it neutral.
Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?
Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED.
>Limiting the scope of activism
The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time.
>always serves to protect the status quo.
Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
>The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.