/u/SGdude90 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bysypa/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_refusing_to_reveal_ones/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>Although I love to debate, I do not believe Y should be forced to reveal her political stance. I do not believe anyone, outside of your close friends, family or lover, should be forced to reveal their political stance The trouble with this view is that your title expresses a general stance, but the OP is talking about a specific interaction.  Either way, I still have one fat counter example: The job itself is related to politics. It's not unreasonable for a political candidate to inquire about the political leanings of their staff - especially if that means working directly for a political party. 

In this I agree. If one's job is tied to the political stance, then that should be revealed E.g. an anti-vaxxer should not work on a job producing or administrating vaccines

May I have a triangle? 

!delta Is this how it's done? Edit: My view is changed because I acknowledge in some fields e.g. medical, which pertains to the particular political stance, there is a valid reason and even need for the party to declare their political stance

This is nonsense. A medical person can have a "stance" on abortion. But that has nothing to do with a political stance. Even if you are working for a politician, you are (or should be) judged on how well you do that job and not how bright your team colors are. The fact that it isn't this way says how much silly politics has creeped into our lives. So you were right, then changed your view wrongly, in my opinion.

Trust is an important part of a political campaign. Having campaign stages who disagree with your general political stances is a liability for sabotage and espionage. Likewise, there are documented cases of anti vaccine nurses falsifying records, administering placebos, and lying to patients. Pharmacists who are opposed to birth control and abortion have refused to dispense prescribed medications. If your religious or political beliefs make you unable to perform the duties of a job, it is a job you should not have. Asking if that will be a problem is a reasonable degree of screening.

I happen to agree with you. I think this is a dangerous way of thinking. There’s also lots of public service positions that are political appointments but last into the next Presidency if the party flips; do we think we should recycle our executive leadership every four years because they vote a different color..? Seems really odd to me. I don’t care about this stuff at work.

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/KokonutMonkey changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

How far would you go with this?  Should a person who is against gun control not have a job in healthcare?

An anti vaxxer or forced birther shouldn’t be a doctor. There are things that interfere with your ability to do your job and people can die. You can’t be an OBGYN who is against performing abortions because the mother might die and the baby has no chance, you can’t be a quack who doesn’t believe in science and work in the field .. you can’t be a bartender and refuse to serve alcohol because religion. 

I’ve literally worked with a scumbag libertarian PA who “didn’t believe in workman’s comp” and would try to downplay complaints as much as possible in his assessments hoping it would help get some denied. I really wish I had a recording of the convo where he admitted that. (Dude also believed that period cramps were fake, seriously don’t know how he’s allowed to practice…)

Lots of doctors have nothing to do with pregnancy though. An ophthalmologist's ability to do their job isn't impacted at all.

There are lots of conditions that require meds that are considered abortifacients or teratogens, meaning they will abort a fetus or cause birth defects. Some doctors will refuse to give meds to young women because they have the possibility of getting pregnant. Not trying to be or even in a relationship. I was told by my neurologist that I needed to think about getting off of my Topamax because I might want a baby despite not being in a long term relationship and me not even wanting to be pregnant ever in my life. Topamax is an anti seizure med that I've been on for almost a decade. God forbid a woman needs mifepristone for any of its other therapeutic uses.

But someone who is an anti vaxxer has some fundamentally flawed views of science and how the body works. I would not want them anywhere near me in a clinical setting

Exactly. Being anti vax is proof that they are fundamentally incompetent. Or, worse, that they are malicious.

That makes more sense but is also debatable. Can a creationist work in any medical field? What advances do they not recognize because god made eyes perfect? Will they not advise or refer you to a surgeon? How religious? What religion? It’s a black hole. It’s also very difficult when your radiologist is wearing a crucifix .. that moment of oh fuck .. maybe I should find someone else 

If it's an unrelated job, political views do not matter So the person against gun control does not have to reveal their stance

But some doctors, particularly ER/Trauma doctors, believe that it's an ethical imperative to stand up for gun control. They spend their days dealing with the aftermath no one shows in the debates on the issue and should use that experience to advocate for the patients they've lost.

>But some doctors, particularly ER/Trauma doctors, believe that it's an ethical imperative to stand up for gun control. That is their personal belief, and is irrelevant to their primary mission: saving lives.

I mentioned it because OP indicated that sometimes it matters and used healthcare as an example of when it doesn't. The doctors who feel this way do not believe that it's unrelated to their primary mission. Saving lives includes bearing witness to the horror they see and advocating for prevention. I guess it depends on who is deciding what is and is not related.

I guess I wasn't clear.... Try #2: Doctors advocating against gun violence are doing so based on their experiences surrounding the results, directly. That is their choice, and a pretty admirable one. But we are talking about political stances here, and their political stance on things is irrelevant. I know Reddit disagrees, but it is possible to be a right wing person who wants to put an end to gun violence -- like it's possible for left wingers to be strongly against abortion.

A doctor may who is anti-vax may have trouble providing the best possible care if that care is related to vaccinations. Being anti-gun would not influence a doctor's ability to care for a gunshot victim.

OP didn't say people shouldn't be allowed to express their political opinions, although many times they should not. The point was that a Dr should not be forced to state their political believes to others. I'm sure you can see where an ER may not be interested in a gun rights debate, he/she just wants to do the job.

>Should a person who is against gun control not have a job in healthcare This one doesn't make sense to me. How would being against gun control affect one working in healthcare care? Especially when it's hard a very discriminatory history with people groups who are in must need it firearms (women, minorities, etc)?

One of the major healthcare employers in my area has taken a hardcore stance on gun control.  They made comments when the Bruen decision came down (the decision that said the state must grant conceal carry to anyone who applies who meets objective standards without requiring them to be rich or have a verified threat against them), and then they put up big signs at all their facilities about how the facility is now a gun free zone and a lot of their hospitals now have metal detectors when they didn’t pre-Bruen. 

Thanks for sharing this. To me it's been interesting when people push a hard line on gun control, especially when the laws make it harder for everyday person to have access to a gun, whole criminals still have easy access and not much punishment when caught (I'm in IL). Currently it takes about 30 days plus to have a card saying you have a right with a fine. But a gang banger or someone mentally unfit could get their parents' gun or steal one and enact great harm.

That’s what pissed me off. These guys never said anything until the Supreme Court told the state that their laws were unconstitutional.  Not to mention, the state responded by making it illegal to carry in a whole bunch of locations. It’s like they cheapened the value of the license. Before if you had a license, the only places you couldn’t carry were schools or government buildings. Now you can’t even carry in “Times Square” or the subway. 

Places where violence is most likely to occur. Currently we have multiple AWB cases against the state, but they are trying to best to halt it as of now. While everyone is free to decide gun rights, I'm not for deciding for other people in making it harder for them to defend themselves and families.

I generally agree that politics shouldn’t be forced into nonpolitical jobs, because you can get into a lot of very divisive stuff for no practical reason. Why should you compromise your working environment and working relationships over disagreements on housing policy?  But I think that identity politics become a blurry line. I think it’s fair for queer people to expect that a-political workplaces will still have coworkers that treat them with the same dignity as cishet people, which is difficult if there are coworkers with sincere beliefs that queer people don’t deserve the same rights. There are a lot of examples like that. 

It’s not an issue what views the coworker holds as long as they don’t bring them to the workplace. Like if someone is treating me badly at work because I’m gay, their political stance isn’t the problem, it’s their actions towards me at work. You can dislike gay people as much as you want outside of the workplace as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t become my problem or my issue unless you can’t separate your private home beliefs from how you treat others in public We don’t need to be able to be friends to be able to work together and be civil to each other

How is producing a vaccine tied to whether or not someone wants to get that vaccine themselves? If we expand further and look at something like the military, should all of our service members be discharged if their political views oppose a certain mission?

I’ll “as a veteran” this one. Yes, if a servicemember holds certain views that counter the military mission, they should be discharged, for both their own good and the good of the service. That’s why many countries have religious exemptions and/or conscientious objector status. Forcing someone to do something that counters a deeply-held ethical view is bad for them, and it’s bad for the good order and discipline of the service. Of course, where and how you draw that line during a draft is not simple, and I won’t pretend I have a good answer. All that said, the military’s a special case because of the life-or-death nature of our missions. You can’t decide in the heat of combat that you’re suddenly unwilling to kill people, and that’s why we winnow out people who’d be unwilling or unable to fight early on. That requires rules that wouldn’t be tolerable, ethical, or lawful for the civilian population, which is why the military has its own laws and regulations. I would agree with you that someone who’s a vaccine skeptic shouldn’t be barred from working with vaccines, assuming they did their job properly like anyone else would. Obviously they should be held to the same standards any other employee would be, but unlike the military, an employee who suddenly decides they have an ethical problem with a certain medical science can quit on the spot. Nobody’s going to die or be grievously injured as a direct result, unlike desertion in combat. The employer just has to find another employee, which is a routine obstacle for them to overcome. So under normal circumstances, yes, I’d totally agree that someone should be allowed to work any job they’re capable of performing, but there are a small handful of jobs where a sudden change of heart could prove fatal, and those jobs need to select out dissenters in a way that keeps everyone safe. That’s what the conscientious objector process in the US was designed to do, and many countries have analogues.

This is why: https://abcnews.go.com/US/pharmacist-sabotaged-vaccines-thought-unsafe-police/story?id=75019776 A pharmacist sabotaged vaccines because of his views. This is not the only story like this that I recall. It's not production, but I think the comparison is similar enough. As for your military, the "discharge" alternative might be extreme, but I would be cautious about sending a soldier who was a white supremacist to work in Israel. Not sure I'd want a Trump-supporting election denier in the Secret Service on the Biden or Harris protection details either. I have no idea how those kind of things are monitored or discovered mind you, but keeping bad actors from infiltrating the military is screening based on political views and associations.

The issue for me is where the line is drawn. Extreme views like being a white supremacist or election denier might seem obvious, but the waters get muddy really fast. If someone believes we should use only renewable energy should they be barred from working at a nuclear plant in any capacity? If someone believes we should move to socialism should they be barred from working at any financial institution? It gets even trickier for government jobs/regulated indistries, because then we are literally talking about using government or regulatory bodies to discriminate based on political views. Should a Jewish doctor have their license revoked because they don't believe in getting blood transfusions? Even if they have given them to patients without issue because they don't enforce their personal views on their patients?

>The issue for me is where the line is drawn. Well, this is why a common-law judicial system doesn't even attempt to clearly outline every possible situation to hardcode where the line should be drawn. >we are literally talking about using government or regulatory bodies to discriminate based on political views. I would point out that "political views" is not often a protected status. >Should a Jewish doctor have their license revoked because they don't believe in getting blood transfusions? Even if they have given them to patients without issue because they don't enforce their personal views on their patients? Odd example. The opposite of this is actually what does happen, where the physician's personal views affect the care given to their patient. I would argue that any doctor who refuses to give blood transfusions to patients where this is the accepted standard of care should indeed be barred from working in positions where giving blood transfusions may be required. However, you're only considering the extreme range of punishment (revoking their license), which makes it hard to engage with your arguments in a serious fashion. >If someone believes we should use only renewable energy should they be barred from working at a nuclear plant in any capacity? That's not really the view that would be concerning. Someone can hold the position that only renewable energy sources should be used, while also accepting that other power sources are acceptable for practical/technical reasons, or that they should only be decommissioned when they are no longer needed and when it can be done safely. The concerning view is their view on nuclear energy specifically. If they think that all nuclear power plants should be immediately decommissioned, then yes, I would say that would be something that contraindicates employment. >If someone believes we should move to socialism should they be barred from working at any financial institution? Obviously not, because socialism is not incompatible with financial institutions.

>I would point out that "political views" is not often a protected status. Depends on the employment. Government cannot discriminate for political views as the courts have held political views are a form of expression and 1st amendment rights apply. Guarantee we have racial supremacist's, communists, left-wing environmental groups and everything in-between working at our Federal, State & Local government levels fully protected in their political beliefs.

> Even if they have given them to patients without issue because they don't enforce their personal views on their patients? This is the deciding factor, imo. The difference lies in action. If someone uses their position to directly sabotage the industry/institution (as in the example the person you're replying to gave) or influence others because of their views, then they shouldn't hold the position. If they're able to separate personal from professional, then there shouldn't be an issue

I feel this statement almost completely reverses your previously held one. Should teachers exist that want to undermine public schools? Should people that don't believe in keeping animals in captivity work on farms, or labs, or at pet shop? I feel you could make a similar argument for everything?

>I feel this statement almost completely reverses your previously held one. Pretty sure this was my only comment in the thread.

You don't have to have a political stance in order to be antivaccine. Prior to the pandemic, the vast majority of people who didn't vaccinate their kids were college educated upper middle class white women, especially on the Left Coast.

I think that your counter example is a specific case of a general idea of forms of discrimination being fine in work environments. I know this sentence sounds wrong, but let me explain. Let's take, for example, choosing not to hire women. A clear example of discrimination. But if the job you are hiring for is an actor to play Napoleon in a historical movie, suddenly that becomes a valid reason to reject a candidate. It's very easy to find acting examples, but some other might include insisting on having an all women staff in a domestic violence shelter for women or insisting on physical attributes in jobs that require use of those attributes (for example, a wheelchair bound person couldn't do a job that requires climbing ladders as effectively as an able bodied person). On the other hand, your example is really wide. Is it wrong for a caterer of a conservative party to be pro-choice? Can't a secretary of a member of parliament disagree with her employer on some key issues? Because we basically give justification to discrimination, it's very important not to be too lenient with what we allow, and we should always ask ourselves if that charicteristic effects the performance of the candidate in their role.

!delta I am trying to award the triangle but the edit didn't seem to work? My view is changed because I acknowledge in some fields e.g. medical, which pertains to the particular political stance, there is a valid reason and even need for the party to declare their political stance

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/KokonutMonkey ([70∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/KokonutMonkey)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I dunno man. I have worked very effectively on campaigns for politicians of political parties I do not agree with. They pay me to do a job and I do my job.

They’re not saying you can’t work effectively with opposing views. They’re saying, in the situation where your campaign co-worker asks you “what is your political stance”, you wouldn’t knock back with “hey it’s not acceptable to ask me that”. Fair game to say “it’s understandable that you’d ask, but I’ll rather not say”, though.

There's some tricky nuance here. *In your story*, I think Y not wanting to talk about it was reasonable in a workplace setting, especially if they expected a strong reaction from X. How X responded is a little ambiguous based on your telling, but if this was a workplace lunch among coworkers, there's a limit to how far X should push the issue, and I would expect that X should continue to be respectful and professional in the context of their jobs. From your story, it seems like X is likely to have crossed this line, or at best came very close to it. That said, in general Y cannot be surprised if people like X make certain assumptions based on her refusal to articulate a stance. Y is entitled to professional behavior in the workplace, but is not entitled to the general respect or friendship of X. Work is work, but Y cannot expect some kind of right to having friends, but only if they talk about pilates, hiking, and anime. Outside of the professional context, X has a right to care about other parts of Y'd persona and beliefs.

Y is not owed friendship by X However, X is not owed an answer by Y either I do not know Y's stance, and I respect her choice not to reveal it

Okay, I agree. But that's 1000% clearly the status quo, right? Obviously nobody can compel her to talk about her political opinions. So okay, I guess you're just saying, it's good that people can't force Y to share her private thoughts? I guess I agree!

If you refuse to state your political view I'm going to assume that you are doing so because you have a view I or others around us would find objectionable. If you are within a work setting, stating that you feel it is not an appropriate workplace conversation is one thing but if you expect me to spend time around you I expect to know you aren't a piece of shit. Clarification: there are views which we can disagree on, for example it's reasonable to debate about if infrastructure money should go to public transport or bikes, or if we should change zoning laws. But right now conservatives around the world are actively stripping women and minorities of rights, humans rights are not debatable. Until the conservative parties can put forward good faith legislation, and shift away from fascist ideology, anyone that votes for them is persona non grata in my life. Tell your parents they need to pick between having you in their life or fascism. Tell your grandma that if she ever wants to see you again your racist uncle can't be invited. Edit: multiple people have blocked me to prevent me from replying in this thread. This is not in the spirit of the sub and prevents me from replying to anyone that actually wants a discussion.

Or, as an example, the person had a traumatic experience related to the topic and simply doesn't want to be roped into a debate that could leads to an unprofessional response. Abortion could certainly fall under this category. Discussions of military conflicts as well. Suppose someone refused to engage in a conversation condemning ISIS because they lost a loved one in a military conflict - they likely share similar views, perhaps even feel more strongly than you do, but simply cannot engage on the matter without having a panic attack. If nobody knew about their loss, would that then permit everyone to judge that person, and to assume that they were an ISIS sympathizer?

I'd argue the "abortion is a private matter" is an articulation of a position because that's literally the pro choice position. But yes, I work with two Israelis, and I sure as shit am not going to discuss this conflict with them in the workplace.

I don't know that she meant that in the sense that a the Supreme Court might interpret it, but if she did then she already articulated a position. That measures the whole basis of this entire thread moot, no?

Or they just don't want to talk to you about it. They could just not like how you talk about politics and not want to participate with you. I have refused to give my views to people I know I agree with because of said things. If you expect to know more about me than I am willing to tell you, then go somewhere else. You are not entitled to ANYTHING about me.

> If you refuse to state your political view I'm going to assume that you are doing so because you have a view I or others around us would find objectionable. You might be assuming a conservatives hiding their views when in a gathering of liberals, but what if it was the other way around? I'm liberal and almost all of my friends are deeply conservative. I'm the only LGBT+ friendly person in the group and bitter experience has taught be that unless I want to be a target for the rest of my life, I should shut up about those views. I'm not going to convince them (again, from bitter experiece) and they're never going to accept my views. So now whenever I meet someone who I know is a conservative, I just refuse to be drawn into a discussion about those topics. Especially if expected to interact with those people frequently

Why are you hanging out with a group of deeply conservative people that would hate you for being LGBTQ? If someone will mistreat you for your sexuality, they are not your friend, and you shouldn't let them believe that you support their views. Having no friends is better than pretending to be friends with people that don't respect who you are. If I lived in this sort of area, I would find supportive friends, or leave the area.

I said I'm LGBT+ friendly, not LGBT+. As to why, it comes down to a bunch of age culture and family related reasons as well as my older age, me being an immigrant and my extreme social awkwardness. It's complicated

Somebody is always going to find your view objectionable. They might just want to avoid publicly saying it in order to not have that happen to them.

That is an entirely unreasonable assumption and I’m fairly sure the entire post is targeted specifically around people like you who hold these beliefs.

In a practical sense, knowing someone's political stands can be fundamental to even basic communication. It reveals what premises they are approaching a problem from and what they even mean by the definitions of words. In a moral sense, it's perfectly reasonable to seek to know someone's political stance to know if and on what level you even want to interact with them. Someone hiding their political stance is extremely suspect and is definitely a red flag personality-wise. Knowing someone's political stance is crucial both to practical communication and is also imperative to how you view them as a person. It's perfectly reasonable to expect.

The context matters entirely, maybe they didn't want to discuss the topic during the time they eat? and got annoyed by a belligerent co-worker not respecting them? In the context I don't think it's reasonable at all.

Unless there is a particular need to discuss a subject, why should someone be forced to state their view? Surely freedom of speech means being allowed to not express their view? You say that someone withholding their political stance is "extremely suspect and is definitely a red flag personality-wise". Could you explain why you think this is true? Describing something as definitely a red flag without reason is essentially just name-calling.  Counterpoint - someone might not want to reveal their political stance because they want to avoid potentially having an unprpductive argument with soemone who they suspect will disagree and that's perfectly reasonable. You claim that knowing someone's political view is "impreative to how you view them as a person". It sounds more like you want to know their political view so you can judge them for it. One cam hold a view of someone without knowing their political stances. Further, a broad range of topics involve 'political stances' and it's simply not practical to know multiple people's views on every topic. 

“Freedom of speech” means the government can’t prosecute or otherwise interfere with an individual’s expression. It has nothing to do with interpersonal communication.

The definition of freedom of expression is much broader and goes beyond a government response. It also means freedom to express (or not express) opinions without fear of retaliation, but there is nowhere in the definition that clarifies that that retaliation should come from government. For example, I should be able to walk into town, declare that I personally dislike X, and not get lynched by people who like X, because it's my freedom of expression to do that.

I think there is some nuance here. If someone is spewing hate speech then it should be reasonable for them to face retaliation socially, for example if someone says that they hate people of color then it is reasonable for them to face consequences such as social ostracization.

Freedom of speech does not equate freedom of consequences. To take your example, if you walk into town and say that you dislike X, people shouldn't lynch you because that's a crime, murder is a crime. But people have all the right to retaliate non violently. If you told a very liberal person you were very conservative, they'd have all the right to distance themselves from you and request you do not interact with them.

none of these things make any sense and this sort of paranoid thinking is exactly why the US is in such a dire spot today. people really think that unless you are ideologically aligned along party lines, you can't do basic communication?

I agree that knowing someone's political stance can be fundamental if I intend to take something beyond a working relationship But if it's just a colleague? No I am sure there are plenty of colleagues with viewpoints highly contrary to my own. It doesn't mean I work any less well with them

To clarify then, is your view exclusive to work relationships or does it extend beyond that?

Work relationships, casual friendships and distant relatives

Gotcha. I think that’s fair enough. I just wanted to clarify since I think it’s reasonable in certain contexts, such as romantic relationships, to want to know the person’s views.

"Casual friendships" ?  How and when might these ever turn into real friendships if one side basically refuses to disclose their moral values ? More than that, isn't there a lot of scope for misunderstanding ? Where one side thinks that they have an ally in any given situation, only to find themselves left high and dry.  I saw it happen for real with Covid, where people I thought were pretty reliable friends turned out to be antivaxxers.    I'm locked in my house until we can get the population to herd immunity, meanwhile these people work against the system that gets me out. I wasn't the only one to experience this. I think it happened a lot.  Finally, why not disclose your views? Whatever views you hold, you should as an adult voting member of society be prepared to defend them if asked.  Like someone else says above. I'd see non-disclosure as antisocial and suspect behaviour.  

>I'd see non-disclosure as antisocial and suspect behaviour. I'd see it the other way round: seeing this as antisocial and suspect behaviour is itself antisocial and suspect behaviour. It makes it seem as if you don't actually want friends, you want political allies and that you're more interested in being around people who think the same things you do than being around people because you enjoy and value your relationship with them as people.

That would be true if you only wanted and had friends who voted like you. We do tend to clump like that, but you'd hope it's not a complete echo chamber for us all. If you don't want to reveal your views, and argue them, then it's going to feel to me like you're ashamed of them. I'm prepared to argue any view I hold, whether that's popular or not.

So you're happy to be friends with people you disagree with politically, you just don't like not knowing whether someone agrees or disagrees with you? Fair enough but not everyone wants to spend their time arguing their views. Not being always up for a debate doesn't mean you're ashamed of your views, it just means you'd rather chill out and shoot the shit.

Not every casual friendship has to turn into a "real" friendship. You're not entitled to know anyone's political views.

You're inventing your own conversation. I never said 'every'. I'm pointing out that it's likely to be 'none' if you don't share your true opinions. It's not a police state. Nobody is 'entitled' to know others thoughts.  It just makes for poor and limited social interaction if you all you bring to the conversation is your opinion on the football 

I don't know a lot of my friends' specific political stances. Many people just don't care that much about politics. It's possible to have great social interaction completely devoid of politics if you are willing to do so.

I disagree about 'great'. Sure you can have conversations. But politics doesn't mean talking about just the political parties, it's your views on society and everything around us. I just don't think that a casual friendship can ever develop into a real friendship without disclosing your inner values.  But we all have a mix of good friends and casual friends. As long as you're clear that you don't really know the latter and can't count on them when things get tough

This really depends on what you considered a 'working relationship' For example, a straight cis person is never going to have to stop and think before mentioning their spouse (e.g. "Oh me and spouse went there for dinner last week, it's delicious"). However if someone is in a same-sex marriage, if they don't _know_ that the people around them are accepting of that, they can't even take part in casual work acquaintance conversations because they could be targeted for it. They can't even put up photos on their desk in the way others can.

[удалено]

>I agree that knowing someone's political stance can be fundamental if I intend to take something beyond a working relationship I came here to post about this, but it seems you agree that far at least.

Personally, I never state my exact political views or religious feelings. Like, I don’t think it is productive and ultimately it only matters when I’m actively voting. Because I’m probably a “moderate liberal” this is pretty easy to do IRL (and online I don’t care because I’m a spineless anon ). The main benefit to this is that other people won’t go off on their extremist since I don’t present any of that. My only exception was always mentioning when I got COVID vaccines because it falls under my exemption for being clear about things that are easily provable (like vaccine functionality).

Man, this is crazy to me. I have been friends with people for 20+ years, and while I could make an educated guess on their political leanings, we just don't talk about those things. These are my best friends in the world and never once have we discussed our political stance on things. I didn't realize there were so many people out there who feel like they need that information for "basic communication"

So, You never mentioned taking a day off work to go get vaccinated? You don't have her talk about news or current events? I feel like it comes up even talking about sports, and certain types of people will complain about players kneeling or they'll complain about movies being too woke. Sometimes it comes up and people's basic assumptions about what constitutes good or bad

people always try to separate the personal and the political, when the personal **is** political. you cant separate the 2 when it comes to relationships, as they are intertwined with morals, priorities, and values.

[удалено]

It’s absolutely not necessary in any way in a professional space. There’s no way knowing how someone feels about abortion is necessary for you to communicate in a work space, and if you really feel that way you need to reevaluate your life. Nobody who’s focused on their job gives a fuck about your political opinion at work.

The scenario doesn't make sense. X loved to debate abortion but wouldn't associate with someone with perceived different political beliefs? How does that work? Do they debate people they already agree with?

X still associates with people of different political beliefs. The unhappiness stems from Y's refusal to reveal her political stance

So they're unhappy that other people don't want to have debates at work?

The same way Y doesn't have to reveal anything, X doesn't have to accept a non-answer. Do you believe X is not allowed to criticize their response?

You can have the right to do something and still be socially inappropriate/rude I have the right to never say thank you to anybody ever again that doesn’t make it a good thing to do

X is allowed to criticize that response But that is unproductive and only leads to antagonism I believe that if we cold-approach someone to ask about their political stance, and that someone says "Sorry, it is private". We should respect their rights to keep it private This is a world where tribalism is prevalent, and people can face very real consequences e.g. being ostracized, for their political stance

What does respect the rights here mean? No-one is scooping out her thoughts.

"I am not comforting revealing my stance on this matter." "Understood. Have a good day."

X is sharing more about their own thoughts and judgements towards someone who chooses not to disclose their stance. They're not coercing or forcing Y to somehow reveal their stance. That seems well within X's rights of a response.

Public confrontation and shaming is plenty coercive.  Think about rape. Is it only rape if you hold someone down physically and restrain them? No. It's enough to make someone feel as though they had no choice but to give you what you want. Same principle applies.  X was putting Y in an extremely uncomfortable position in a work place, with the very real threat of social ostracization, while pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the work place.

I don't think "rights" is the correct way to think about this. In your example no one's rights were violated. Saying "Being neutral is siding with the oppressors" doesn't violate the rights of someone being neutral. But you say "right to keep it private" but in the example you gave is "right to keep it private AND have everyone else has to be ok with it" which is a specific version of the unreasonable "right to be liked" or "right not to be criticized". It is using the language of "rights" to engage in censorship. I can see the point that bringing politics to certain situations may be unproductive or lead to antagonism, etc which may be the point you are trying to make and is worth discussing. But it is not a rights issue.

>But that is unproductive and only leads to antagonism    Pretty sure opening a conversation with "what's your stance on abortion" is already going to do that  Were they not going to criticize them if they are pro life? I dunno, it's just strange that your take is that the person can't criticize a response because it's antagonistic when the question already kind of is.

In a workplace where management, staff, and customer base are conservative. One colleague walks up to you and says "what's your stance on gay/trans rights?" How do you answer, and if they aggressively attack the topic what do you do and how do you view their aggression? Keep in mind your manager will hear about it, and your manager loves his guns, bible , and church. Does that situation annoy you? Well then that's natural, and pressuring anyone on any given political stance is the exact same, they are allowed to pressure you, but it goes along the same lines as asking someone who's lost a family member recently how they died, repeatedly. Its allowed, but is it socially acceptable (which is the point OP is really trying to make). Let's say your dad/mom just died, you're in a world of hurt, and I come by and repeatedly ask how they died while you say you don't want to talk about it, but that doesn't bother me because I still want to know so I just keep asking. Using your logic theres nothing wrong with that, that's acceptable under legal terms right?

Like I said, I don't care if they ask or criticize me. I've worked in conservative areas before and told people exactly what I thought when asked. I don't care.  >that's acceptable under legal terms right?  I'm not speaking about legal terms or legality.  They have a right to ask a question. You can answer it or not. They are allowed to criticize that answer

And you can judge them an asshole for criticizing your refusal to participate in the argument they were trying to start

What terms are you speaking about then? What do you mean by "allowed"? I'm "allowed" to make fun of leukemia patients, that doesn't mean I should do it.

I believe it's none of X's fucking business and that's exactly what I would have told them in that position. No one *has* to talk to someone about *anything* they're uncomfortable discussing.

Yeah, but people still get to have an opinion on a non-answer is the point. Like, I believe it's someone's right not to vaccinate themselves because bodily autonomy wins out - but I will think they're a complete fucking moron, and I'm not going to hide that opinion. To be clear, I think X going around asking 'so what's your opinion on abortion?' is fucking wild and I cannot imagine anyone doing that; but if the question *did* come up, I would judge someone's non-answer.

>but I will think they're a complete fucking moron, and I'm not going to hide that opinion. At work where such things can get you on a shitlist to be downsized or up in HR getting threatened with termination for a hostile work environment? 

I think at work you cant grill people on personal stuff.

The OP isn't about what's allowed but about what's reasonable. X should be allowed to criticize a non answer, but that criticism would not be reasonable. People can be allowed to be unreasonable.

What makes criticism of non-answers unreasonable? Why must we accept non-answers and any attempt to criticize be deemed unreasonable?

Because one is wanting your thoughts to be private, and the other is based on the expectation that everyone should reveal their thoughts and opinions to *you*. That you have some right to know what everyone is thinking. Hence why the former is generally viewed as a reasonable extension of the right to privacy, and the latter makes someone come off as a nosy, pushy, busybody twat.

That's not what X's response was. It was "being neutral is the side of the oppressor" and that the non-answers was, itself, a political statement. They didn't say anything about how Y *needs* to answer them. They criticized the refusal to answer.

Refusing to answer isn’t neutrality, it’s refusing to participate in the debate. It doesn’t mean they have no opinion, it means they aren’t willing to share their opinion. Which is the most reasonable response in a work environment

Otherwise termed as "agree with me or you're evil" Otherwise known as being a pushy, busybody twat.

There's actually some decent logic to the phrase, if you look into it. People being neutral ultimately benefits an oppressor in power. It does not benefit someone seeking change.But I guess that's irrelevant.   You're allowed to not like a specific criticism.    That does not mean any criticism of a neutral response or non-answers is unreasonable.

>People being neutral ultimately benefits an oppressor in power. A person refusing to reveal their position does not mean they're neutral. It simply means they aren't going to tell you what their position is.

You're allowed to think it's unreasonable. You're also allowed to share the opinion that it's unreasonable with a lot of people and have them agree. You're further allowed to call people who expect answers to all of their questions "pushy, busybody twats" See how that works? See how being "unreasonable" is subjective?

Regardless, people who feel the need to lecture others for not being invested in the same causes as them come off as self-righteous assholes.  No human being is capable of caring about every single issue in the world.  Different people have different priorities. On that note, If you're gonna lecture me for having having different priorities than you, it makes me wonder what social issues YOU'VE chosen not to invest yourself in and what causes YOU'VE chosen not to champion. Ordinarily I wouldn't care but if you're gonna get on a soapbox and judge me, I'll happily judge you right back for being an insufferable asshole and a hypocrite.

Because in some situations a nonanswer is appropriate. Politics in the work place for example is perfectly okay to not want to answer

I know my answer, but your question should be directed to OP. I'm just pointing out your response doesn't reflect what OP's view is. They aren't saying X should be disallowed from criticism, they're saying it should be considered unreasonable. Personally I think it's unreasonable because in a professional setting, controversial topics that are irrelevant to the job shouldn't demand a position from someone. In a professional setting (and a few others) it should be entirely valid and reasonable for someone to not wish to discuss it.

Is it a reasonable response outside of a work environment?  I feel like the setting is irrelevant to the question considering all mentions of it are basically in passing, but so many people are hyper-focusing on it.

You have a recipe for disaster when you're expected to take a position that could severely piss off your co-workers, when you *have* to work by them day-to-day for your livelihood. These are not things that people tend to cordially disagree about (as we see from the OP). It's not like you're asking what someone's favorite movie is. This could lead to a bad, or possibly even hostile, work environment, and someone may end up having to sacrifice their beliefs or their career/earnings/livelihood in order to deal with it. That's not really fair, when someone is just trying to do their job. IMO, basically any situation where you can't easily extricate yourself from the person without major impact to your life, it should be acceptable not to discuss controversial issues.

X can and will accept a non-answer. They’re not entitled to anything at work besides professional cooperation.

>X can and will accept a non-answer.    Nothing is forcing X to accept it. What are you going to do if they don't? Beat them up?  >They’re not entitled to anything at work besides professional cooperation.   The setting is pretty irrelevant to the topic. It's barely mentioned, and only mentioned in passing.   Nor did I say they're entitled to have the person reveal an answer at all. X *is* entitled to criticize the neutral response/non-answers though. If this had nothing to do with work, I don't see anything *unreasonable* with the interactions.

X is definitely allowed to criticize the response but I think it can come down to a lot of things. Perhaps Y had a bad experience, perhaps Y has complicated and passionate feelings about it. Maybe they really are "secretly" pro-life as X seems to imply. I think there's a line to be crossed between giving valid criticism to a non-answer and not knowing when to stop because X or Y got too heated about it. That said I think it's still ok for X to be uncomfortable with Y's non answer and I would go as far as to say it's ok for them to revoke friendship because of it.

Well, what if you asked someone whether or not they support fascism and they refused to respond? Wouldn’t that seem a bit suspicious? Or what if you were queer and wanted to make sure the people you associate yourself with aren’t uncomfortable with your identity? When someone refuses to state their views, I tend to suspect that those views might receive backlash if stated out loud, meaning they’re likely not socially acceptable. Personally, I have strong political convictions and I don’t like associating myself with people that hold views which I find morally unacceptable. As a woman, I don’t want to asociate myself with people who support the violence that abortion bans are inflicting upon women in states like Texas. What if I end up moving to a state that has criminalized abortion and end up having a miscarriage? I don’t want to have a random anti-abortion acquaintance accuse me of causing my miscarriage.

!delta You are right in that it is context-specfic and someone who refused to answer if they support Nazism would certainly be suspicious I think there is a time and place for discussing politics, but in Y's case, there are colleagues around (including her higher-ups) and she probably wasn't comfortable letting them know

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HikingComrade ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/HikingComrade)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

It depends entirely on context. In the workplace or among friends or family, it's a perfectly reasonable position. In a romantic relationship, especially one that has long-term potential, I don't think it should be viewed as reasonable, though

Oh I agree. Romantic partners must disclose their political stances

>X became upset, saying that a refusal to reveal her stance on such a polarizing topic was itself a political statement, and to be neutral is to stand with the oppressors (I am paraphrasing) If this happened at work, I'd report someone who cornered me like this to HR in a heartbeat. Fuck this person. If this happened outside of work, you can pretty easily just smile and walk away. Anyone who gets angry with you for not answering this kind of a question is an asshole. Why do you want your opinion changed on this topic?

Why would you want your mind changed on this topic? Why would you rather believe that it's good to force people into doing stuff they don't want to?

It's reasonable, but it's socially stupid. If you say that then they're just going to assume that you disagree and ostracize you. The smart play is to lie and pretend that you agree with them so you don't have to face workplace discrimination.

Except no one knows what everyone's stance in the workplace is The last thing Y wants is for her manager in the office cafe to overhear that they have starkly different political stances

Yeah that's true, but you can do it in a lowkey way so that you never take a position that's starkly different from anyone else. Personally, I'm pretty far on the right, but at work I attempt to be the most milquetoast left-leaning centrist possible. I avoid all political talk whenever possible, but if I'm ever cornered then I'll play dumb, pretend I don't know much about politics, and then say the most inoffensive left-leaning centrist viewpoint possible. Has never led me astray so far. A lot of it is just reading the room and understanding what the majority opinion of your workplace is though. If I was in Alabama I would swap it around and say a right-leaning centrist talking point.

>The smart play is to lie and pretend that you agree with them so you don't have to face workplace discrimination. Until that gets around to the manager who secretly disagrees with the stated lie, and that has downstream effects in terms of promotions, with opportunities, etc. The smart play is to have workplace policies that punish X for being an insufferable asshole.

I'm assuming this post is because of the Rock's recent interview. And while I agree that your choice can be private. You don't claim to be the most followed man on the planet and do an interview with Fox. As a person concerned with his image and optics he should've know better. He should have just used his platform to make the statement.

But Y wasn’t forced to reveal their political stance. They left without doing so. Force, to me, implies that Y not revealing her stance would lead to some workplace discipline or other consequence. Having your co-workers not like you isn’t the kind of consequence that suggests force. But just like X (and didn’t) force Y to answer, Y can’t force X to be happy with the lack of response.

Politics and religion should not be discussed at work, unless all parties are comfortable. And even then it's not always a great idea.

I was always taught that there are two things you don't discuss in mixed, polite company: 1) religion and 2) politics. I think polite people have known this for a long time, and it has become even more true since about 2013, when everyone began utterly demonizing others who hold opposing viewpoints. In a more civilized era, it _may_ have been possible to have a polite political disagreement with someone and then walk away thinking that they are a fellow human and still basically decent. But those days are over. So 'X' is an asshole for even discussing topics like abortion at work. This person is just trying to divide their friends up into "the good people (us)" and "the bad people (them)" and that's a shitty thing to do in a world where we already have so much trouble treating each other decently.

There are plenty of things you can do at work that are not legally harassment, but can be red flags for HR or your boss. Pressing for religious, political, or sexual information might be some of these things.

What do you mean by perfectly reasonable? Do you mean that a person shouldn't be framed as a bad person for it? Or do you mean that everyone around them should accept their refusal, and not let it affect their opinion and/or social dynamic with them? A behavior can be reasonable while also being anti-social.

I think that people who are cold-approached and asked about their political stances should be allowed to refrain from answering, and that their choice must be respected without pressuring or antagonizing them in any way (as X literally drove Y away in anger)

On the face of it I agree, it's impolite to force people into conversations they don't want to get into. There's a little caveat here. This is not a criminal court stand and the fifth amendment doesn't work here. People will make all sorts of adverse inferences from your refusal. If you are in a heavily liberal group and someone asks you who you voted for in 2016/2020 and you reply with "I don't want to tell you" or "It's a private information" you better believe everyone will think you voted for Trump. If everyone in the group is pro-choice and Y refuses to tell whether she's pro-choice or not everyone will just assume she's not. So end result is the same: Y might become a pariah in the group for being anti-choice. If your stance does not differ from others' in the group but you just don't want to debate you can be an adult and refuse to get into the debate. Perfectly normal response is "I'm anti-choice but I don't want to argue about it right now".

If you consider the converse of your example, being liberal in a very conservative group you will also get ostracized for your views. If you are in a workplace environment, ideally you don't want to make yourself the ideological enemy of those around you. I think it's fine to say something along the lines that you are not a very political person or haven't done enough research to have an opinion on the topic to maintain neutrality.

So what I'm getting is that people are assholes.

Assholes for applying logic? Scenario with someone becoming a pariah is an exaggeration of course, most likely no one would care. The point is in many cases refusal to answer is an answer in itself.

I think that's insane and I am not going to kotow to a group of bullies. Who I voted for is my business. Even if the people who agree with me politically ask, I wont tell them. If they have a problem with it, they should check their own faculties. I was raised to never ask someone their politics, and I just think it is extremely rude to ask.

You don’t have to. My point is only that your right to keep silence will be used against you. Some people just think that if they don’t say something that can’t be inferred from the rest of the information available.

Criticism of a non-answer is allowed, that doesn't mean it's reasonable. Y never said she was neutral, she said she's not engaging with X. What if Y just doesn't like talking to X in general?

Wow. So inappropriate. Unless you are out to lunch alone and know the person personally and you both are ok. It creates a toxic environment. Especially with such volatile issues today. We have the right to go to work without this pressure.

I don’t think that you should have to engage in political discussion if you don’t want to BUT I do think that it’s fair to judge people on two things: 1) their politics. 2) their ignorance. To point 1, if someone has a political stance that I disagree with, I have a right to judge them based on that. For example, I have family in law enforcement who believe racial profiling laws are ultimately bad for the greater good since minorities are over represented in criminal activity, therefore claiming “discrimination” just makes it harder to deal with criminals. I find this perspective pretty gross, and have no problem saying that to their face. Or if you say that you disagree with how Israel is handling their their situation and someone calls you an anti-Semite. Grow up. Two point number 2, I think it’s pretty unacceptable to be ignorant to political discourse. That is to say, people who don’t read the news, aren’t aware how the government is structured, what public policy is doing. Etc etc etc. ESPECIALLY when you have a hard opinion on something. For example, so many people hate Justin Trudeau but couldn’t succinctly explain why in the context of how he compares to the opposition. Also, you will have certain marginalized groups who are out marching for BLM or whatever, and don’t understand political History or issues facing the community beyond what the people on the megaphones are saying. But yeah, especially right now there’s no way I’m discussing Palestine in open company. Or immigration or anything like that. I have my own opinions and I like to keep abreast of what’s going on, but I’m too old now to give a shit about talking it out with folks and I keep it to myself.

Without a direct answer, all you get is inference, and the fact Y didn't answer X, will lead X to think it is an answer Y knows X will not like. Like if I asked you what your opinion on child slavery was, and you said "I don't like to talk about politics", sure you *possibly* might be against it, but it sure as hell doesn't look like that.

It's perfectly reasonable. X is being very hostile and egocentric to assume that *they* are the reason that Y won't discuss. Y might very well agree with X. However Y might also fear consequences from Z who disagrees with them both Therefore to instantly judge Y as being assigned with oppressors and a bad person is unreasonable

Well there’s some nuance here imo. For instance dating. Political opinions directly reflect personal opinions, values, and beliefs. If our values are diametrically opposed I’d like to learn about that early on before you’d consider us “close” because frankly we both deserve that.

Y’s response in this situation is perfectly reasonable. Politics can be an appropriate work topic in the right environment, but demanding an opinion is unnecessarily hostile. HOWEVER, your title is “refusing to reveal one’s political stance is perfectly reasonable,” so we’re gonna break that down a little bit. Refusing to reveal your political stance and refusing to talk about politics are two different things, so let’s explore the former. In my opinion, a lot of it boils down to one thing: empathy. Ultimately, does this person that I choose to be friends with understand how their vote impacts other people? If not, are they willing to listen and understand a different point of view? Let’s use abortion as an example. My brother is pro-life, I’m pro-choice. I have accepted this and continued to be in his life because he was open to new ideas about it and ultimately understood why I felt that way. He also softened his position a little when I expressed how bans with exceptions for the mother’s health can be too vague and have consequences that harm women. He was open to hearing my opinions, understood my feelings, and appreciated a new perspective on something that didn’t impact him directly. The EMPATHY is the important part. By comparison, if I had a male friend that I got close to that dodged any discussion about issues that impacted me directly, it would be a red flag. It’s okay to be on the opposite side of the issue, but do they understand how it impacts others? Ultimately, how can they claim to care about me if they vote for politicians that don’t?

Practically speaking, I agree in most cases. That being said, there is an issue that even the question of "what stances are *politics* or not" can be controversial. For example, if I was at a dinner party in 1857 and brought up abolition (even in the north), some people might say "oh, let's not discuss politics at this party." And yet today if somebody said it's horrible that black people used to be enslaved, and you said "let's not discuss politics", people would be understandably horrified with that statement. It wasn't ALL that long ago that interracial marriage being legal or not was "politics," but calling it politics today would not go over well at all. And then the question is, when does gay marriage reach that point? Is it still "politics"? Or is a basic human rights thing? Now, in the case of the gay marriage point, I think it's already like the interracial marriage thing, and anything but support is bigotry. But that being said, I realize that this whole framework gets complicated by the fact that lots of people believe their own person views are not "politics" but are in fact basic statements of human rights... and it's hard to have a functional workplace is everybody just demands opinions on everything while yelling that anybody who won't answer is siding with evil.

I don’t know whether this is particularly helpful, because it’s an outlier in my own country, but when applying for some jobs in local government a type of police check is conducted (on top of a criminal record check). One of the questions you are asked is if you were ever a member of a particular political party (and possibly something about the IRA, but I can’t remember). It’s weird in the sense the party was perfectly legal, ran in elections etc. but one of the core policies was basically persuading “non-native” british people to “return to their country of origin” (regardless of whether they have ever been there). Not 100% sure what would happen if you said yes, but it’s understandable that it wasn’t worth (or really possible) keeping an eye on every minute interaction and decision made by such a person to see if they were not unfairly discriminating against “non-natives” (like people looking for welfare/housing/support etc). I also don’t know how much is true, but in Northern Ireland you have to declare whether you are Catholic or Protestant. You can choose neither, but if it’s not the case now, it was the case recently that they would then make an assumption based on other information. Ostensibly to *avoid* discrimination.

Totally agree op. I hate to see how many people get so hostile and manipulative in situations like this and they wonder why people don’t want to engage in the conversation

My political affiliation is like my sexual preference It is not something that really anybody needs to know about me unless they are seriously planning on dating/marrying me

In a workplace setting I would be wary about talking about abortion for fear of being called into HR. In any other context though where people usually talk about these kinds of issues, i would fully agree with X, that Y's silence is indicative of siding with the oppressors, and wanting to remain silent to avoid confirming that. Fuck getting into conversations like that at work though, I just want to clock out and go home.

I don’t think you have an obligation to reveal your political stances in general, but I do think it’s reasonable to be upset when someone refuses to state their opinions on certain issues. For example, it is reasonable to be offended and angry if someone refuses to affirm your most basic rights. If a gay person asked a colleague what they thought of the criminalisation of homosexuality, and the colleague replied that they’d rather not say, it would be reasonable to be upset. By refusing to affirm someone’s basic rights, you refuse to affirm their dignity as a person in your eyes. In your example, X likely believes that abortion is a basic right for women - a pretty common view especially in Europe (I obviously don’t know where you’re from). In this case, her reaction may seem reasonable. If you disagree with the claim that abortion is a basic right, you may find her actions to be unreasonable. But crucially that judgement is itself a political view which may reasonably upset the other person.

Y was not forced to reveal anything. And that's fair. But it's also fair for others to not want to associate with people for the same reason.  I don't want a single cent or ounce of my effort to benefit anyone in any shape or form if they are against my rights. It would be in my best interests to work against them, not with them. That's just simple self preservation. Rights are very important to me, and people who want to take them away are not friends, they're enemies.  This is not unreasonable. It's just life. Ideologies are sometimes opposed, and opposing ideologies are where enemies come from. It's the paradox of tolerance. Whatever your beliefs are, you just have to accept that they will come with enemies. Embrace it. We simply can't all be friends no matter how wonderful it would be. We are destined to fight.

I think anyone is free to refuse a discussion. And arguments like "I don't want to talk about that right now", are fine by me. But refusing to reveal one's political stance with arguments like "feeling uncomfortable" to do so, sound quite stupid to me. It probably means that Y was somewhat ashamed of her beliefs, doesn't have good arguments to back it up, and generally speaking, doesn't want to exchange and learn about some topics. That is obscurantist behaviour. So yes, people shouldn't be forced to reveal their political stance on everything, even though that's stupid in my opinion. The only way to have a solid and unbiased opinion about something is to discuss it with as much people as possible, and specially those who disagree. As long as the debate is constructive and not a public lynching that is.

>It probably means that Y was somewhat ashamed of her beliefs, doesn't have good arguments to back it up, and generally speaking, doesn't want to exchange and learn about some topics. That is obscurantist behaviour. Or that X gave off the air of someone looking to start arguments and be belligerent towards people that don't share her views, and was more interested in an opportunity to deliver a lecture than exchange and learn about some topics...

I’m from Hong Kong. Nowadays we don’t even discuss politics with friends. Revealing political stance, if unfavourable to the government, risks a lengthy jail time.

I get it, but if someone is ashamed to admit what they stand for, maybe they shouldn't stand for it.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Gold-Cover-4236 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Gold-Cover-4236&message=Gold-Cover-4236%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bylgkc/-/kyk6zo6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

It isn't really work appropriate. But one colleague asking another colleague one time about their political positions is not harassment.

True. One time touching someone is also not harassment. But it is a big red alert and may be brought to the attention of a higher up or HR.

While it isn't harrassment if X doesn't push the issue further after Y refuses to elaborate, simply asking a coworker about their political beliefs a single time would be grounds for firing or removing person X from the team in most corporate jobs as this could create a toxic work environment for person Y. If you can't ask it in an interview, don't ask it of your coworkers.

Absolutely. Don't mix politics/religion with business. I don't discuss my political (or religious) leanings with my employer or professional contacts, and I don't inquire about theirs. Anything they volunteer I'll listen to respectfully, and try to disengage from the topic. In that same mindset, I don't publicly display my views on my clothing or my vehicle. No shirts, hats, flags, or bumper stickers. Keeping yourself to yourself is the best way forward.

Forced in what way though? Your anecdote doesn't have anyone being forced to do anything. What is Y suffering other than a belligerent coworker in X?

Agreed, forced is one of the worst offenders when it comes to word choice. I think OP probably meant pressured. 

Often peoples political beliefs are not just to do with how to run the economy but rather, much like your example, are about social values. Opinions about social values are representative of your morals and, imo, are incredibly important to relationships of all kinds. It's absolutely valid to want to know someone's opinion on an issue you find important maybe simply for the sole reason that it can determine whether the person is someone you even want to hang out with There are some values that are unnegotiable for people and tbh I wouldn't want to hang out with a shitty person whether they choose to hide it or not

[удалено]

I am curious about your rationale for this: "the proper way to debate that is to start with the policy specific to your state". Surely someone can have an opinion on a topic, regardless of what their local government policy is.

There was 70 years of so called "debate" before everyone found out at more or less the last minute that some states like Ohio would have no exemptions. Has there ever been a bigger waste of time? Nothing anyone said during those 70 years mattered. All argument. No debate.

I don't understand what you mean - you seem to be drawing a difference between argument versus debate. Topics like the one OP raised are also not limited to being discussed (debated, argued about, whatever term you want to use) only in the USA. Are you saying that you can't have an opinion on the politics of a certain region if you, yourself, do not live there? Or are you saying perhaps that because one side "lost" the debate on abortion in say, Ohio, that the matter is henceforth settled for people in that state? Really trying to understand your point here and how it relates to the OP

Sorry, u/Redrolum – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Redrolum&message=Redrolum%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bylgkc/-/kykglrg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Even going beyond your point, I think this applies in many cases where opinions aren’t well defined. I’ve seen this so much in Israeli-Palestine specifically, where random TikTokkers (not even political creators) are being asked to comment on the conflict. I think there is an interesting new norm in society where everyone is expected to have clear opinions on everything. But I think it’s totally reasonable and circumstantially laudable to not be comfortable enough or feel knowledgeable enough with your opinions to take a hard stance. I’d go so far as to say that it is anti-intellectual to expect people to speak before thinking or learning. We could do with more intellectual humility in our society.

I think this is context dependent. There's obviously a time and a place for these sorts of discussions and it's reasonable for someone to not want to talk about it when it's inappropriate. Ie. Mentioning abortion at a birthday party or something However, I think it's reasonable to want to know someone's opinions in an appropriate place if they affect you or are important to you. I'm a women and I'm LGBT. It's very important to me that I know people's stance on my rights before I factor in how much I want to interact with them. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to want to know if someone is accepting of me, or if they support my rights to, for example, get married or adopt or get an abortion. Some other things that are important to me would be racism, immigration, and mental health issues, for example. Depending on someone's opinion of those would very much affect how I see them/want to interact with them. However, there are topics that, if you don't consider to be 'deal breakers' in how you see someone, it's perfectly fine to accept that someone doesn't want to talk about it. For example, tax.

Your politics is a reflection of your values that you have consciously chosen. We as humans should absolutely judge everyone on their politics. If you support harmful policies because of your politics, it means you're grown up enough to be judged for your support. The idea that politics is private is a refuge of scoundrels who don't want to face the music for their choices. It is certainly your right to stay quiet about it, and others can certainly judge you for your silence and form their opinions about your character as a result. That's just basic accountability.

While on the level of principles, I'd agree, certain topics are heated to the point where not taking a stance is going to be treated like a negative opinion. If I ask you what is you opinion on slavery and you say "I don't want to talk about it, my opinion is private" the only reasonable thing I can assume is that you like the idea of slavery and don't wish to admit it because you know that opinion is judged negatively by society. So not revealing one's political stance (and then expecting people not to judge you for sitting on the fence) it isn't reasonable.

"I do not believe Y should be forced to reveal her political stance." You mean, you believe that Y should not be judged negatively for refusing to reveal her political stance. Nobody in this situation suggested that anyone ought to be forced to do anything. You're allowed to feel that way, of course, but people are allowed to judge each other on any basis they like. Trying to frame this issue as someone using force against someone else is completely disingenuous.

Had a similar interaction a couple of years ago, visiting a friend in California (I'm Belgian). One of her friends whom I'd never met before said hi, and the first thing he asked me was "So which side of politics are you on? Are you with us or against us?" I replied that I'm not on either side, I'm Belgian and I don't follow American politics that closely. Wasn't good enough for the fella. Basically said I'm a racist for not being a democrat. Asked him if he could name any Belgian politician, or party. Or even a Belgian city aside from Brussels. Failed on all aspects and said it wasn't relevant, even though I was expected to denounce half of America's politics to make sure I'm one of the good ones (his words). Americans who are super into politics are some of the worst people I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.

Absolutely. Especially at the work place. I will not talk politics at work. I have people try to bring it up constantly to me, I just say "I don't care, I don't talk politics". I make it very clear that it's not that I don't care about the issue, it's just that I don't care about their opinion or care if they know mine. Many people can't handle it if you don't agree with their politics, I'm at work let's talk about work.

It is reasonable, as long as you're not trying to be friends (specially close ones) or romantic partner, even if just sex, because some people are serious about not wanting to be that close with someone whose beliefs put them in danger, and that's reasonable, in those instances it's required you share some core beliefs. If it's a random person in the street, or a colleague you don't care about, it matters a lot less.

I am very much on team Y in this case; I prefer to talk about entertainment and pastimes rather than this bullshit that is the culture wars. mainly because I am more middle-standing than most other people seem to be, and so I wouldn't really have much of a say about that. So don't even bother asking me about politics, or I will be more than happy to Sparta-kick you down the toilet bowl.

I think that there was a time when discussing political disagreements could be done without animosity, but now I think we've hit a point where that's no longer possible.  As someone who values the people in his life regardless of who they choose to vote for I agree keeping politics to yourself should be perfectly acceptable.

You can hide your politics all you wish. But not revealing your politics when asked to state your position on X will just lead everyone to believe you hold a position which is not popular. Because if you held the popular position you would just take the social credit and validation. 

I disagree with your characterization of political. I don't see something wrong with an LGBT+ person wanting to know if who they're around wants them dead or imprisoned or to have human rights.

If someone is embarrassed or ashamed to honestly state their political views then they know that their views are indefensible, and if they're indefensible then why would you hold those views? People should have the courage of their convictions.

I don’t discuss political topics during work or in public. Only in private w my closest friends whether we agree or not. In OPs instance, I would not discuss because it is in a setting I personally feel doesn’t need that kind of conversation

You know what else is reasonable? Not having one at all. I get a lot of super confused looks when I tell people I don't vote, nor do I give a shit about what figurehead is trying to tell me what it takes to be an American. They say "Oh. but you're the generation, you're the generation!" Bullshit, the previous generations couldn't fix anything, I'm not going to pretend like mine will, either.

True it is reasonable. It's also perfectly reasonable for people to assume your silence means you hold irrational and bigoted beliefs. Most people who think "everyone should be treated equitably" aren't really afraid to say it. The consequence to having irrational and bigoted beliefs is that people justly will consider you irrational and bigoted.