When this is discussed, what's being meant is that everday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics, which are often a completely disconnected meta.
Appealing to "well everything is connected" I'm not sure is useful. It's interesting from a semantics perspective the first few times you come across it maybe, then swaps around into being plain frustrating, then lands on just missing the point.
Finally, I think people who want to stay out of said party political meta I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and I really can't fault them one bit for it. No coincidence either.
"Party politics" is ill-defined, and so a "no politics" rule becomes an arbitrary hammer that bosses can use to smash employees. If I say "I'm going to get a COVID vaccine this afternoon" is that discussing party politics? In the UK, where I live, the vaccine was provided by the government, so I'm implicitly discussing the actions of the government. That is under any reasonable definition a discussion of politics.
"everyday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics" is how "no politics" rules are usually justified, but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules (37signals, Coinbase). 37signals in particular tried to spin it this way, but it was the actions of a group within the company approved by the founders that caused the problem. (Coinbase was just completely incoherent from the start. Their mission is something like "End economic inequality" which a reasonable person could take to mean anarchist or communist discussion is on topic.)
There's no way to define any modality of politics such that someone like you won't come around and start going off about how it's a leaky segmentation, and is actually just an excuse for censorship.
Every artificial segmentation of the real world is leaky. Just like the recognition that politics is everywhere, this too is not actually inquisitive. It's like arguing that stairsteps are chairs. They can be, but that doesn't make the word "chair" ill-defined.
> but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules
There is no such thing. These may be notable cases in your cohort, for me it's the first time I heard of these. And I've seen my fair share of these rules.
What's the purpose of a "no politics" rule at work? Is to stop people starting shit with their coworkers, or is to give those in power an arbitrary hammer to apply to those without power in the organization?
If it's the former, 1) it should be just that and 2) it isn't needed because it's never ok to start shit with coworkers that is unrelated to work. If someone spends all their time starting shit, whether about politics (however that is defined), sports, food choices, clothing, or anything else you can just fire them. No need to have a "no politics" rule.
I think it's more simple. Just avoid any conflict. As you pointed out "don't start shit" already covers this but they specifically call out politics because some might not think it would cause offense.
What if you speak about something with no intention of creating conflict, but a few people around you get riled up? You haven't done anything wrong yet the divisive topic isn't a good fit for the workplace.
Some employees either can't or won't see this, hence rules such as "no politics".
The covid vaccine example is a good one in terms of something in everyday life that is politicised.
It is also illustrates the problem with discussing politics in an international forum. The KCL study of covid conspiracy theories (carried out during the pandemic) found that in the UK young people and those who identified as left wing were more likely to believe conspiracy theories. I am pretty sure this is significantly different from the US. Also matches things I have heard (e.g. my daughter met people at university who refused the vaccine because "we don't trust the Tories".
It is pretty common for Americans to assume that the Conservatives are equivalent to Republicans, and Labour are like the Democrats, which is very far from the truth. It has always been far from the truth but the reasons why change - e.g. in the 80s Thatcher and Reagan were not far apart, but that that time Labour were far to the left of the Democrats (actual socialists).
> I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and
It your mental health is harmed while defending your political views it's possible your views are the issue.
For example if my view was that "domestic animals shouldn't be abused and penalties increased for such crimes" I wouldn't have mental health issues discussing this.
The vast majority of people will get stressed talking to people they think are evil or against their values. Someone breaking down in tears because another person says they "don't give a fuck about the bloody Gazans" is not behaving particularly unusually.
The views don't matter as much as how strongly they are held.
I understand this happens and I agree but there's two options.
1. Avoid talking about politics
2. Learn to control your emotions when discussing politics even if you have a strong view.
I think 2 is a better solution otherwise the worse things get the more people will avoid talking about it.
It's worth the effort because, based on your example, if you really cared about the people of Gaza you need to stand up and defend them, not avoid the topic due to how uncomfortable it makes you feel
> Someone breaking down in tears because another person says they "don't give a fuck about the bloody Gazans" is not behaving particularly unusually.
it might be reasonable if you have personal close links to Gaza (e.g. you are worried about family who live there), but otherwise it OUGHT to be very unusual.
> it might be reasonable if you have personal close links to Gaza (e.g. you are worried about family who live there)
That's another problem with political discussions at work - you're often not sure why someone has a particular beliefs and so it's hard to know whether disagreement will be taken as an abstract difference of opinion or as an attack on their family, friends, or homeland.
So if I now said some intentionally asinine garbage, e.g. about how dogs need to be disciplined, shown who the pack leader is, and sometimes that necessarily involves a beating, and how if you disagree you're woke, that wouldn't make you very understandably very distraught?
Because it would make me pretty distraught, and I don't think that it's because anything is wrong with the idea of not abusing animals.
Even doing this mental exercise for the sake of this conversation is already extremely frustrating for me. And I don't think this should surprise you, or is anything strange or unusual.
Actually yeah if someone stating their views in a context that doesn't directly impact you leaves you "distraught" I'd say you have an emotional issue on your end. That said, in the real world people commonly have those and avoiding the situations that trigger them is perfectly reasonable.
Let's just be clear that something can be commonplace while also being a personal issue.
My entire point there was that this is not exceptional in the least. People having emotional issues is quite common!
Incidentally, the response you're exhibiting here - a reflexive emotional rejection as opposed to critical thought - is closely related to the phenomenon being discussed here. That exact response is often (but not always) what leads to people becoming distraught in the first place. It's an emotional feedback loop.
Examining the context we see something of a dichotomy. That mental health being harmed by political discourse is likely to indicate a problem with personal views versus that being normal and expected depending on context. I'm presenting a third viewpoint tied to the example you provided. The idea that it is related to an emotional issue which is largely independent of personal views, that this is a relatively common thing to encounter, and that people should not be criticized for taking steps to mitigate personal issues.
In other words, I am largely agreeing with you but going on to point out that it's a personal issue deserving of long term work.
Appealing to "well everything is connected" I'm not sure is useful. It's interesting from a semantics perspective the first few times you come across it maybe, then swaps around into being plain frustrating, then lands on just missing the point.
Finally, I think people who want to stay out of said party political meta I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and I really can't fault them one bit for it. No coincidence either.