>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.
>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.
Nice alt btw. You only post about twice a year on this one and you specifically have to call me out because we can't have any Wrongthink here now can we.
>If it were, I don't think it would be so difficult to get companies to adopt policies against hate speech directed towards any group.
In theory no reasonable person would be for hate speech directed at anyone, but in practice, "hates speech" means anything that's outside of the Overton Window.
>Every inclusivity effort I've seen has made an effort to include and help all races, genders, religions, ages, etc. I know I'm serious about that.
I have never seen an inclusivity effort that's that way. They're almost entirely "intersectionality" and critical race theory based, so straight white males are excluded. They even have "inclusivity" groups where they tell whites and males to not join, or of they do join, to shut up and "be an ally".
This strawman is so huge it experienced autoignition.
>There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor.
Your logic breaks down in your first sentence. No one is gagging company internal politics that pertains to their corporate charter and mission, rules, regulations, etc. Quite the contrary, they're actually opening that up and flattening the hierarchy.
If anything your example only proves my point further (if you actually bothered to real TFA).
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. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
>It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are.
This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies."
Of course those are nonsense stances.
On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive.
>I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder.
This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all.
>This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic.
Straight out of the Marxist handbook.
>But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world.
Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.
"I didn't accuse him of being a Kenyan. I said he can't go a few months without new accusations of being a Kenyan. That is just a fact. If you want, you can go through those Google results from a few comments back and try to refute those accusations. I don't care enough about Barack Obama to try to prove anything about him."
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.