zlacker

Politics by definition cannot be personal. It's the practice of resolving conflict within society; if you don't interact with society, there is no politics possible.

(Note: this doesn't mean I agree with the behaviour shown in this case - nobody says politics between colleagues must be done over Twitter.)

(edit: sad downvotes without actual logical counterpoint are sad.)

>>toyg+(OP)
politics are profoundly personal but also pervades the whole human-organizational stack. conflict resolution might be one of its applications, but make no mistake, politics is primarily concerned with power and its application.

(human) politics requires just 2 people, not a whole societies’ worth; even zero people at the limit, since politics happens in and with other species too.

>>toyg+(OP)
Politics at the workplace should be kept personal. Politics between colleagues should not be done at all.

>>DenisM+q6
I disagree. With that outlook, we would never have had the social movements that changed Europe for the better in the XIX and XX century. In modern terms, stuff like BLM influences who your colleagues are, how you treat them, and how you react to their demands for fairness.

>>DenisM+q6
> Politics between colleagues should not be done at all.

Hear, hear.

In fact, it's an age-old addage that politics and religion should never be discussion topics at work because of how easy these discussions can spiral down to hostile work environments due to assholes like this guy.

And this case is just yet another example reinforcing the addage.

>>toyg+BU
The world would be a better place if both Russia and Germany kept a lid on the practice of pressuring people into a political stance in the first half of the 20th century.

OTOH MLK did not have his followers pressure coworkers - they kept it in the public, not behind doors.

>>DenisM+Sj1
That's not how it went down - what happened between 1900-1950 was the culmination of more than a century of struggles in industrial relations (where labor had no power unless it organised), the rise of mass-media, and the end of monarchies as a viable system of government.

>>toyg+BU
> BLM influences who your colleagues are

Does someone need to 100% support BLM (the political movement) to make an acceptable colleague?

What if someone: opposes racism and thinks police's use of force should be more regulated, but disagrees with some BLM tactics/approach to achieving change?

For example, what if the destruction of property from the protests, or calls to defund the police, actually cause a backlash at the next election and it reduces the chances of anything actually being done. Is someone allowed to make a critique like that?

The bottom line is there actually needs to be a diversity of thought to solve problems, and if you silence anyone who isn't 100% behind your message your not going to make change.

>>alslsl+7e2
> Does someone need to 100% support BLM (the political movement) to make an acceptable colleague?

No, and I never said as much.

My point is that stuff like BLM is relevant enough that should not be considered a taboo subject between reasonable adults on the workplace. Nobody should be forced or publicly shamed into agreeing on this or that action, and there are well-known ways of resolving this sort of disagreement (i.e. voting) while respecting each other.

I am not supporting what happened in this case, I am only disagreeing with people in the thread turning it into an excuse to never talk about politics on the workplace. If we don't face problems and talk about them, we will never solve them.

>>toyg+ui2
> I am only disagreeing with people in the thread turning it into an excuse to never talk about politics on the workplace.

If I was running a company, I would prefer employees not to talk about politics because it will create needless arguments that have nothing to do with the job at hand. If I am an employee, if there is a disagreement about something, how do I know there is not going to be a long-standing hatred from a colleague about my position on a topic that will manifest itself in unpredictable ways.

There are too many activists which make every topic good vs evil and life vs death.

>>alslsl+7e2
No but the issue is a statement on the project’s page, which is a public good. Expressing support for a just and important movement for social progress like BLM is, in this respect, expected and thus asked. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s a social movement that the right is trying to vilify and turn into a political wedge issue, as well as cultural “Other”.