I agree being too persnickety about language is a problem on HN. I deny I'm doing it here. Let's review.
This is in response to an article about Maciej Ceglowski's very clear advocacy of becoming politically active at work. About tech workers organizing to become politically active.
The comment that started this thread said, "I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. [...] I think people should be free to hold any political belief, but are wise to separate work and politics."
Kiliantics said "Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself [...]"
Jake Basile replied saying he just wanted to stay out of politics. I pointed out that itself was a political choice, and one only afforded to people who are sufficiently well off, that there was no way to be out of politics. Jptssn disagreed with this, comparing politics to sports, suggesting both were equally ignorable. Confounded pointed out the error in this thinking.
Then you jumped in to complain about goalpost-shifting, and here we are.
If somebody say they didn't like talking about politics at work, that'd be fine with me. That's a statement of preference. I don't like it either. If somebody were just saying they didn't talk about politics at work, that would also be fine by me as long as they understood that a) that was also a political choice, one that in practice means supporting the status quo and b) that was a personal luxury afforded to them by their position in society.
But in this thread we have a) the notion that we shouldn't have progressive activism or even talk about politics in a work context, and b) a claim that politics is both as separate and as dispensable as which group of guys moved a ball around more.
I (and others) object to that. I especially object to the notion that politics is distinct from "normal" or "just going to work". That's a way that people who benefit from and actively support the political status quo try erase cries for change from those who think the status quo should change.
In sum, if people want to actively argue for preserving the status quo, great. When people try to cut off discussion of changing the status quo as "political", not great, because that's just a sneaky way to defend the status quo. Make sense?
> Jake Basile replied saying he just wanted to stay out of politics. I pointed out that itself was a political choice
And that was exactly where the language lawyering began. If you think there is "no way out of politics" and someone else says "I stay out of politics" then it is manifestly obvious that both parties are using different definitions of the word "politics." Any further discussion that ignores the discrepancy in the uses of words such as perceived pithy points about "HAH! gotya! that is actually a political choice!" is just confusing the entire issue, knowingly or not.
Next time, just clarify what words mean. Instead of, "hah gotya!" ask, "what do you mean by staying out of politics?" Or just charitably interpret it using one of the many variants I listed.
Yes. I understood his use in that fashion and responded to it. You'll note that the bulk of my point was clearly about how his choice was a luxury, not about the language used itself.
If every white dude who "stays out of politics" understands that a) they can do that because previous political activity of white dudes has given them that option, and that b) they are supporting that system if they participate in that system while not talking about politics, then I have no beef with them.
My issue is with the erasure of that, the pretense that "staying out of politics" really is staying out of politics. An erasure performed in many places on this page, including by the politics-is-sports dude. Or by xupybd, who suggests the separation of work and politics.
If you think Jake Basile gets that and was not participating in that erasure, great. I'd say that at best it wasn't clear. But given his follow-up edit about "not being politically active", I'd still disagree.
OK, fine, then next time just say "assuming you're a 'white dude', check your privilege please" and be done with it. It's much shorter and makes your point much clearer.
> If every white dude who "stays out of politics" understands that a) they can do that because previous political activity of white dudes has given them that option, and that b) they are supporting that system if they participate in that system while not talking about politics, then I have no beef with them.
You are literally still assuming that everyone is using your definition of the word "politics." I don't know what else I can do to explain this to you. Re-read my comments I guess? Because you still haven't gotten it.
Buddy, I understand your point, I just don't agree. I've been thinking about the topic longer than you've been alive, so I'm unlikely to be persuaded by you just repeating your point ad nauseam.
I also didn't hire you as an editor, so you can take your amateur writing advice and fuck right off.
This is in response to an article about Maciej Ceglowski's very clear advocacy of becoming politically active at work. About tech workers organizing to become politically active.
The comment that started this thread said, "I'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. [...] I think people should be free to hold any political belief, but are wise to separate work and politics."
Kiliantics said "Work and politics are inherently connected though. "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself [...]"
Jake Basile replied saying he just wanted to stay out of politics. I pointed out that itself was a political choice, and one only afforded to people who are sufficiently well off, that there was no way to be out of politics. Jptssn disagreed with this, comparing politics to sports, suggesting both were equally ignorable. Confounded pointed out the error in this thinking.
Then you jumped in to complain about goalpost-shifting, and here we are.
If somebody say they didn't like talking about politics at work, that'd be fine with me. That's a statement of preference. I don't like it either. If somebody were just saying they didn't talk about politics at work, that would also be fine by me as long as they understood that a) that was also a political choice, one that in practice means supporting the status quo and b) that was a personal luxury afforded to them by their position in society.
But in this thread we have a) the notion that we shouldn't have progressive activism or even talk about politics in a work context, and b) a claim that politics is both as separate and as dispensable as which group of guys moved a ball around more.
I (and others) object to that. I especially object to the notion that politics is distinct from "normal" or "just going to work". That's a way that people who benefit from and actively support the political status quo try erase cries for change from those who think the status quo should change.
In sum, if people want to actively argue for preserving the status quo, great. When people try to cut off discussion of changing the status quo as "political", not great, because that's just a sneaky way to defend the status quo. Make sense?