I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
decomplecting.org
I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#2What I can never comprehend is how so many people have the time to argue with each other on twitter and such.
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#3This isn't the decline of agency, it's feminism and anti-racism creating agency for oppressed people.
Traditionally, if a woman or ethnic minority is being harassed in their workplace, they are unable to speak out against it for fear of being fired by their bosses. In this sense, capitalist hierarchies (as the author identifies) are used to enforce gender and race hierarchies.
Now that it's become unacceptable to be outwardly racist or sexist, capitalist hierarchies are occasionally used to stop oppressive behavior. This is still rare, and not at all at the level it should be, but this is a positive trend. Just as we as a society decided that public segregation was not acceptable in the 1960s, we as a society are currently in the process of deciding that private bigotry is not acceptable.
What the author is really calling for any conflict between privileged and oppressed people to be limited to exactly those people -- which of course means the privileged person wins.
The author misses exactly the point of liberatory social struggle: to reduce the agency of privileged people, in favor of expanding the agency of oppressed people.
(As an aside, to appeal to class when discussing software engineers is laughable. I'll take the author seriously on this when he starts organizing a union for developers in his workplace.)
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#4What I can never comprehend is how so many people have the time to argue with each other on twitter and such.
What people on twitter can never comprehend is how so many people have the time to argue with each other on HN and such.
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#5This isn't the decline of agency, it's feminism and anti-racism creating agency for oppressed people. Traditionally, if a woman or ethnic minority is being harassed in their workplace, they are unable to speak out against it for fear of being fired by their bosses. In this sense, capitalist hierarchies (as the author identifies) are used to enforce gender and race hierarchies. Now that it's become unacceptable to be…
Agency is not a zero sum game. We don't have to reduce the agency of 'privileged' people. We just have to resist oppressive behavior.
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#6I think the core problem here is we have someone (Shanley) who is allowed to attack people on the basis of their gender, class, profession, etc. [e.g. https://twitter.com/ryan/status/474791621100199936 ]
An example relevant to HN is:
https://twitter.com/shanley/status/474601030986903552
"HN is fucking obsessed with me lol. what is wrong with you little boys? mad cuz i'm cute and would NEVER talk to you or know you exist?"
Yet, this person is still able to get an employer to fire one of their employees for engaging in the same behavior she does.
Is it just me that feels people who attack people on the basis of their gender shouldn't be able to get people fired for doing the same thing?
Edit: I was trying to say the consequences should be equal. I probably should have said the reverse in my question at the end there since it seemed to lead to confusion. [e.g. Both should be fired since consequences should be equal for equally bad behavior]
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#7This isn't the decline of agency, it's feminism and anti-racism creating agency for oppressed people. Traditionally, if a woman or ethnic minority is being harassed in their workplace, they are unable to speak out against it for fear of being fired by their bosses. In this sense, capitalist hierarchies (as the author identifies) are used to enforce gender and race hierarchies. Now that it's become unacceptable to be…
Agency is not a zero sum game. We don't have to reduce the agency of 'privileged' people. We just have to resist oppressive behavior.
Agency seems to be zero-sum to me. If I can command 100s of people who have to do whatever I please, then granting them freedom reduces my freedom.
Giving someone freedom necessarily reduces the freedom of those who previously took advantage of their lack of freedom.
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#8I'm surprised you can get fired in the UK for this. Though, livestream seems to be a US company so maybe he was a contractor.
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#9This isn't the decline of agency, it's feminism and anti-racism creating agency for oppressed people. Traditionally, if a woman or ethnic minority is being harassed in their workplace, they are unable to speak out against it for fear of being fired by their bosses. In this sense, capitalist hierarchies (as the author identifies) are used to enforce gender and race hierarchies. Now that it's become unacceptable to be…
This is arguing the ends justify the means. Allow me to quote a relevant section of the article as to why this is a bad idea.
> Appealing to capital to enforce one’s political agenda (no matter how noble that agenda might be) implicitly places that agenda as reliant upon and subject to capital itself. It’s just plain bad politics.
> ...it sets a terrible precedent. It expands the role of the employer to managing the totality of our lives, rather than limiting that influence to our professional lives. It changes us from professionals into frightened children.
Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency
#10I'm surprised you can get fired in the UK for this. Though, livestream seems to be a US company so maybe he was a contractor.
The person that was let go has a profile that says Contractor:
https://twitter.com/zivcjs
So I'd assume contractor.