Employers Warn of Rising Political Tensions At Work (techtarget.com) 579
dcblogs writes: A significant number of employees are avoiding co-workers because of political views, says one research group. "Not only are employees avoiding one another, but they're also having a tougher time staying focused," said Brent Cassell, a Gartner analyst. The firm, which has surveyed workers, say the office tensions over politics are at their highest level. Firms are also on guard against the possibility of workplace disruptions and arguments. In Florida, a battleground state, there's a lot of concern about rising office tensions. "I think we're going to see an interesting atmosphere over the next couple of weeks," said Heather Deyrieux, president of the HR Florida State Council.
Welcome to the age of insecurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is the time to feel the mood of an average middle eastern citizen
Re:Welcome to the age of insecurity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Welcome to the age of insecurity (Score:5, Informative)
Really ? Some of us have been back on-site since June. . . .
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of us never left. My job has to be done at work. I've been working straight through for my normal wages while other people sit at home and collect UI. No free money for those of us actually keeping the economy working, though, except the one-time stimulus... if that. Still haven't got my check. I sure as shit wasn't giving the IRS my bank account numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
News flash: the IRS can get your bank account numbers any time they feel like it. Refusing to give that info to the IRS is kinda like refusing to reveal your social security number to Uncle Sam. It's not really accomplishing any meaningful goal. All you've done is volunteer to receive your money at around the same time that all the homeless people do.
Re: (Score:3)
Still haven't got my check. I sure as shit wasn't giving the IRS my bank account numbers.
It's very naive of you to think that the IRS (and CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.) don't already have that information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Same for me. Despite all of the COVID related interruptions to my job that I've had to deal with, I'm facing a very manageable workload. This is in large part because I am so much more efficient working from home. If I was trying to do all of this in the office, I'd be buried and behind.
I will resist going back to the office as much as possible. It's a horrid place which now seems to exist solely to make it hard for most of us to get our jobs done while wasting a lot of time and money and causing unneeded s
Re:Welcome to the age of insecurity (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in favor of money for the unemployed, I just don't get why the employed don't get something for keeping America working.
Hmmm, pay the unemployed and the employed. Interesting. So a payment that was universally applied, that guarantees a basic level of income. You know, that idea could have legs...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Welcome to the age of insecurity (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean a conflict with a powerful ruling class pushing religious ideas many with a very thinly veiled connection to the actual religion, and to treat the ruling class like they are religious figure. While a large number of people would prefer to have their religion private, and focus more on a secular life, and trying to make it in the world.
Where there is a vocal group of troublemakers who say they identify with your group, while they don't act on its core tenants, forcing you to decide to be complicit with the trouble makers (who are also indirectly backed to the political power asked to be treated a like a religious figure). Or to reject your long held group, and join with a group you have less in common, risk being ostracized by those in power. Just because your values from the core tenants of your beliefs demand it.
Yes, I would say so.
Re:Welcome to the age of insecurity (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you Americans didn't care who would take over for years. There was a system after all and it would protect you.
When that trust is gone, you are doing politics now and you are doing it with anxiety for the future, and naturally your worries are now expressing and at times it becomes quite violent. At least according to your discussion standards.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't discuss "politics".
I'm happy to discuss law, morality, philosophy, international agreements and customs, policies, and their effects and rationalisations, and what should be done and what seems wrong.
I'm happy to discuss the *issue*, the obstacles, the solutions.
But dividing EVERYTHING into red vs blue and then lumping people into one side or the other is just some paleolithic gang rivalry and it's a waste of time when that becomes the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't discuss "politics".
Everything has become political these days even for things that shouldn't be. Like mask wearing. Or the FACT that COVID cases are increasing and being asked if I really believe that because it is a liberal hoax. No one is dying from COVID- it is just that all deaths are being blamed on COVID to make Trump look bad!
I cannot even express my concerns of my per-existing health conditions not being covered by insurance anymore because of the SCOTUS case that they are going to rule on after the election. A SCOTUS that has been rigged by the Republicans.
Which brings me to this: things are so nutty now because it is the Republicans - starting with Newt Gingrich's wackiness back in the 1990s - that has made things so bad. The Republican Party jumped off the rails of the crazy train into plain schizophrenia. I cannot talk to most Republicans - their opinions are not based on reality. Just the fact that they believe Trump over Fauci should be proof enough.
Re:Good luck with that! (Score:4, Insightful)
You said you were willing to "discuss the *issue*, the obstacles, the solutions."
For many people, the issue is the fear of themselves, friends and family becoming a casualty of the pandemic, and the economic damage that the pandemic has wrought on the country. The obstacles to to healthy discussions of possible solutions are Trump and many of his followers (I'm an old Republican - and I am *not* one of his followers).
You seem to think you're on some sort of high horse because you refuse to engage with anyone that uses the words Republican or Trump. That's simply incomprehensible. You're a giant hypocrite if you think you can have that trait and still be a part of any reasonable discourse.
What most people who are not one of Trump's rabid followers want is an acknowledgement that the pandemic is real. It appears based on reports in the news that many of those who refuse to wear masks and/or take other steps to prevent the spread of the virus believe that it's a hoax, at least until it affects them directly. Having our current leadership fully acknowledge the threat and ask the citizens, all of them, to aid in the fight against the virus, would be a big step forward to a reasonable solution to the pandemic - getting the R factor under control. Having Trump continue to do the opposite, and push his followers to do so as well, is an obstacle to that solution, and has been since March. So, being an election year, another hope for a solution is to get him voted out of office and see if we can manage to get someone who just might give a damn - at least remove that obstacle.
I swear, Trump turned out to be a rain dancer. He's just going to keep saying that the virus is going to disappear... until it does. That doesn't mean he has any understanding of it or any control over it, or that he's even taking reasonable steps to understand and/or control it. He's just going to keep rain dancing. FFS.
Re: (Score:3)
My problem is that you think Trump is the problem. And not that you have a US president who considers it consistent with that office to insult and belittle myriad people, to do deals in secret, to profit from deals, to hire family into positions.
When you mention a person, it's suggestive that - if it weren't that person but, say, their opponent - that everything would be alright. It wouldn't. You wouldn't enact a law to "ban Trump", you'd enact a law to stop the things that Trump's doing that you think a
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't discuss "politics".
I'm happy to discuss law, morality, philosophy, international agreements and customs, policies, and their effects and rationalisations, and what should be done and what seems wrong."
How about discussing fashion with MAGA-hat wearers?
Re: (Score:3)
THIS. Talk about issues.
What makes that hard today is that Trump does so many things that are up-front visible political stunts, that it is hard not to talk about them. It has dominated his presidency.
Re:Not just at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This answer worked for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Every country has the president / government it deserves. If they want another one, they can either elect or otherwise put in power a new one.
In similar situations, that shut them up pretty quickly for me. They might nearly have died from apoplexy, but that was fun to watch too. And the beauty, it works for the left the right and it doesn't even say whether you agree with them or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This answer worked for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Both are very good examples. In those countries, some people are treated really badly there. But never forget, in those countries, there's also a very large group of people who don't disagree with this enough to do something against it. You hear from the poor victims and find it rightfully so atrocious. You might also identify the oppressors as very evil. But the masses in between are condoning it to a certain level, so things don't change much
Historically speaking, all successful invaders / oppressors always had a local power base that at least didn't bother about what they did. There are some really good examples from how differently things went in countries invaded by Germany depending on how welcome the invaders were. Same about puppet-dictators in Central- and South-America financed by US-corporations.
It might not be comfortable to change things, you might not survive if you try changing them, but in the end the power is with the people. A commander without soldiers willing to do his bidding isn't much more than a dancing clown.
Re: (Score:3)
In this country a majority of voters wanted a different president and we still ended up with the one we have. It is possible to have a system of government where a majority of people want a change, even a super majority in some cases, but because of the way the power is structured that change is blocked by a minority and the options for changing that are a lot messier than most people are willing to commit to.
Folks might want a change and even try to make it happen but they might not be willing to start an
Re: (Score:2)
Civil political discourse is no longer possible, so civil people are avoid the topic altogether.
It is even worse where I live in Germany - a significant portion of the local news is about American politics, and it is very slanted to one side. Being the token American, I get asked my opinion on the order of 10x per week, and when I try to change the subject to something that is more relevant (or at least more civil), I am immediately labeled as a far-right person. So now I just avoid most people instead. It's just easier.
Well, compared to most Europeans, even if you’re a Democrat you’re fairly far right in their (our? Since i’ve been here a long time) eyes.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One has to consider the reasons for this. Some of my observations:
* The left has taken to describing people of color, LGBTs, immigrants (in particular illegals), women, people with pre-existing conditions, all as being "terrified" of the right's policies, due to racism, the possibility of overturning marriage equality, increased border enforcement, a bad example set by POTUS, overturning of the ACA. Also of course, fascism is also presented as a threat from the
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Summary: The left's focus on individual stories and characterizing the right as racists and fascists has really ratcheted up the heat of the discourse. Why are they doing this? Because they've been faced with the first real pushback against left-leaning policies in 60 years with the 2016 election result. Also, POTUS has angered a lot of powerful and influential people on both the left and right and they want payback.
Wow, that is incredibly moronic. I could go after each point separately (the right loves law and order! Except for the president lying on tax returns, which is illegal. And on-duty police killing unarmed civilians with no consequences, which is legal but not "order"). But that would take too long and won't change your mind.
So instead, I'll talk about some scenes showing our political discourse becoming toxic:
* In the early 2000s, conservatives (once non-interventionist, then eager to invade Iraq at any cost) called politicians who didn't support the invasion "traitors". Conservative politicians and pundits did not complain about this.
* In 2010, President Obama was addressing the joint houses of congress. He mentioned the (in progress) ACA and mentioned that the ACA would not cover illegal immigrants. A conservative representive stood up and screamed "YOU LIE!". As we all know, neither the unpassed ACA of the time nor the passed version covered illegal immigrants, so it was the conservative who lied. Conservative politicians and pundits thought this was peachy and fine.
* Around the same time, a young lady in college became famous when she advocated for the ACA covering contraception. Rush Limbaugh said something civil like like "she's a slut who wants the government to pay for her whoring around on campus." Conservative politicians and pundits thought this was an excellent way to talk about someone who disagreed with them.
* I recall a concert (2007 maybe?) when Ted Nugent politely said "Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." Conservative politicians and pundits thought that this was the rational way to discuss opposing government leaders; I mean, how else could you do it?
* Conservatives constantly complain about how "the media" attacks President Trump, yet somehow see no irony in the fact that the President constantly attacks people in Twitter, speeches, rallys, press conferences, and, well, all the time and everywhere. There are those fragile souls who can dish it out but cannot take it...
So yes, civil discourse is difficult. But I'm guessing that you have never complained about any of these occurances which caused discourse to become less civil. Each event is, to me, completely unacceptable, and I would feel the same whether it was a liberal or a conservative doing it. Liberals are hardly innocent; they have walked down the same roads (albeit years after the conservatives paved them), but the conservatives are the ones who led the way to the Brave New Uncivil World. Someone once wrote "you reap what you sow"; sadly, that was probably someone ignored by conservatives.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have included a couple of examples of the left's use of individual stories driving big picture issues, in my initial response below:
1) Images of a sad, tired young mother in a detention camp
it's not bi lateral (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Counterpoint to your point. The problem is, many don't see when their own side does it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:it's not bi lateral (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's difficult finding one when your head is so far down in the sand.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-woman-attack-12-year-old-boy-trump-sign-20200903-bovlmzmt4nfsdb6a6gparosodi-story.html [nydailynews.com]
https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/23/teacher-kicked-child-out-of-zoom-class-over-trump-2020-no-more-bullsht-flag-on-his-wall-13316916/ [metro.co.uk]
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/21/biden-supporters-attack-trump-supporters-maga-hat-trump-sign-wilmington-delaware/ [dailycaller.com]
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1296645272530034689?lang=en [twitter.com]
h [wdel.com]
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
In Germany especially they are sensitive to the actions of bad things leaders have done. You know, loosing two world wars, with the second one from a guy who pushed horrible evil acts on a group of people, just because they were an easy scapegoat, then having to face up to the fact that what they did as a country was indeed evil and bad. They were also split up, and a good part of the country was controlled by an authoritarian government where their rights were continued to be oppressed, until just about 30 years ago. There are a lot of German Citizens Alive who have first hand knowledge on how bad a bad leader is. And understand how wrong it is to be silent about it.
Saying Hitler kept the trains on time, and Stalin made sure we had food on our tables just will not fly in a culture that suffered so much history.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly both Fox News and CNN share some blame, but they've both been around a long time. It's really Youtube and social media that's creating the echo chamber that's leading the polarization.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Informative)
1) Nepotism.
2) His twitter account, the less said about that the better
3) Holding offical events at his resorts
4) Further to that funneling public money into his golf courses everytime he goes to one
5) Remeber when he was on tv asking for foreign powers to inversigate his rivals? That.
6) Making sure ivankas stuff is exempt and not a casualty of his china trade war 7) Making policies basically based of his uninformed opion and undoing stuff solely because obama did it 8) His whole rhetoric at rallies is just needlessly hostile which while not necsiarily corrupt is definetly unbecoming of the office.
9) Abusing the shit out of executive orders
Thats just off the top of my head and stuff in the open. I guarantee you theres way more than that but I assume you'll find some way to discard all that and make none of it matter and imply I want to murder babies and take everyones money to give to crack additcts or some bullshit. It's funny because all I see from trump supportes is deflection and misinformation.
I get that its so tribal in america and he is the current chief of your tribe (I wonder what your opinion will be once his two terms are up if he gets the second) so you will defend him no matter what because the worst thing you can imagine is the other side winning. It doesn't even matter what policies there are on which sides, America has become so us vs them and Trump is only pouring more fuel on that fire.
Re: (Score:3)
How is he bad at the job
https://91-divoc.com/pages/cov... [91-divoc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Defending Trump is nigh impossible. Trump was impeached. For good reason.
Reason is, however, a big problem for Trump supporters. I can understand voting for him in 2016, to shake things up. It was sort of a joke, really. Stick it to all the hypocritical people who profess to take everything so seriously, while continuing to turn blind eyes to some very bad problems. Like, who do you vote for if you want Law and Order on Wall Street? No more Too Big To Fail bull? The very large, monopolistic compan
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the comment was tongue-in-cheek. Second, if you see that both individuals are the same (see all the crap Biden's son has been in and is in with the whole Ukraine situation) then you are telling me you only care about the letter after their name and the "other" party is bad.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
>I don't remember ever once hearing a Republican / conservative mock Obama the way lefties mock and harass Trump.
Really? You don't remember the constant stream of racism and vitriol directed at Obama? I can only assume you either weren't paying attention, or agreed with it. The big difference is Obama didn't constantly whine about it on Twitter.
Meanwhile, Obama didn't deny science at every turn. Didn't constant tacitly endorse violence by white supremacists, nor call for violence against his political opponents. Didn't completley gut practically every office under his control and replace their leadership with cronies who's objectives are transparently opposed to the stated purpose of their organization (EPA, education, etc, etc, etc)
Trump has been fanning the flames of hatred and division since he began campaigning for the job - and not just rhetoric but openly calling for political violence. And with his bald-faced lies to the public about the dangers of the pandemic, which he privately acknowledged, he made very clear that he doesn't even have any concern for the well-being of his own supporters.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is such a small part of the issue. Can you really not see that?
He really, really is not a small part of the issue, until he's not president any more. Right now he is in literally the single most important seat in the world when it comes to sowing dissent. The USA is a country that all world nations look towards to find out what it's going to do, because it has so much influence and engages in so much direct activity, and Trump is in the most influential seat in what is arguably the most influential nation.
Saying Trump is a small part of the problem, or a symptom and not a disease, is almost completely wrong — in that he is both symptom and disease. But he has done a huge amount to affect perceptions of America worldwide, and he has done a large amount of damage to America itself by rolling back environmental regulations and sowing dissent among Americans. Pretending otherwise is just that, playing pretend.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it does, of course it does. Good luck trying to hold trump to account though, even with any of his supporters. They just don't care about any of it.
Oh boy... You are obsessed with the guy. As the saying goes, "he's living in your head rent-free. "
The "problem" you are having with Trump supporters is that the vast majority of the things you are trying to hold him accountable for are not actually things you can prove he did, prove that they are actually wrong or things that actually matter to anybody. Much of the hoopla around Trump's supposed transgressions has been, er, trumped-up, based on deceptively edited soundbites or anonymous sources who turned out to be wrong.
Trump isn't Lilly white, clean as the wind-driven snow, or anything of the sort. He is a rough and tumble narcissist real estate developer from New York City, a reality TV star, and a braggart. I get why people like you don't like him. But your visceral dislike of the man doesn't mean he's guilty of anything other than being rude and offensive to your sensibilities.
Accusitions of criminal behavior without proof is not a good thing at any level. I suggest you seriously stop and consider exactly why you feel as you do and investigate to see if it's actually true.
Now if you have something you wish to discuss with a true Trump supporter, I'm game. My only requirement is that you pick the one most important thing that you think you have evidence for and we can discuss it. There is no point in just tossing out generalizations that are really just subjective opinions, let's get specific so we can dive into the details and both of us may learn something we didn't know.
Good example (Score:5, Insightful)
You were asked to provide your strongest example. You did provide an example. Your first sentence is:
> How about being guilty of tax fraud?
Trump (who is a jackass, btw) had a a team of IRS agents looking at everything he did for eight years while Obama was president. As you may know, they didn't find a single thing where his accountants goofed. So intellectually you know his taxes are right, probably cleaner than yours because the IRS could find SOMETHING you did wrong, or arguably wrong. Yet you WANT him to be a tax cheat simply because he's not a very likeable guy, so you trick yourself to think he is. Even though you not only have no evidence of that, but you actually know it's false - you know the Obama IRS picked his taxes apart.
The guy definitely has his flaws. Plenty of them. I don't know why try so hard to fool themselves, to believe things they know aren't true, rather than honestly discussing his actual flaws. Like all people, there are some good things about him, but if you want to discuss his flaws, why not just discuss the real ones?
Even before he was president, before any debates, we knew in Trump we had a Clinton donor running as a Republican. Does that sound like a principled guy, who operates based on a well thought-out, cohesive understanding of the world?
Then one could point out that he's combative, he doesn't bring people together and find common ground, mutually acceptable solutions. Which is especially weird / odd given the above. It's not like he's so dedicated to conservative causes that he just can't see things from a liberal's point of view. He promoted and financed liberal causes and candidates until he decided to run as a Republican, so he ought to be able to be a bridge between two sides, to bring people together.
That's something that the best presidents from each party have done. Ronald Reagan was a democrat before he became a republican and Reagan worked with a Democrat-controlled Congress to get things done. John Kennedy almost single-handedly took the Democrats from fighting bitterly against civil rights in the early 1960s to embracing it by the late 1960s, because it was the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump (who is a jackass, btw) had a a team of IRS agents looking at everything he did for eight years while Obama was president. As you may know, they didn't find a single thing where his accountants goofed.
Uh, no... As the NYT found, Trump has at least one enormous tax problem, the $70M refund he illegally got from claiming he'd walked away from his casino investments while retaining a 5% stake. Trump's accountants and attorneys have been fighting that for a decade, and it's dragged on so long only because of an IRS rule that allows the taxpayer to continue extending the dispute (while continuing to rack up penalties and interest, which is why the IRS doesn't mind allowing it to be extended). This is almost c
Re:Not just at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the blame should lie with the president who just passed a tax reform bill that didn't address this issue, and only made it worse? It makes no sense to elect a high-earner and expect them to reform the taxes against high-earners. Did people expect the head wolf to reform the wolves?
So instead of pithy one-liners exchanging blame, lets talk taxes? A few key points of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:
* Replace many itemized deductions with a higher minimum deduction. This is something that has been long discussed to simplify the tax code. No real change to the amount of tax paid, it just makes taxes easier for middle-class tax earners. A win.
* Reform the alternative minimum tax. This was a dated measure that was completely unfair and nobody liked it. It mostly affected high-earners and definitely helped Trump personally. Win.
* Reduce corporate tax rate. This was super controversial but had been coming for a long time. The US corporate tax rate is high, although that is because the US has pretty dang good infrastructure, an educated populace (yes yes... negative comments aside, the US is a really good place to run a business.) But too many companies are choosing to move overseas for lots of reasons. In theory, this should have increased American wages and reduced American companies from moving their corporate headquarters, in exchange for seriously hurting the US government's tax income. The classic "trickle-down" theory says tax revenue doesn't really go down because the money is reinvested in the us. So this *should have been* a win from a conservative economic viewpoint, but in actuality it didn't work. Why? A big part is that Trump's SEC let the corporations spend it all on stock buyback programs, so it all went to the executives and propped-up the stock market. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but the result is a higher stock market, a greater wealth gap, and a larger US deficit with no significant increase in lower or middle-class earnings. Ouch. This backfired big time.
* Cut individual taxes very slightly,
This seems to be the best summary I've found so far [thebalance.com].
Overall, if we think the tax code is skewed in favor of high-earners, nothing in this most recent tax reform addressed that. Too many anti-Biden arguments rest on "Joe Biden didn't do X during his 47 years as Senator" and completely ignore the counter argument "Trump didn't do X when we was President with his own party controlling congress." This is why we need to elect real normal people to this office, not lizards. [goodreads.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Divide and conquer (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians wanted to polarize and divide people for a LONG time, now they got their wish.
Only it backfired. Economically, socially, even created rifts between members of the same family. All for what? Equally shitty candidates and political agendas.
Achievement unlocked, your country is now fucked.
Re:Divide and conquer (Score:5, Interesting)
It didn't backfire for them, it's working out great. It's only bad for us.
Two clear factions in my office (Score:5, Interesting)
My office has two clear factions. One is those who hate Trump and consider him a great embarrassment and will openly insult him in public at work. The other is people who hate Trump but don't think people should talk politics at work because it's distracting. There has been some conflict between these two groups.
I don't know any knowledge workers, and that includes people who are not degree educated but work in a field that requires professional knowledge, that will admit to supporting Trump. The only people I know that support Trump have racist political views who were spewing hate and conspiracy nonsense years before Trump was voted in.
There was a sizeable group of people who were so disillusioned with politics that they voted Trump solely because he was an outsider. Those people all seem to have realized that was a great mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two clear factions in my office (Score:4, Interesting)
"Dang" (Score:5, Funny)
There's a guy in my office who brought it up in a pro trump manner but when asked about what trump has actually done thats good all he could come up with was "other stuff" and then refused to elaborate on what stuff that was before he got all pissed off a stormed out.
Did the whole office clap?
Re:"Dang" (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not, that would have been "triggering" to some. I believe that "jazz hands" are the appropriate response.
Re: Two clear factions in my office (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually he has done quite a bit, he has gotten nationâ(TM)s top talk together (Israel and Saudi, N/S Korea), rolled back regulations, and made it so that the DEA is not sending out live letters for importing meds. That last one was packaged with the ability to treat your condition as you and your physician see fit even if it is not even a phase 1 trial.
One may not like the language or manner he achieved it, but he has done more, for minorities and alternative lifestyles than any recent president.
Re: Two clear factions in my office (Score:2)
To those who claim the race riots etc are the result of the president, notice how employment has gone up for those typically considered disenfranchised.
Notice how as a % of support the current president has a much higher number. And all of this for a guy that reminds people of my generation of Clint Eastwoodâ(TM)s companion orangutan Clyde.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine someone in a cold crumbling office with broken windows and a leaky roof, sitting on a crate in front of an ancient windows XP desktop posting pro-trump comments. He got laid off from his last job and had to do something, ANYTHING, in order to pay some of his rent arrears. He is too desperate to care that he is writing lies that nobody would ever believe and too scared of his shouting boss to slow down in his posting or even to go to the toilet.
It would take desperation for anyone to suggest that r
Re: Two clear factions in my office (Score:5, Informative)
North Korea doesn't seem to have moved much at all, if anything it's gone backwards. Cooperation in the border region has deteriorated, and with Japan on the issue of historic kidnappings too.
Kim played Trump like a fiddle. Went from being a little tin-pot dictator to a player on the world stage, a nuclear power that commands respect and an audience with the most powerful nations on Earth.
What has he done for "alternative lifestyles"? Even just calling them that is an insult, being gay or trans is intrinsic and not a lifestyle choice. Well on day one he got rid of the LGBT section of the White House website and hasn't replaced it, then tried to ban trans people from the military. Oh and he wanted to get rid of Obamacare which many trans people rely on. Anything else he has done "for" them?
Politicians doing good deeds? (Score:2)
Honestly, most politicians across the world rarely do something good once you discount just lucky things that happened during their term they take credit for.
Either it just happened and would just have happened the same with a monkey with a top hat being president
or if they happened to make / prevent some change, people don't agree if its good or bad.
Best example is your president pissing on China's leg. Was it overdue for a long time? Is he cluelessly destroying the US economy? It depends on what you belie
Re:Two clear factions in my office (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are stereotyping a bit.
I don't know where you live and work, but the vast majority of the people I work with are quiet Trump supporters. Of course, I live and work in a primarily Republican area so it's not surprising. I know Trump supporters who would fit in your classification, "mindless robot" types, but I also recognize that this is true on both sides of the aisle. There are those who have their preconceived notions and refuse to believe that *anybody* could be rational and think otherwise.
I've got to say that most of the Trump supporters I know are well aware of Trump's rough exterior and would love it if he tempered his explosive reactive public image (i.e. lay off the Twitter fight and calling folks names) but we understand the issue here is NOT personality, but policy. So where Trump doesn't represent the perfect persona, he supports the policy we believe is best for the country.
For instance, in 2016 I actually supported the runner up, Ted Cruz, voting for him in the primaries, sending him money and such right up to the point where Trump won the nomination. I then supported Trump for his position on appointing judges and the list of Supreme Court picks. I didn't expect his policy pronouncements to actually pan out, but I hoped that the promise over the judges was better for the country than the promises of Hillary on the same subject. I wasn't fond of his personal attack dog tactics and I'm still not a fan. However, I fully understand that the personality of the president matters very little compared to the policies they are enacting and support.
So, don't dismiss Trump supporters as idiots. There are many of us who are quietly sitting there, not engaging in political debate in the highly charged highly divisive environment. We instinctively understand that it's not worth it to argue the point when many on the other side are not interested in a policy debate but are caught up in the polarized partisanship and political rhetoric designed by both sides to gin up emotion in their supporters to help ensure they are motivated to get out and vote. Politicians have honed the tribalism tendency in us, divided the country into voting blocks, and turned them against each other to keep their supporters angry so they will vote. Sadly many don't see they are being manipulated, and most of those don't react well to being shown this truth.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I've got to say that most of the Trump supporters I know are well aware of Trump's rough exterior and would love it if he tempered his explosive reactive public image (i.e. lay off the Twitter fight and calling folks names) but we understand the issue here is NOT personality, but policy. So where Trump doesn't represent the perfect persona, he supports the policy we believe is best for the country. "
Very well said (plus the rest of what you said). I have tried to explain exactly this to many people.
Re:Two clear factions in my office (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
How about not starting your argument with an ad-hominem attack? Then maybe offer up what you have with "In my opinion" rather than "they are..." when you are clueless about how "they" think. This response is EXACTLY why Trump supports don't engage. It's sophomoric and offensive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not ad-hominem. It's just an insult and not part of their argument.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a bit misleading. [npr.org]
And I'm sure others would say allowing murder is a bad idea.
All I know is that if you refuse to admit that both sides have solid ethical arguments, then you haven't put much effort into understanding them.
Re: (Score:2)
In my work I've only encountered a few pro-Trump people and they are the uncommon (in this area) ultra-evangelical who'd vote for the German dictator I won't name as long as he was pro-life.
Politics has no place at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Are people nuts? Don't take chances at work...
Ploliticts has no place at work. Where I could bring in my banners and yard signs and park them in my office, I will not. I am a professional and I'm not employed by a political campaign so it's NOT part of my job.
If you want to discuss political issues around the water cooler, do so with a huge amount of tolerance and understanding. Do NOT make pronouncements about the "idiots" on the other side. Do NOT argue the hot button issues with co-workers. Now if you want to have a quiet conversation with those of like mind, have at it, but be careful.
Remember, once all the political hoopla is over, the votes are cast and counted, you will have to work with these people and it doesn't matter if you like their political views or not. DO NOT destroy your relationships over political views, especially at work. Remember that your paycheck comes from your ability to work effectively with these people and ask yourself, is it worth the risk? Is it worth the impact on your career and livelihood to argue an unwinnable debate?
I'll take my paycheck and check my political views and religion at the door thank you. I'll smile and nod if you choose not to, your choice, but I've been around the block enough to know that there are zero upsides and lots of ways for things to go badly when having such discussions at work.
Re:Politics has no place at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This a false equivalence. Say one side makes an utterly stupid accusation, the other side has to waste energy defending against that accusation. Both sides look equally irrational because they are both discussing fantasy and not discussing reality. The art in Trumps tactic is to distract otherwise rational people with fantasy so the other side looks like a fool too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've quoted this here before, but the more I follow current American politics from across the atlantic, the more fitting it seems:
Re:Politics has no place at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics has no place at work. Deal with it.
Organizing a union is an inherently political act. Fair wages is a political topic. Heck, figuring out where to get lunch is politics. Refusing to engage in politics is handing all the power to the bosses and consenting to being kicked around forever. Some of us believe democratic principles should extend to the workplace where we spend the majority of our waking hours.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is talking about placing banners up in the office. The only way to truly avoid politics at work is to stay 100% focused exclusively on work activities, never banter or talk about non-work stuff. The best way of doing this is to chain people to their desks, remove all the watercoolers and coffee machines from buildings, and enforce strict silence in the canteen. Then you will not have politics at work.
Now back in reality, politics at work isn't because people are nuts, it's because people are human an
Re:Politics has no place at work (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not advocating an environment devoid of political talk, only that we engage in such activity with extreme caution. Discretion is an important component of working with others, understanding that others may not be as willing to let others have convictions contrary to theirs without either argument or having a judgmental attitude.. "Well, if you believe that, you are an idiot!" is common in political debates these days.
Work is not the place to air this stuff.
For instance, I have a friendship with a co-worker which allows us to have political and religious discussions if we wish. I've worked with him for years and we have mutual respect. But we have such discussions with EXTREME caution when at work over the water cooler. Both of us know there are those who don't understand and would be offended if we had our discussions openly so we don't do it.
There is another past co-worker, who was a very good friend and we had seriously divergent views on politics. Again, we were both aware that others around us would easily be offended by our often lively debates. We also exercised caution, and kept these discussions to ourselves, and didn't allow them to impact our professional relationship, work came first.
Then there was the other co-worker, who strongly disagreed with my political views. We worked fine together for 6 months just fine until one day when she initiated a conversation about political positions on a couple of issues. I truthfully answered her questions and politely defended my positions, but it was a mistake. After that, things between us went from bad to worse. I don't have any problems with her political views, they are not unprincipled our thoughtless, but SHE has a problem with me. And since then she has disrespected me, called an idiot, and even cussed at me in an E-mail during a discussion about a work issue. She cannot handle views that diverge from hers. Having a political discussion with such a person is a mistake, trust me, I wish I had just waved off the whole thing at this point.
So I'm not advocating a blank political environment at work, but I AM advocating that extreme caution be exercised. It is hard for some to maintain a professional working relationship with people they don't feel they can relate to. Given the decisive nature of politics and religion, I am strongly suggesting that all of us tread as lightly as possible, even when discussing issues with those of like mind. It's not worth the risk.
Re: (Score:2)
The way that works for me is to work with educated professional people. Some may be republican, but none believe in the paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense Trump is pushing.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is when one side is so convinced of its righteousness (and generally assured of it's unanimity) that it starts DEMANDING everyone agree with them.
I don't think most people have a problem with other people having different political beliefs. In general, at work, it shouldn't usually come up.
But there seems to be a high zealot percentage that feel entitled to demand conformance to dogma, that's where the trouble lies.
Re:Politics has no place at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I think Western society is going to have to 're-learn' a lot of lessons.
I often say this as an immigrant. I used to hear Western people scoff at tribal African slaughtering each other or the crazies in the middle east killing each other over sunni shia... These 'crazies' were always thought of as the other. Yet, there is no magic 'white' gene of civility. If it's not genetic, it's cultural and culture can change in a heartbeat. Like I don't know why people are surprised by Germany in WW2. It wasn't the worst in history. If you reduce WW2 Germany to just another tribal conflict, it's not that hard to understand. I know a lot of Western people like to think of WW2 Germany as this special evil the likes of which the world has never seen... but it's pretty routine when looked at globally. What they said about the Jews, I've heard everything a thousand times over about various ethnic and religious divisions.
In this case, it's a pretty basic rule about being together with people.
Here's a shocker... most people are actually tribal. They literally can't get along with those from the opposite tribe. That's just people period. left, right, progressive, conservative... doesn't matter. That includes me. I'm no exception. Different people may think they're tolerant. Urban people (I'm in Toronto now) like to think they get along with people of all races and religions. They don't. They actually get along with people whose primary tribe is urban educated secular. A white urban educated secular person is the same as a black urban educated secular person is the same as a brown urban educated secular person.
It all depends on what you value as your primary identity.
Sometimes you can unify on religion. Christians and Muslims can for example both unify different ethnicity and races if they can get them to be Muslim or Christian. But it's not like they're less tribal. It's just they can change what the tribe is or how big it is.
Historically, we either solved this by
1. Keeping people separate enough. You'll often hear of the like the Muslim Quarter or the Jewish Quarter or the Christian Quarter. People can live close by, but still separate.
2. You have some other unifying force and then shut the hell up about the rest
Take something simple as a uniform in the army or a school for example. It is meant to an extent to show unity of the organization, but also of course to strip you of your individuality while you're there. You're to act in accordance with your uniform.
While work has definitely become less formal, it's just another one of these organization things. Keep work focused on money and production because that is what pretty much everyone is there for. That's the unifying force. Yes, you'll always develop personal relationships at work and yes, you'll probably talk more laxed with some of those people.
It's the same with family. Family isn't a joke or immune from politics. Families have literally been ripped apart by religion or politics. Let's just use the word strong beliefs in general. I come from an orthodox Muslim background. I've seen children disowned and families fractured over beliefs. And I don't say this as if 'Muslims' are crazy. I say that anytime you have strong beliefs, you end up with this.
Now, if you want to value family as a greater organization... kind of like work, then you need rules of the family. So don't talk politics or religion.
Or if you feel like your beliefs are paramount, then be prepared to fracture and divide because we're just a tribal people.
I just don't get where in the realm of human history or human biology people actually think vastly different people with strong beliefs can coexist peacefully while fully expressing themselves at all times and being 'equal'.
Company picnic the day after Trump was elected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh man, who planned that foreseeable disaster?
It was plenty obvious that things would be rough regardless of who won, just like it's going to be ugly this time around too. I don't think I'd plan any company-wide social functions until spring, even if COVID didn't prevent such.
Even next spring may not be a good idea... I've never seen things this polarized myself.
Feinstein can't even hug a colleague (Score:4, Insightful)
Without it being treated as a near act of treason seasoned with a dose of #MeToo level outrage.
Just think about that. The woke are trying to make a scandal of two old colleagues showing respect for each other across the aisle.
Politics is not welcome at work (Score:3)
One thing I don't think a lot of people realize is that politics has never really been an acceptable topic of conversation at work. In blue-collar professions you would see it "discussed," but you would not see the professional ranks airing their grievances. Large companies will ask^Wforce their management to make favorable political donations, and unions will endorse candidates, but that's about it.
I remember reading about this going on at Google, where people were using internal communication channels to start political fights. The only things I can see different here are (1) the age of average employees and ease with social media, (2) the fact that Google employees pretty much live at the office and have all their social interactions within the workplace, and (3) maybe the high percentage of autism-spectrum people who might not get that picking a fight over politics doesn't usually have a good ROI. Every place I've ever worked, big or small, young or old, has neve considered politics a good topic of conversation. You run the risk of alienating everyone you work with, which is never good for team cohesiveness. I may think we should look into adopting a more European-style welfare state to combat the offshoring and automation of millions of jobs, but that's not going to go over well in my ultra-conservative workplace.
Civil political discussions are dead -- we might as well stop trying to force them in a place we depend on for our income.
Subjects you cannot discuss (Score:3)
When I first came to Stockholm years ago, I was told that the 3 topics you could not have a civil discussion about in the office were politics, religion, and either money or which of the 3 local football teams you support (the discussion of whether it was money or football that could not be discussed was itself a lively argument, but when I suggested that makes it 4 things you could not discuss, I got "the look" that said I was being ridiculous).
Coming from a somewhat more private country (UK), the exclusion of sex was a bit surprising to me and when I mentioned this, I got "the look" again and was asked why on earth there should be a problem discussing sex (or as my new colleagues put it, "who did what with whom, where and for how long, last night").
Now, it seems as though there are more topics you cannot discuss than there are ones you can do, and we are apparently still much more open to discussions than American offices, according to the ex-pats who I work with, who find the openness about things to be quite an eye-opener.
But I have worked with Republicans who had a problem with Democrats, and Democrats that had a problem with Republicans, and people of both stripes who had a problem with people who would not say which way they leaned or indicated they had no interest in politics.
Re: (Score:3)
the exclusion of sex was a bit surprising to me
I'm surprised by it as well. Some years ago, I was an engineer for a power utility as well as a sort of unofficial sex therapist for the line crews.
Often, I'd show up on a job site and they'd tell me that if ever they wanted my fucking advice, they'd be more than happy to ask for it.
Americans suck at nuance (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no longer any attempt to rationally discuss politics (in fact, it's been literally years since that was possible). E.g., try taking any political issue, say illegal immigration. It immediately becomes "build the wall" or "kids in cages," with ZERO middle ground or hope of discussion of anything remotely rational or sane. Even COVID becomes immediately politicized, even when it shouldn't: "fuck your mask -- fake virus -- the flu's worse -- act like there's no pandemic" or "we're all gonna die or be damaged for decades, lock down everything and print endless money" are the only two options.
You can't blame employers for not wanting ANY of this toxic shit around their workers while they're supposed to be working.
Unprofessional (Score:3)
I've encountered co-workers who bring up their political views (usually strong) unsolicited. It's unprofessional. Few workplaces are politically homogeneous, and you create unnecessarily uncomfortable situations when you speak about politics in a way that leaves someone with differing views out. I think more employers should address the issue directly. It's fine if you love candidate X, and you can even say so in the work place in the right context, but opening a meeting with your subordinates with "don't you hate Candidate Y" (or some variation thereof) isn't something that should happen in the workplace.
That said, I talk about politics at work from time to time because my job demands it. I'm in a fairly heavily regulated business and the outcome of the election will have a near certain impact on those regulations. But most of my co-workers have gotten to a point that they can talk about those impacts and the probabilities in a way that is divorced from their personal political desires.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to break it to you, but despite what the NFL tries to virtue signal to the masses, there is no 1A / freedom of speech protection in the US workplace. Nor is there such a thing as "stifling speech" in a US workplace. It depends on the employer's policies, but it is likely that this type of political "discussion" which a co-worker was forced to endure against their will could easily be categorized as disruptive behavior and / or creation of a hostile work environment. Check your company's employee h
Re: (Score:3)
I have a question for all the people scared of Kamala Harris. After we turn socialist overnight what then? What is the goal afterwards? Who benefits from it?