[fhcuvuvuc]

It doesn't matter. You can't have these conversations without being censored anymore.

My works HR department got sick of having people use "logic" and "evidence" to argue against their policies. After kicking a few people out the door and generally saying you can't talk about this at work anymore, nobody talks about it.

[nemo]

>use "logic" and "evidence" to argue against their policies.

Many times when folks who tell me they're presenting "logic" and "evidence" in a debate they're personally invested in there's grave flaws in both their logic and evidence presented. The freedom to intellectually debate HR's policies in a company is rightly limited, you can call it "censorship" but endless uninvited earnest debate about policies isn't really wanted or needed in the workplace.

[hfuyf65]

And this is where the resentment came from as well. It was always well understood that HR is not exactly there to help you, but I know I personally snapped at one drone ( and eventually quit ) over those inflexible policies dictated from clouds above.

At the end of the day, you can always choose not to play.

edit: I dont want to name the policy as it may identify the company. It was a particularly idiotic one though.

[Waterluvian]

Thats the company’s choice to make. A workplace isn’t exactly meant to be a town square.

Luckily my workplace was mature enough to decide to leave those topics for the pub and social media so we didn’t have to be told that.

[comte7092]

People who use “logic” and “evidence” usually tend to do so in a manner so out of context and so obstinately, it tends to negative the validity of their points, at least that is my experience.