Item — HN Reader

An Iranian immigrant can't help but advocate for their political views simply by existing. Living and working in the US is an assertion that they should have the legal right to do so. Simply by being glad to have them as a coworker (the most anodyne possible affirmation that everyone generally expects from the people around them) you are making a political statement. If I say, "I'm glad you were able to make it home," I'm expressing support for the court case that invalidated the executive order that allowed them to come home.

As long as some parts of politics are working to harm the people you work with, coexisting with them and exchanging pleasantries is political.

1 comments

Right, so said Iranian immigrant is for the status quo where he is allowed to work in the US and therefore would be in favor of banning discussions related to it, no? Enabling discussions would favor the people who want change, that is the people who want to kick him out, is that really what you want, do you want to help him get kicked out?

This is roughly how the people who argue against Coinbase decision sounds.

It was obviously not the status quo, because they were banned from the country.

Companies should advocate for the rights of their employees. They should demand their employees treat each other with respect. Both of those stances will often conflict with some people's politics and there's no way around it.