Thank you for the upvote and supportive response!

I presume the downvote is from someone who similarly sees this as just a group of like-minded people making jokes.

But this same kind of talk would be considered unacceptable if made about anyone other than a political orientation.

And while you've had a very measured and respectful response, even your response is accompanied with labels of "anti-intellectualism" and "science denialism". I'm sure you don't mean this as a personal attack on me, and I in no way equate it to what my colleagues were saying in my provided example.

But if I have what I believe to be well-reasoned justification and context for my opinion that isn't being represented, being labeled as "anti-intellectual" before I even have my say doesn't feel too good.

The protest my colleagues were joking about, at the time, was about businesses being allowed to open at all, not about mask wearing or distancing. My boss, just weeks after this incident, in a moment of Zoom frustration, lamented that at some point "we just need to accept the risk and open up". His opinion is afforded nuance by his peers, but the "other side" is not.

I could just as well point to polling that showed that liberals significantly overestimate the likelihood of dying from COVID as science denialism. A NY Times article on this subject classified it as such.

I could point to people physically attacking a woman in a sparse park for not wearing a mask while jogging alone as anti-intellectualism.

Or to the woman who went to great expense to set up properly spaced outdoor dining who was prevented from opening her restaurant while a film crew across the street was allowed to host a jam-packed gathering inside tents as a perfectly justified reason for joining such a protest.

How does all this relate?

Because whether my colleagues use bullying language, or more reserved language like "anti-intellectualism", the result is the same - one group is marginalized as lesser and put into a position where attempting to come forward and join the discussion immediately puts them into a box that is seen not as just a difference of opinion with proper reasoning to support it, but instead as something that intrinsically makes them inferior and less abled.

Even though, I suspect, if an actual discussion were allowed to happen, and we could remove many of these labels, we would find ourselves largely to be in agreement on most issues, and could empathize with each other even where we disagree. I highly doubt you condone the crazier examples of the left, and I can assure you I don't agree with many of the fringe ideas on the right.

This leads back to the issue at hand - if political discussion is allowed, in the current climate, then it will quickly lead to bullying and marginalization of whichever group is in the minority. Dressing it up with nicer words doesn't really help - if one side is quickly painted as intellectually inferior without respect for their own life experiences and reasoning, then it will not lead to a productive or respectful work environment.

I'm still not sure banning all political discussion is the answer, but there is clearly something wrong with the way we see each other and talk about each other that has to change before political discussion can return to being as benign in the workplace as it probably should be.