Hi everyone,

I wanted to start an open conversation about something that’s been on my mind—how we navigate personal beliefs, especially around politics and religion, in our interactions and professional lives. As someone who values authenticity, I find it fascinating how our personal views shape us, yet I also strive to create a welcoming and inclusive environment for everyone, regardless of background.

A Few Questions to Spark the Conversation:
- How do you balance sharing your personal beliefs with maintaining a professional atmosphere?
- Have you found it’s better to keep politics and religion private, or does sharing build deeper connections?
- Any insights or stories on how these topics have impacted your professional relationships?

I believe that respectful discussion can lead to understanding and sometimes even surprising connections. Looking forward to hearing your perspectives and learning from this community!

Warmly,  
Lillian Lust

The politics has become so divided in our country that I think there’s a tendency to keep it separate. That said, I had a friend at work whose politics differed from mine, and we enjoyed debating the issues of the day.

A Few Questions to Spark the Conversation:
- How do you balance sharing your personal beliefs with maintaining a professional atmosphere?
*I struggle with the idea of "professionalism" being of high importance as that carries a lot of connotations. Is speaking out about human rights "unprofessional?" Is caring about homeless people and asking others to care "unprofessional?" If someone doesn't agree with you, it becomes unprofessional.
- Have you found it’s better to keep politics and religion private, or does sharing build deeper connections?
Sharing does build better connections but my leftist ideals alienate a lot of clients. I also am neurodivergent and info-dump, a trait that's annoying to neurotypicals... now I say almost. nothing as I have to fucking feed myself lol

It sucks that because I give a shit, and passionately, that its a turn off.

I worked in my industry for 50 years before retiring and never once found the need to discuss religion or politics with coworkers, employers or clients.
.
Like Miss Manners would say, the object and importance of manners is to provide a standardized way to interact that avoids misunderstanding.  
.
Now perhaps you only want to associate with people of similar values, in that case the above wouldn't apply. My obligation to my employer would not have been served by potentially alienating others in the business setting. So you have to take your own situation into account.

Your response "asking others to care" is exactly the sanctimonious self-righteous holier than thou attitude that infects the left and sends people scurrying away.

Unless I know that the person (or persons) I'm discussing these topics with will want a open discussion where ideas are shared FREELY I stay away from it. (And sadly, the number of people you can have a civil, intelligent "give and take" discussion with dwindles each day!!)

In general, speaking about human rights or caring about the homeless couldn't possibly be "unprofessional" in my mind, for if so, I am unprofessional almost every day. lol. And just bc someone may disagree with me, that wouldn't make it unprofessional either, as long as it didn't get personal and/or delve into ad hominem attacks.  
.
Two (or more) adults can engage in differing views on a topic and still be professional. In fact, in my experience, that occurs 90+% of the time. I think it's how you disagree with each other determines whether or not it can be deemed unprofessional.
.
Now if you are talking about in the context of p4p with a client, that can be a different matter, but just bc you espouse views that your client may disagree with, again, that doesn't necessarily go to professionalism imo. But context matters right? If you belittled your clients opposing view, that would be considered unprofessional by most one would think.
.
But the mere act of the two of you disagreeing doesnt therefore make it necessarily unprofessional. I have had, on a few  occasions, disagreements with providers on a host of subjects be they political, religious, etc. I cant remember any of them becoming unprofessional, even though they may have be passionate, spirited debates.

Asking people to care about other people is "sanctimonious?"

you are a buyer or seller.  If you are a buyer, you can make political comments in the workplace, and the seller is not going to refuse to keep selling to you, because, as you say, they are feeding themselves, and you can't do that if you're losing customers.  If you are a seller, and you alienate clients/customers with your sociopolitical views, they will go somewhere else to buy where they feel they have something in common with the seller.  I have a number of salespeople working for me, and I insist that social or political views are not to be discussed, even if they are aligned with your own.  No politics of religion in the workplace.  Keep it professional and businesslike.  

You don't see the presumption?

If you're triggered by someone sharing information about people in need, obviously which appeals to their humanity maybe you shouldn't go on the internet or outside

Merely seeing how I view the world freaks normies out. Just posting is enough for people. And I don't mind alienating Trump supporters, as I find them to be scary angry people, but its the dudes in the middle that can't fathom that I might have a unique perspective gets to me

trying to debate with a turnip.

I'm not "immature" because I want abortion rights, marriage equality, erasure of student debt, housing for all. These are BASED on reading political thought for years, having worked on 4 political campaigns, bro, infantilize much?

Perhaps familiarize yourself with the concept of the messiah complex and engage in a little introspection.

Who is bigp and who is TATL? Did I miss something?

Perhaps familiarize yourself with community care and man you are a sad sack if you can't handle information on people in need in a post. Point blank. The alternative is to share nothing about people in need? That's your solution? No one should talk on the internet about people in need?

Who's also a knuckle-dragging righty Neanderthal. He also couldn't find the truth with a flashlight and a magnifying glass.
Did I mention he's a stalker and always has to get the last word?
He's mess. Stay away.

I definitely don't see myself as a savior but if I share something that makes someone else take action and do something good for another person, I will have no knowledge of it. Its up to the reader to do with what they want.

People who acquire student loan debt and who haven't engaged in useless majors like gender queer studies in medieval Ireland, generally end up in the top earners in society. Making the general public pay for others privilege like this is an abomination.

Unique leftism?  You misspelled banal.

But he's an admitted whoremonger writing on a whoremonger board. The irony is rich.

Fester has it all ass-backwards. If someone took on student debt and became a top earner they should be applauded. And they have no problem paying back their loans. But the normal earners are still contributing more to this country than they would have with no degree. The country does better when its people are better educated.
Fester would be the exception to this.

"Trump supporters" are half the electorate and some 80 million people or so. I would never group that many people and say they are all "scary angry people." Do some fall into that category? Well, of course, and Trump is certainly one that fits that description but people who vote for him aren't then by definition "scary" or "angry." Some are misinformed, hyper partisan, uneducated or just wrong but that doesn't make all of them scary or angry.
.
Human beings are just way more complicated than that, and it's never a one size fits all label for any group, imo. I try and take people as individuals, not by group identity, and that is one area where Progressives have let me down. Too much is made of the group one belongs to and not the individual person.

And I remember most of Germany being ok with a really bad dude too... I don't have the time or energy to spend it talking to people who are a-ok with my rights being eliminated, and I would feel unsafe being around someone who vote that way.  
'

Like there was a time where 1/2 of America didn't support de-segregation... do you defend that? We are in the same kind of conservative situation now!

It's a transfer of a lifetime of hard earned wealth from the underclass to the well-to-do.

Most of those benefitting from forgiveness of their student loan debt are barely getting by and can't afford to pay back the loan. How can they possibly be considered "well-to-do."
Is Fester among the "poorly educated" crew that Trump loves?

You continue to want to group tens of millions of people and paint them all with a broad brush. Trump is many things, almost all of them bad, but I hate to be the one to tell you he isn't Hitler. Your too simplistic view of him and his followers seems to make you unable to comprehend that fact and that is sad.

Of course I don't defend segregation! What a crazed diversion from the topic at hand. I am not defending Trump at all. What I am saying is that not all his followers are evil or whatever any other label you want to adhere to 80 million people. Stop judging people by their group identity. Judge them as individuals.  
.
If you dont know a single good person who would vote for Trump, the problem is with YOU and NOT with them. You don't seem to be a fan of MLK. Look into him and his teachings when you can.

-- Modified on 11/2/2024 4:41:06 PM

(I haven't fully followed this discussion, but ...)
.
I agree about the problem of painting with too broad a brush. It is possible to split the "supporters" into several groups (how many? 2? 5? 10? ...). E.g.,  
1. Trump's Project 2025 team and high level power hungry supporters (I'll put Bannon here)  
2. Trump's legislative (Fed, State, Local) supporters (Speaker Johnson, Graham, Jordan, Comer, et al.; State officials behind fake electors, Mark Johnson NC's "Black Nazi", et al.)
3. Trump's media supporters (Fox, OAN, Tucker Carlson, (Rush Limbaugh - deceased), Alex Jones, Kirk, et al.)
4. Trump's celebrity supporters (Kanye and other controversial personalities: anti-Semites, white supremacists, etc.)  
5. Trump's rally-going supporters (some travel all over to go to ALL the rallies; dress up in costumes and happily appear in interviews and videos on Social Media)
...
...
It takes a while to get down to just "regular" conservative, Republican, prefer-Trump-over-Harris supporters.
.
The "top" groups dominate the media and create the impression that they are representative of all other Trump supporters. They DO induce huge emotional and intellectual responses. Sometimes there is an OVER reaction to "paint with a broad brush."
.
To use Stepian's nomenclature, there is "Team Crazy" and "Team Normal" - two groups.  Team Crazy gets so much (deserved) attention that Team Normal is almost invisible. Critics may simplify too much and point out that "Trump supporters are [crazy, cultish, garbage, deplorable, ... pick your favorite]" without the more discriminating "THAT group of Trump supporters is ..."  
.
I know some Trump supporters that are Team Crazy; I know Trump supporters that are borderline Team Crazy and are just incredibly misinformed due to believing Trump lies and are amazed when I show them Snopes, Politifact or other articles; I probably know Trump supporters that are Team Normal but I don't even know it!

Yes there are a lot of things I like about MLK. Here's a bit from a letter MLK wrote from when he was in jail, that still applies today:

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

-- Modified on 11/3/2024 7:33:00 AM

-- Modified on 11/3/2024 7:34:46 AM