I have no idea who Jason and DHH are beyond this announcement, so I have no idea which political discussions they intend to prohibit in practice. But clearly there have been some political discussions there that they intend to prohibit now, so it’s not crazy to give same-sex marriage as an example of a prominent divisive highly-charged political topic in the United States. What’s a better example that you think these two people would intend to prohibit?
To me it seems very clear that merely mentioning the fact of a same sex relationship is not a political statement.
If person A mentions they are in a same sex relationship, then person B goes on a rant about how it should be illegal and how dare you bring it up, then to me person B is the one making the discussion political, not person A.
I do see how if person B is the boss, this would be a problem, but I don't think Jason and DHH are that person B.
As an example, here is a Twitter thread about another organization that dealt with an excess of "political discussion"
Theology-driven (in bio) person starts a "justice-orientated" non-profit while admitting in the same sentence that she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"
Gets a lot of criticism on her approach. //Unclear if this is fair or not. We don't know what they did and the criticisms she is describing are very vague.
Decides that because she doesn't understand the critics, it must be that they don't want to actually fix anything, they just wanted control of the organization.
Weaponizes the language that oppressed minorities use to carve out a semblance of agency in a discriminatory world in bad faith. //"Did you just assume my sexuality" is a 4chan-level troll, and as much of a cliche as her pinned tweet equating racism with talking about racism.
I could go on but the key point is this person's story is a Choose Your Own Adventure for Outrage.
If you already agree with her you read this and think "how horrifying, we must do everything possible to prevent this". If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.
The word woke has been completely appropriated. Not a single "woke" person I know would ever describe themselves as woke anymore. It has been completely appropriated by bad faith actors who use it as a blanket statement for basically everything they disagree with. A bit like US Republicans saying the MLB moving the All-Star game is an example of "cancel culture".
> she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"
Critical Theory != Justice
Critical theory is a niche academic discipline that involves looking at certain issues in a specific way. It has its uses, but it is in no way the end-all, be-all last word on everything. It is not synonymous with every meaning and use of the word justice, and there are certainly many ways to pursue justice without it. It's absolutely nothing at all like running a web-hosting service without knowing about HTTP or DNS.
>If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.
If you stop reading because of one word and then get mad at assumptions about what you think the rest says, you are not a person who should be taken seriously.
