American View: How best to discuss last weekend’s parade and protests at the office

Human Resources16 Jun 2025

As we start the new work week, it’s a near certainty that the main topic of conversation in every American office will be the weekend’s duelling political spectacles. In case y’all missed it – good for you if you escaped the coverage! – two major events occurred this weekend that sucked all the air out of the national conversation. In Washington D.C., our discount-brand tyrant Donald Jong-Il Trump finally got his (H)uge Military Parade™-slash-ego stroke. Throughout the rest of the country, ordinary folks from all walks of life got together to express their opposition to the petulant president’s pathetic pageant and everything it represented.

First, the Big Parade: President Trump seems to idolize authoritarian regimes and had craved spectacles of military might and head-of-state adoration like those common to Russia and North Korea. Despite protests, he finally got his way on Saturday, “coincidentally” holding one on both the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday and his own. The result was … underwhelming. As The Guardian described it, “A young man, asked what he thought of the parade, remarked that he was not impressed. He felt that Trump’s close association with the celebration had politicized it and ‘made a mockery’ of the army, though it wasn’t the army’s fault. More to the point, he added, the event was ‘just kind of … lame.’”

Next, the “No Kings” rallies were far better organised, with Axios claiming over 5 million people attending 2,100 separate events arranged across the country; most of the estimates I’ve read said attendance was a more modest 2million people. There were some incidents; a gunfight is said to have interrupted the march in Salt Lake City while a criminal drove his truck into a crowd in Culpeper, VA. While horrible, those incidents weren’t at all close to the wild (and thoroughly debunked) claims of apocalyptic violence supposedly happening in Los Angeles’s Anti-ICE protests. On the whole, the anti-authoritarian marchers outnumbered the parade watchers by a staggering 200:1 ratio if we accept the lower estimate.

Had this been an ordinary news cycle, each story would’ve received a minute or less on the evening news and then disappeared. Unfortunately, our current political landscape is anything but ordinary. That in mind, many of your American partners, suppliers, and/or co-workers are likely to have strong opinions on these two events that are thoroughly coloured by their group affiliations and political leanings. That means you’re likely to hear about four completely different versions of what happened. Let’s break those down, then discuss what you might say instead.

Wouldn’t you rather be known as the “office peacemaker” than the “former manager doing a dime for ABH?”

Conversation 1: the military parade, from a supporter’s perspective.

Do not say, “The nation was united in unanimous support of our brave fighting men and their terrible ordnance!” That’s jingoistic propaganda thick enough to gag a goat.

Instead, say: “I watched the parade on TV. My favourite part was when the [military thing] showed up.” Everyone can then talk about their favourite piece of military kit without touching on politics. I’d go with the Sherman tanks. Who doesn’t love M4 Shermans?

Conversation 2: the military parade, from a protester’s perspective.

Do not say, “The parade was a pathetic attempt to make a miserable New Yorker oligarch make up for his father’s callous lack of affection.”

While that sounds edgy, it’s guaranteed to start an argument … possibly even a fistfight. Totally not office appropriate.

Instead, say: “The entire world watched and had lots to say about the U.S. Army’s parade this weekend.” While that benign statement is completely true, it … uh … leaves out a few important details. It won’t start a fight, though!

“Do you want MS-13 gang rabbis to burn Omaha to ashes and salt our fields so only communism and soy milk can ever grow here, Kevin!?”

Conversation 3: the anti-authoritarian rallies, from a supporter’s perspective.

Do not say, “Americans have had enough of this criminal president and demand that he and his collaborators be brought to justice!” No matter how gently you phrase this, the conversation will quickly degenerate into a comparison with the 6th January storming of the capitol. No sense dredging up another unresolved argument where people’s minds are firmly made up (evidence be damned).

Instead say: “It’s encouraging to see Americans from all walks of life get together to participate in the democratic process.” Just don’t mention how many of the protesters’ homemade signs mentioned or featured guillotines.

Conversation 4: the anti-authoritarian rallies, from a pro-authoritarian perspective.

Do not say, “All 2,100,000 ‘protestors’ were paid by George Soros and THE JEEEEEEWS!!TM to undermine Western Civilisation and our Judeo-Christian accomplishments by pretending to oppose our God and Savior, Adonis Trump!” Do I even have to say it? Q-anon style epic conspiracy claims are so last decade. Nobody wants to rehash all that nonsense, and you’re likely to start a fistfight.

Instead say: “It was really nice of Public Broadcasting to film the Army parade so people in the rest of the country could enjoy it.” That way no one has to mention attendance discrepancies. As Elmo from Sesame Street taught us, sharing is caring!

To be clear, the little crimson Muppet meant “sharing your toys and treats with friends is good,” not “I reject your fascist arguments; please accept this inflammatory counterargument as my retort!” I mean, yes, giving someone else your Molotov Cocktail is a kind of sharing, but I doubt Elmo would approve. Or maybe he would once he read Voltaire.

The general rule I’ve applied to all these counterexamples is that there’s nothing to be won in deliberately antagonising those co-workers who disagree with your politics (and vice versa). You’re not going to win someone over with a clever quip; the world doesn’t work that way. Keep your comments value-neutral and vague. Give everyone nearby an excuse to exit the conversation early, all while subtly signally to the topic initiator that you would rather swallow a box of nails than join them in a public political punch-up. It’s like slamming a lid down on a flaming skillet: your rhetorical objective is to starve the conversation of oxygen before it can burn anyone.

Even if you’re naturally inclined to bait your co-workers for a laugh, this weekend’s major stories aren’t safe topics to kick around. The economy is taking a marked downturn and tech sector layoffs are back. Now’s not the time to pull a take this job and shove it stunt unless you’re a rocket-fabricating billionaire. Hold your tongue and keep your pay cheques coming.

If that argument isn’t enough to sway you, I’d ask you to have some empathy for all those HR folks who will get stuck filling out reams of paperwork for the police after your bon mot leads to a full-on Mad Max style riot in the cubicle farm. Do they really deserve to lose the rest of their summer to meticulously editing disciplinary paperwork?

All in all, I’d say it’s safer to keep this weekend’s events out of your water cooler chats. The office isn’t the right place to get into heated arguments over politics, politicians, and the seemingly inexorable collapse of the American Experiment. That’s what bars are for!