171–180 of 699 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. Sometimes being apolitical is just a desire to not get involved and has nothing to do with supporting status quo.
Not getting involved always means at least tacitly supporting the status quo. To think otherwise is just an expression of privilege. There is no being apolitical.
You can see this that the more privileged you are the more likely you are to vote, to petition and engage yourself etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything you do is implicitly political. To say you're non-political is just another political position itself - complicity with the status quo.
Do you by complicity [1] mean the critical social justice concept that all white (or people that believe in classical liberal culture) people are complicit in the maintenance and harms of systemic racism (stopping a perfect equity utopia) and white supremacy (continuation of individualistic western liberalism, instead of collectivist group-based critical social justice)? [1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-complicity/…
Just want to say how ridiculous this is from a European perspective. I know nothing better than for any company to be mission focused. You go to work to do work. And you do so with a degree of neutrality, as you can't pick your colleagues, yet still need to cooperate with them. This doesn't mean you can't say anything at all, it means you shouldn't be overly divisive or confrontational. A company isn't your personal…
As a European living and working in the US: your comparison is very shortsighted. European countries literally have no legal concept of at-will employment. They have strong social nets that make quitting your job much easier, and more prevalent unions that fight to improve working conditions (all of these things are, gasp, political! incidentally) By comparison employment in the US is messed up enough that if you lea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Focus on building a company that generates a return for investors and makes it possible to pay all of the people who work at Coinbase. Anybody who works there and disagrees with what the company is doing can quit and go work somewhere else whenever they please. You need to pull your head out of your belly button. The navel gazing you were taught at university is going to ruin your life and make you perpetually misera…
Nobody disagrees about his basic financial mission! He's a CEO, and that's what CEOs (are supposed to) do. The farce here is in claiming that Coinbase's mission is somehow "apolitical," even beyond the standard (& correct) observation that everything is political: they are explicitly a financial services company with a political message of economic freedom. They are explicitly advocates for an explicitly political fo…
This idea that because everything is touched by politics, you should be free to bring every aspect of politics into any organization is ridiculous.
Coinbase should be involved in the the political discourse surrounding crypto (and other finance-related) legislation. They should not be involved in the discourse surrounding a woman's right to abortion (just an example).
If you think crypto should be banned, you probably shouldn't work at Coinbase. On the other hand, your opinion on abortion should have no bearing on whether you work there. It has nothing to do with their company mission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we're mixing up different political topics here. The one I think you're talking about is the US workers' struggle to defend or increase basic worker rights. Which indeed is a political struggle of workers versus management. If I'm not mistaken, the Coinbase case is about social justice types of topics like feminism, BLM, trans rights, colonialism, the like.
My point is that positions like Brian's require there to be a clear and bright line between "political" and "not political". I think it's at least slightly easier to draw that line in European workplaces where the nature of employment is not as politically fraught. Just to take two of your examples: feminism and trans rights. Both have healthcare implications. Your employer controls your healthcare. Should the health…
People that are so politically activist at work that they dis-proportionally impact the business. By sowing division, distracting from the work, spoiling morale. And sometimes worse, like stealing data or airing dirty laundry publicly.
I'm not going to touch the morality of it, I'm merely painting the picture of what it is.
There's more companies where this is an issue, Google had plenty such incidents, Basecamp, Facebook, the like.
Just want to say how ridiculous this is from a European perspective. I know nothing better than for any company to be mission focused. You go to work to do work. And you do so with a degree of neutrality, as you can't pick your colleagues, yet still need to cooperate with them. This doesn't mean you can't say anything at all, it means you shouldn't be overly divisive or confrontational. A company isn't your personal…
> If you do have something political to say, a grave social justice error in the company's policy for example, you can still be reasonable about it. To mention it respectfully and proportional to the issue, rather than going nuclear. > Any ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, religion and political conviction you can think of and we all get along just fine with zero tensions. This really sounds like you are blaming the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because mercenary motivation is in and of itself a choice. If everyone was motivated by money alone there wouldn’t be non-profits. There is clearly a market for occupations with different incentives.
Sounds like both sides are generally looking for more from the labor arrangement than simply keeping the lights on.
I think the thing that really upsets people is that the company changed course. People who go to work at a HFT firm are probably all motivated by compensation - and would expect that, because it’s baked into the company culture and business model.
People choose to work somewhere based the reward it offers. If that changes, without their consent, it breaks an unwritten contract.