91–100 of 1001 posts
Consider someone for whom "white supremacy" means "it is right and appropriate to act deliberately to create and preserve white dominance of other races". Versus someone for whom it means "privilege exists in many, though often subtle ways, and advantages white, male, older, cis, het people".
It's a lot like how "defund police" means radically different things.
so they: - Announced a new company policy publicly before telling the staff - Deleted internal threads that would go against their narrative of why they did so - Had a conservative senior employee go off about politics on the call discussing the new no politics policy. - refused to reprimand said employee on the call - had one founder take this extremely sensitive call from his bed with his camera off and on mute. -…
The article really doesn't tell us whether that senior employee just went off on a political tangent for no reason whatsoever, or he was responding to an earlier made political statement that he decided to disagree with.
What the article does suggest is that that contribution by that senior employee was preceded by a discussion of the funny names list that involved the mentioning of the "pyramid of hate". That pyramid is already a political statement and should not, if the company were true to its new policy, have been brought up in the discussion.
so they: - Announced a new company policy publicly before telling the staff - Deleted internal threads that would go against their narrative of why they did so - Had a conservative senior employee go off about politics on the call discussing the new no politics policy. - refused to reprimand said employee on the call - had one founder take this extremely sensitive call from his bed with his camera off and on mute. -…
> Can't believe only 21 employees walked The article said they extended the buyout offer indefinitely, so I wouldn't be surprised if more people leave over the next few weeks. Even if you weren't thinking of leaving, 3-6 months severance would be really hard to turn down, especially if you know you can get another job quickly.
so they: - Announced a new company policy publicly before telling the staff - Deleted internal threads that would go against their narrative of why they did so - Had a conservative senior employee go off about politics on the call discussing the new no politics policy. - refused to reprimand said employee on the call - had one founder take this extremely sensitive call from his bed with his camera off and on mute. -…
> - Announced a new company policy publicly before telling the staff Bad > - Deleted internal threads that would go against their narrative of why they did so I am not sure where you are getting this, but I might have missed it. > - Had a conservative senior employee go off about politics on the call discussing the new no politics policy. Yes, on 90th minute - we are not sure what was said before that. > - refused to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what?
I was struck quite a bit by “I don't believe in a lot of the framing around implicit bias. I think a lot of this is actually racist.” The context it was said in made the statement rather jarring. I am all for their initial stance of "no politics" etc, but their all-hands was a face palm all around.
Definitions are everything. Consider someone for whom "white supremacy" means "it is right and appropriate to act deliberately to create and preserve white dominance of other races". Versus someone for whom it means "privilege exists in many, though often subtle ways, and advantages white, male, older, cis, het people". It's a lot like how "defund police" means radically different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is badly missing the point. I think two very specific things happened here: First, the executives absolutely clamped down hard on a discussion about workplace behavior . I think their attempt to cast this as “political” is deeply cynical; discussing how people behave at work will always be in bounds, even if it touches up against issues that are politicized. The initial trigger here was a discussion abou…
> First, the executives absolutely clamped down hard on a discussion about workplace behavior. The current state of politics bled into this. There is a fair amount already written on it but the insinuation that laughing a names leads to genocide ended up in the picture. It wasn't about what was appropriate or not and then handling it. The discussion went far beyond that. > Second, they did an end run around the emplo…
You might feel the illustration is incendiary, sure, but I think coming down as hard as they did on it to a pretty valid concern of "hey maybe no funny names list" did no favors to those concerned, and subsequently doubling and tripling down on it has really really not helped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is badly missing the point. I think two very specific things happened here: First, the executives absolutely clamped down hard on a discussion about workplace behavior . I think their attempt to cast this as “political” is deeply cynical; discussing how people behave at work will always be in bounds, even if it touches up against issues that are politicized. The initial trigger here was a discussion abou…
> First, the executives absolutely clamped down hard on a discussion about workplace behavior. The current state of politics bled into this. There is a fair amount already written on it but the insinuation that laughing a names leads to genocide ended up in the picture. It wasn't about what was appropriate or not and then handling it. The discussion went far beyond that. > Second, they did an end run around the emplo…
Classic and indisputable example might be Germany in WW2. It wasn’t like citizens woke up and immediately decided that genocide was okay; they slowly were worked into finding it acceptable and palatable as a measure to endorse.
It is only meant to illustrate the classic slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what?
I was struck quite a bit by “I don't believe in a lot of the framing around implicit bias. I think a lot of this is actually racist.” The context it was said in made the statement rather jarring. I am all for their initial stance of "no politics" etc, but their all-hands was a face palm all around.
Employees calling the organization 'White Supremacist' is the thing that should be 'jarring' or at least controversial. There are arguments to be made, sure, but the language is fairly extremist.