It is different though sharing your thoughts/interest with people you trust at work.
Also there is assymetry of impact of ideas between two sides.
Independent person would probably say that conservative ideas are Perceived to be more controversial by other side then other way around.
Like gun debate. If co-worker comes to work and says guns are bad. Ok whatever your opinion man. But if they come to work and like yo guns are awesome, 2nd amendment bros. I own one, then for other side this person might be perceived as threat.
conservative ideas are Perceived to be more controversial by other side then other way around
That sort of scenario works itself out in the end, so it's fine by me.
the second makes me question your judgement, but that is exactly the sort of discussions going on in politics today
I would argue said person isn't actually "independent" then.
> this person might be perceived as threat
Only by a hysterical person.
This is incredibly insulting, especially since you've thrown it out curtly with no explanation. While I personally am not threatened by a person voicing their gun enthusiasm at work (giving all benefit of the doubt to the hypothetical gun enthusiast, e.g. it's not an out-of-the-blue zealous fervor), but I can easily imagine a non-hysterical person feeling threatened if they have zero experience with gun owners and zero context with which to personally relate to gun owners. Try to have at least a little understanding of other people whose experiences are not your own.
> If co-worker comes to work and says guns are bad. Ok whatever your opinion man. But if they come to work and like yo guns are awesome, 2nd amendment bros. I own one, then for other side this person might be perceived as threat.
If you genuinely feel like you have been threatened by the above to the extent that your work is now an unsafe place for you so conservatives should keep any chat about their guns to themselves, I'm sorry, but you are having an extreme emotional response disconnected from reason. Aka hysterical.
> I can easily imagine a non-hysterical person feeling threatened if they have zero experience with gun owners and zero context with which to personally relate to gun owners
Look, I can see how someone might have been brainwashed to find all guns so scary that the concept of someone near them who isn't a police officer having access seems like a direct threat to them...just like I can see someone being so brainwashed as to view all African-Americans as innately dangerous and feeling unsafe working with them. But in both cases I'd claim you are being irrational to an extreme sufficient to call your reaction hysterical.
This shuts down all discussion of controversial topics. If you're not allowed to discuss how those controversial topics can impact your work environment and customers then you're running down a very slippery slope of biasing your company against customers who similarly hold controversial viewpoints.
> Independent person would probably say that conservative ideas are Perceived to be more controversial by other side then other way around.
This is a biased opinion.
> for other side this person might be perceived as threat.
Controversial topics aren't limited to politics and feeling threatened can go both ways.
I happen to own a gun and am pro-second-amendment. I feel threatened by people who are not trained to use guns.
What about cars? I feel threatened by people who brag about racing. Or drinking. Or smoking. Or sex. But that's the easy stuff that "everyone" (well, mature people IMO) knows not to talk about at the office.
But then there's the other things. The things that relate to work.
I definitely feel threatened when a coworker talks about customers in a derogatory manner, especially when it's my boss. Employees can be customers too.
I feel threatened when someone at the office talks about how we're increasing the margins by cutting corners somewhere. I have empathy for customers and I don't want our product's quality reduced.
If I don't feel my job security would be safe if I spoke up, then my coworker talking about that will make me feel threatened.
This is a strained and bizarre argument and requires unpacking for me to understand, unless you meant it as hyperbole.
I enjoy shooting safely, but I can't imagine feeling threatened by someone's lack of firearms training in an office workplace.
I live in Texas now. Before moving here, I lived in California. There's a stark difference of opinion about guns between the states. In California, guns are... well they're definitely not part of the culture there.
I never fired a gun until I was 23 years old and hung out with a friend-in-law at their home away from the city. A few years later I bought my first gun and went to the range. The people at the range were somewhat reserved, somewhat mocking about lack of experience. They definitely didn't appreciate people who didn't know all the rules like the back of their hand. That definitely doesn't encourage someone to learn how to handle a gun. Interesting, yes?
So, being in Texas, where guns are part of the culture in many places, it's also interesting to find people who've never fired a gun. It's scary to find people who think that the only people who should own a gun are the armed forces.
In my experience, that latter is a statement generally comes from people who are naive about US history and their government; or they have been emotionally damaged by guns which I can respect even if I disagree.
However, someone who's not been around guns, doesn't know the difference between various "basic" types of guns (automatic, semi-automatic, manual; rifle, shotgun, pistol; etc) makes me feel threatened when they start talking about what you can or can not do with a gun. The information they talk about is usually wrong and they're not usually willing to listen to corrections. I work with scientists; someone who isn't trained and isn't willing to be trained is a threat to science.
Finally, someone who talks about something with no training or experience is worse than someone who does. Imagine a computer user who's not trained to write software but talks as if databases are "the worst". Sure you could ignore them. But remember that that person can also talk to more people than just you. They could be spewing the same nonsense to their government representatives. If the representative or political leader doesn't have two brain cells (which seems common these days), they're just as likely to write bad legislation or policy about computers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hguns.
Having lived in both California and Texas I can definitely say that I've seen many opinions first-hand. There's no "right" opinion. There's definitely wrong opinions though.
Same as I’m not threatened that no one at my work knows how serve fugu, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re not serving me fugu.
This is a strained and bizarre argument
If you don't know how guns operate, then you are incapable of rendering it safe or even recognizing if it can be fired. (Thankfully, Lynette Fromme didn't know how to operate an autoloader, else Gerald Ford probably would have been killed.)
An analogy: even if one doesn't care to drive, one should know how to shut off an ignition and know how to operate the brakes in an emergency.
For cops or security contractors, sure
I grew up in a Mormon family where smoking was not only taboo but very strongly punished.
Even second-hand smoke can cause medical problems.
If I can't tell my coworkers that I don't appreciate them smoking -- even outside of the building -- anywhere I can smell it then that's going to cause problems for me.
How do you think that "Yo, Marxism is awesome" would be perceived by someone who grew up in a communist slave state? Or even someone familiar with the history of Marxist governments in the 20th Century?
Either way, I personally don't want legislation to ban people from talking or promoting nazism or leninism. Let bad ideas be defeated in the arena of conversation, I don't need my feelings protected from hearing something I dislike and strongly disagree with.
There were no Marxist governments in the 20th Century, and if you believe otherwise you've been duped (perhaps indirectly) by Leninist propaganda.
Well, obviously the ones using that symbol are particularly visible (never seen a non-Communist socialist use it, though obviously the unadorned Red Flag is common), and certainly there are no shortage of genuine followers of Leninism and it's offshoots (Stalinism, Maoism, etc.); the fact that they exist and like to claim to be Marxist doesn't make their theory compatible with Marx’s, though,and there are plenty of actual Marxists, too.
> You aren't fooling anyone.
I'm not really sure how any of what you posted is a counterargument to anything I've said.
So tell me, why is it that whenever someone attempts to institute a Marxist government, the invariable outcome is slavery, starvation, and mass murder? We have dozens of examples, dude.
And the invariable outcome is invariably followed by some apologist like you who claims "that wasn't real Marxism".
After so many attempts, one can only conclude that either, yes, it is "real Marxism" or that "real Marxism" is impossible to implement.
Sorry, guy. We're not going to let you murder another hundred million people.
No one has ever instituted a government intended to be Marxist, with or without those ends.
I'm not even sure there's been a major effort to institute Marxist government, even if it failed to institute a government, since the time of Marx and Engels.
Leninism, which rejects key aspects of Marxism (particularly, it's essential prerequisite conditions and it's basic methods) but sells itself as Marxism (hence my line about people believing Marxist governments have exist being dupes of Leninism) has been attempted with the results you describe.
The closest thing that has actually been put into practice to Marxism (which still isn't Marxism, differing in roughly the opposite direction but lesser degree than does Leninism) is the modern mixed economy that has displaced the 19th century system Marx named “capitalism” throughout the developed world, which was both shaped by (largely through Marxist influence on Western labor movements) and which incorporates several elements of Marx’s platform and compromises versions of some others elements of that platform, when compared to the 19th Century capitalism it displaced.
> After so many attempts, one can only conclude that either, yes, it is "real Marxism" or that "real Marxism" is impossible to implement.
The latter is closer to the truth; at least, it seems politically impossible to achieve support for a radical transition to Marxism in a state which had acheived the prerequisite state Marx identifies as essential. While both building class consciousness on some level in the working class and using it as a lever to move the State in a direction closer Marxism is possible (and, indeed, seems to have near-universally occurred in states meeting Marx’s criteria), and Marx seems also to have been accurate in both suggesting that such incremental change would be leveraged by capitalists to forestall revolution and would be precarious and eternally at risk of backsliding spurred by the capitalist class, the revolutionary alternative Marx proposed seems impractical in practice.