The thing I hate about this line of thinking is the supposed "distractions" of being mission-focused are nearly all related simply to basic rights/dignities for marginalized groups. I don't think anyone is saying companies need to take a strong stance on every political issue, but merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter" or "we as a company welcome and accept our LGBTQ+ employees and don't tolerate anyone who doesn't" are just...basic things you need to do in 2021. They aren't a distraction, I would say not saying them is a distraction.
In all of the discussion around the blog post from Armstrong last year and the similar discussion around Basecamp, I never once saw an example cited of these so-called distractions from being mission-focused that wasn't just affirming the basic dignity of a group of people. I don't understand why doing so should be controversial. Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support the right of Black people to not be killed randomly and of LGBTQ+ people to exist simply doesn't belong in polite, modern society. How is this controversial?
I simply cannot imagine working at a place that doesn't recognize the humanity of their workers. Utterly baffling and heartless mindset.
Basecamp's angry worker faction was demanding the company apologize for contributing to a white supremacist, genocidal culture... because some customer service folks had a funny customer name list that included names from all backgrounds.
That had absolutely nothing to do with basic dignity for marginalized groups. It was simply a grab for power and status. One of many. We who have been watching are very familiar with the game.
The framing of it as merely about basic dignity is deeply disingenuous, but is itself familiar and another part of the game. What about the dignity of customer service workers? Is it upholding their dignity to frivolously condemn them for a mildly immature in-joke that showed no racial bias and harmed no one?
Some of us, you will find, are not so easily played for fools.
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position
> At least a third of the company quit. That is not something that happens over something “deeply disingenuous”.
You leave out that basecamp gave 6 months of salary to each person quitting. I'd assume that most of those would have quit under those conditions even if there wasn't an incident at all. As we can see here at the Coinbase incident where they didn't give a ton of money basically nobody quit, basecamps case would probably look similar.
Half the country voted for Trump. A small percentage of those, but still millions of people, voted for him in part because they believed he was going to save them from a satanic ruling class of pedophiles.
"A lot of people did something" is not a solid reason to respect what they did or why they did it.
The big problem with diversity in corporate settings is that it is often fake. It is not used to help marginalized people. It is used for internal power grabs and for “woke-washing” evil organizations. Like the “I’m a Latina with two moms” CIA ad.
This is a fantastically creative misrepresentation. No one demanded anyone apologize for contributing to a genocidal culture for anything. And yes I know you're referring to the pyramid. It also misses out on plenty of other content too, but that bit was fantastically creative, really.
I was slightly off in my memory, but I went back to some of the original blogs [1] and news reports [2] and there was indeed a specific employee demand that leadership acknowledge the customer list as something to be included in the pyramid of hate, as contributing to a colonial, genocidal culture. That this would require an apology was not explicitly stated, but it goes without saying, since there had already been apologies all around for the lesser offense, the general inappropriateness of the list.
In his blog post, DHH pointed out exactly where the dispute was: "It's still inappropriate for us to be laughing at individually named customers in our company Campfires, but not because there are any racist or colonial overtones to it." [emphasis mine] DHH simply didn't want the list spuriously connected to the serious moral offenses of bigotry and racism, with all the consequences that would open up.
This isn't to deny that a completely different sort of list, in a completely different context, could be validly cited as within the pyramid of hate. And it's fine to bring that up, so long as you note that what happened obviously wasn't that. But the angry employees didn't note that, because it wasn't part of their game. In fact, demanding that leadership frame the list as the sort of thing that contributes to colonialism and genocide, rather than merely being immature and inappropriate in the workplace, was a first step in setting off a moral panic where the instigators would call all the shots. Again, those of us who have been paying attention have seen many examples of this.
Other points of controversy, like the implicit demand that leadership take sides on the existence of white supremacy within the company precisely because an employee denied it was present [3], present even clearer examples of the Kafka-trapping and moral panic-mongering that was unfolding within the company.
Hansson and Fried were smart to nip it in the bud, and nip it in the bud publicly. They set a great example of how to show these people the door.
As an atheist that grew up in a religious environment, the techniques and patterns of religions are recognizable. You may not realize it, but you are introducing religion into the workplace.
A Christian posts on HN: merely saying "we as a company believe thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "we as a company believe you shall not steal" are just...basic things you need to do in 1952.
>you're mixing two entirely unrelated things up in bad faith.
The Leftist's Exit Fallacy: claim the response is in bad faith because you cannot reasonably respond to the core claims, and do not have any retorts to the analogies, metaphors, etc. used.
>Saying people deserve to be able to live isn't the same as introducing extremely "othering" religions.
The fact that I can't tell if you're talking about leftism or Christianity is hilarious, and telling.
>The tactics are the same, the goals are different.
That's literally what he was highlighting here...
>Comparing these is bad faith.
"I have no response to your well thought out arguments, so I'm just going to disregard them entirely because the narrative must be preserved!"
What if a bunch of white male employees ask the company to make s statement that their lives matter too? After all they are overrepresented in suicide statistics, drug addiction and homelessness.
You now this shit will make a lot of leftists lose their mind and show up at ur company offices trying to cancel you out of existence.
In a society going mad like ours, opting out of the madness like Coinbase did is the best option.
"Black lives matter" is a slogan that largely refers to a desire to solve issues related to police brutality and black people. "White lives matter", as it's commonly said and understood, is merely a contrarian pushback against that desire to fix those issues.
Obviously white lives do matter like others, but making a statement of something communicates something other than the literal meaning: it asserts that there's part of the meaning that the receiver isn't demonstrating knowledge of, and it evokes connections to things people have encountered before. If you say "white lives matter", intending it to mean something about suicide statistics, and other people interpret it as racist pushback against solving police brutality, the other people aren't doing something surprising or wrong. You would just be fruitlessly rebelling against how language actually works.
If you want to raise awareness about suicide, go ahead, but don't use a slogan that already has a meaning that will be misinterpreted in your context, and certainly don't do it competitively against people raising awareness for a different issue.
One could argue that the BLM slogan, being intentionally divisive and exclusive, is designed to provoke from day one rather than bring up constructive change. It's a heavily politicized movement. Since Biden was elected for example, the issue of BLM and police brutality is not mediatized nearly as much as before. It's not that the problem was fixed overnight, it's just that there is no use for it right now by the progressive left agenda.
It's not a honest movement. I refuse to support it even if I support the general idea that our police force and judicial system need reform to infuse them with more humanity and empathy.
And given that the two of us, as reasonable people, can have a rational disagreement on this issue, why should our employer take a side? Why bring this discussion in the office? It's not like the issue is so obvious and simple (i.e. all people have equal rights, women should be able to go to school, ...) that it's okay employers take a side. The simple stuff is usually written in the US constitution. And employers don't take stand opposite of it because... it's unconstitutional.
The slogan is only divisive if you make it so. It certainly isn't "intentionally" divisive.
> Since Biden was elected for example
Looking at Google trends, there's basically no correlation between Bidens election and "Black Lives Matter". You're reaching to creating a narrative that doesn't fit the facts.
> even if I support the general idea that our police force and judicial system need reform to infuse them with more humanity and empathy.
Do you support any group or organization that does policeor criminal justice reform?
> It's not like the issue is so obvious and simple (i.e. all people have equal rights, women should be able to go to school, ...) that it's okay employers take a side. The simple stuff is usually written in the US constitution.
The stuff you mentioned doesn't start out in the constitution (and arguably actually still aren't). It only got there due to activism by people and organizations, some of which happened in the workplace. Were they wrong to do so? Concretely, you're making an argument from status quo in a conversation about how we change norms. That misses the point, unless your point is that the norms shouldn't change.
> Do you support any group or organization that does policeor criminal justice reform?
It's not the issue here. I am not even trying to say you are wrong about BLM. My point is it's one of those issues where 2 reasonable people can disagree. And employers shouldn't take sides.
> Concretely, you're making an argument from status quo in a conversation about how we change norms.
Strawman fallacy. My only argument is that work environment shouldn't be politicized. Which in turn allow people with different ideologies to work together effectively in a safe non-toxic environment. If you were my co-worker I would refuse to discuss this issue unless we have a very close bond/friendship outside of work and we are comfortable discussing this kind of stuff.
We can effect change through debates, voting, protests, ...
The chart shows a large spike in June 2020. Then a sharp decline between June and the election. Like the protests. Then a slow decline after the election with small spikes in 2021.
Erm, no. If there were some sort of correlation, looking at that graph you should be able to tell me where on the graph Biden either won the election or took office (Nov 4th or Jan 21st). You can't. What you do see is a wonderful bit of exponential decay from an event that wasn't related to Biden: the death of George Floyd on May 26. That's the vertical line. And then an expected exponential decay.
If you look at https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2020-01-01%202..., for example, Election, Joe Biden, and Trump are all strongly correlated. Heck, Trump and Black Lives Matter are briefly correlated, but Election and Black Lives Matter aren't.
> Strawman fallacy.
No, you literally made an, if we want to get technical, argumentum ad antiquitatem. Pointing that out isn't a fallacy. It's what you did.
> Which in turn allow people with different ideologies to work together effectively in a safe non-toxic environment.
People who disagree with you would claim that often they do not feel the environment is safe and non-toxic. They aren't comfortable with the status quo, hence their attempts to change it. That you are unaware of the toxicity and lack of safety doesn't invalidate their experiences. In fact, its an example of the challenges they have to overcome to achieve the safety and non-toxicity you enjoy and presume.
> My only argument is that work environment shouldn't be politicized.
No, you said, and I quote:
" It's not like the issue is so obvious and simple (i.e. all people have equal rights, women should be able to go to school, ...) that it's okay employers take a side." Your opinion is that employers can clearly take a side sometimes, but only in cases where some norm (the constitution as it is today) dictates. If that's not what you intended, please clarify, but that's precisely the argument you made, and again, it wasn't a strawman for me to point that out.
All of these statements are like when people comment their condolences or congratulations on social media. Yeah, it’s just a gesture, but the gesture is appreciated. And like a condolence, I don’t think it’s weird if a company doesn’t say anything, but I would find it weird if a person was really proud of how they didn’t give condolences or congratulations.
> I would find it weird if a person was really proud of how they didn’t give condolences or congratulations
I am proud I have never written RIP Celebrity on twitter when a celebrity died or sent my congratulations to a Kardashian on the occasion of the brith of their child. When I have offered condolences or congratulations it has been exclusively in person or in a non public broadcast message.
I guess that makes me weird, but personally I find posting that sort of shit on social media decidedly odd.
> I now try to avoid using the English idiom "I just don't understand how..." to express indignation. If I genuinely don't understand how, then my model is being surprised by the facts, and I should discard it and find a better model.
I just don't understand what kind of person expects their idioms and mental models to have a literal 1:1 match. If I wanted to say exactly what I'm thinking, I wouldn't be reaching for idioms.
>I never once saw an example cited of these so-called distractions from being mission-focused that wasn't just affirming the basic dignity of a group of people.
You are free to affirm whatever you want, and have all sort of discussions about society at large when your aren't being paid for your time by someone else to do a job that has nothing to do with affirming groups of people.
>I simply cannot imagine working at a place that doesn't recognize the humanity of their workers. Utterly baffling and heartless mindset.
Its baffling to me that so many people feel entitled to espouse their social and cultural beliefs in the workplace instead of doing the job they are being paid to do. The way a workplace recognizes the humanity of their workers is by offering good wages, good hours and a generous benefits package.
You are free to work at companies where you can impose your political views on those arounds you. However people who don't want to work with you are free to go work for companies that doesn't let people like you do that, like Coinbase.
but that's thing...what is "social activism" here? I don't think having a single tweet or post from your company's account saying "happy Pride month, we love our LGBTQ+ Coinbasers" is activism really....it's just like, a nice thing to do. No one is saying Coinbase or any company should pay their employees to go make phone calls for Bernie Sanders' campaign on the clock. It seems like people are inventing some kind of strawman of "paid activism" that no one is asking for.
I don't know, more people celebrate Christmas compared to Pride month, but saying "Merry Christmas" can be seen as controversial. It's hard to imagine that "happy Pride month" is completly neutral.
> If you say “Merry Christmas” to someone who celebrates Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or nothing at all, you could make them feel marginalized: like their own beliefs aren’t valued or respected by society. And that’s not a good way to feel around the holidays.
I'm not sure if that fits "examples of people complaining about it" however, as it's more "people trying to protect the feeling of marginalized groups", which isn't the same.
> On the other hand, people don't greet me with "happy pride" during June, but they do greet me with "merry Christmas" during December, so perhaps there's a false equivalency there too.
That's fair. Pride month is not a thing where I live, so it's hard to know exactly how people experience it. I was under the impression that it was really important and lots of people talked about it, but maybe it depends on where you live, or maybe it was a warped vision of reality.
Though to go back to the original subject, if people don't greet you with "happy Pride" during June, then wishing it would be definitely not neutral.
How about we stick to "a company can do everything it wants as long as it is legal and people are free to go work at whichever company they want"? Why is that controversial? If you want to effect social change become a politician, do not try to turn your work place into a political party that has to react to every social fashion.
The problem with the argument that this is making a workplace a political party is what the fuck are you supposed to do if you’re transitioning at work? Now you’re fucking political, and all you want is for your boss to call you she/her and your health insurance to cover your hormones.
Lets say that coinbase said "We are fully political at work, we expect all of you to have conservative views!". Would that make you happier than their current apolitical stance?
> What do you do in an apolitical workplace and you’re going to engage in controversial medical intervention to align your body with your believed gender?
You just do it? In an apolitical workspace that isn't a political act, what you do in your free time is up to you. And if you change your legal name people should update how they call you. Nothing of that is political. If people make a fuzz they are dragging politics in the workspace and should be reprimanded.
> I think this is a straw man that doesn’t actually address my question.
It isn't a strawman, I am just explaining how politics at work wouldn't solve your problem. However an apolitical workspace actually would solve your problem since it bars conservative politics as well.
The way you picture politics as a wholly separate thing unrelated to the amount of consideration/kindness toward LGBT people or minorities is alien to me.
Twenty+ years ago, being visibly gay in a workplace was much less popular, to the point that many people made the choice between hiding that about themselves or facing a more hostile workplace. Things are very different today in many places. Did society just get overall kinder, or did it go through a political change?
In the past, asserting a visibly gay person warranted more consideration and kindness was definitely "political". Was there some point it wholly stopped being so?
That’s what I don’t understand, because my understanding is that being conservative or progressive when it comes to trans people is no middle ground. Choosing to go with a trans persons new name and pronouns when they are early or mid transition is a political choice. There are laws passed explicitly around their bathrooms for example.
> Choosing to go with a trans persons new name and pronouns when they are early or mid transition is a political choice
No, it is just a kind gesture. It is like people not telling an overweight person they are fat, it is the normal thing to do. And if you go around calling people fat then in any healthy workplace they will call you in for a talk and tell you to stop being so rude.
The problem here is that you make this about politics and not about just common decency. If it is about politics then it makes sense for conservatives to reject your wish, you wont change them from being conservatives. But if you make it about common decency instead then they almost surely comply since most people are nice. Maybe not the first time you ask but after a few times almost everyone will, because they will see themselves as assholes if they don't.
> Choosing to go with a trans persons new name and pronouns when they are early or mid transition is a political choice.
It's not, at least not for me. I think what people do with their bodies is not my business. I think that if people want to be called a certain way, I'm fine with it. All I'm asking is a bit of forgiveness in case I make a mistake, as I'm bad with names. But most of the time it will be not remembering someone's name, not using the one they would prefer me not to use. I don't consider any of this political. My grandmother doesn't like her name, so everyone calls her by her nickname. I was a bit surprised when I saw her full name when I was young, but that's about it. I don't see any difference with trans people. Sure, the stuff behind is very different, the "why" is not the same. But that's not really my business. I think accomodating people, up to a certain degree, shouldn't come with conditions about the "why".
I think people tend to forget that it's normal to accommodate to some degree people that you work with. I have two vegetarian colleagues, so if I bring some food to work, I make something that they can eat. I would try the same if someone was vegan or allergic to nuts. I don't know why they are vegetarian, and I don't need to know why to respect them and try to accommodate them. On the other hand, they've never lectured me about what I eat.
The sibling comment about being overweight is also very true. I am overweight. I've never had any comments about it in the workplace. At my last job, all of my colleagues were very physically active. Sure, sometimes I felt a bit left out, but that's on me. They never made me feel uncomfortable about my weight. I was allowed to exist as a person, and not a fat person. That personally means a lot to me.
I don't have any good answers for the bathrooms. Individual unisex bathrooms would solve that, but not all offices are equipped with that, and adding them may not be possible. You're right that here, it may be a bit harder to accommodate them, depending on who you are. On the other hand, I'm fine with unisex bathrooms, as I'm not comfortable with urinals.
I realize that it's not everyone's cup of tea, and that some people will prefer a workplace where everyone is strongly aligned with them on almost everything. That's fine too.
All of that may be just an expression of privilege/luck/something, as I realize that not all workplaces are like mine. But these places do exists. I'm trying to raise awareness about them, in hope that some people will go look for them, instead of being abused by employers and colleagues that don't deserve them.
I don't think we should optimise workplaces for the smallest possible edge cases.
If you joined a bigoted company as a queer person and transitioned then you have to change your job, the same way if you join NPR and suddenly realise after spending too much time online that you are in fact right wing.
Work is a place where people go to earn money to do stuff they want after. It's not a place to get validation.
That doesn’t answer my question of what happens if someone transitions in a workplace. How do you do that non-politically? Dismissing the edge cases of marginalized people is kind of like… of course they’re edge cases. Marginalized people are edge cases by definition.
> That doesn’t answer my question of what happens if someone transitions in a workplace. How do you do that non-politically?
It is simple, you transition, you tell people you want to go by the other name now. If people say it wrong you remind them but don't get angry. If they harass it for it there are laws against harassment, bringing up harassment isn't political. You can discuss the medical benefits with your manager or HR, but don't have to try to make a political campaign about it.
If people makes a fuzz over those things then they are political and you can report them to whoever is in charge that they are bringing politics to work and causing problems. If they truly are against politics at work they will take your side and tell those people to stop.
What do you do if your peer reports you as political because asking people to go by your new name is a political demand? I’m genuinely asking, because I’m under the impression that even asking people to respect your pronouns can be too political, or trying to use a bathroom you think matches your gender.
If you legally changed your name then it isn't an political act.
> I’m genuinely asking, because I’m under the impression that even asking people to respect your pronouns can be too political
That is just your assumption here. Why are you assuming that? It is almost as if you assume "apolitical" means "conservative". That isn't true, even if the left tries to tell you that all "apolitical" people are really closet conservatives that isn't really the case.
I’m assuming that because there are laws in several places in the country about whether or not trans people can use certain bathrooms, so I’m assuming it’s a political thing.
I think my assumptions are different than you. I’ve met people, co workers, who have told me that a trans person asking to be described as a new name is political, and forcing the co worker to call them by a new name is forcing politics in the workplace. This is my understanding of what an apolitical workplace means. Am I wrong? I’ve generally avoided workplaces that claim to be apolitical explicitly because the people I know who claim to be apolitical actually claim that they’d never respect a trans persons new name, because that’s bringing politics into the workplace.
Then your problem isn't with apolitical workplaces, but with conservative workplaces.
Also, a few people saying that trans stuff is political doesn't mean that those views are the general consensus or that apolitical workplaces works with that. I haven't seen that and almost everywhere I've been doesn't really do politics at work. Trans people are just people etc, nobody cares.
I don't know. How do you tell an apolitical workspace from a progressive workspace if the progressive workspace claims it's apolitical?
But until we see that coinbase harasses trans people who work there I'll assume they are apolitical as they say and not conservative. If you have evidence that they did harass trans people as you fear then you can bring them up and we can see that coinbase isn't really apolitical, but until then you are just creating a problem out of nothing.
Plenty of companies have policies against politics at work, but I've never heard of a real expample where that caused issues with trans people. Instead people just bring up thought examples. I don't doubt it might have ever happened, but I don't think it is nearly as common or problematic as people try to make it out to be.
I can assure you that most people would not bat an eye they were asked to use a different pronoun. The problem starts when they are 1) forced to do so b) suddenly have to "disclose" their own pronouns, and you end up on a zoom call with he/hims she/hers and one they/them.
The problem is not that some people want to stop being marginalised, the problem is that the aim is to marginalise a normal person.
If they are rude then you can bring it up with your manager about them being rude. Companies usually doesn't accept rude behaviour or bullying. If they are fine with rude behaviour and bullying then you will have problems regardless of the political stance of the company.
There is no law that makes people call other people by their given names too. Or law that makes people call priests "father". I don't understand how that can be so hard to fathom.
> There is no law that makes people call other people by their given names too.
Actually this would likely fall under some form of workplace harassment issue, and the company would have a duty to stop the harassment. ("Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs", and it's kind of hard to imagine how calling someone a name that isn't theirs isn't a form of mockery or name calling.)
> or trying to use a bathroom you think matches your gender
If you get in trouble for being in the wrong bathroom at work, you need to go find a company that isn’t full of children. Nobody has time to care where you pee
>It's baffling to me that people believe I should turn off my brain when I'm at work.
You should choose a place of employment that lets you behave as you feel you need to behave, not expect that you as the employee are the one who decides on the standards of behavior.
Then don't work for someone who you don't consider sufficiently woke! Nobody is being forced to work at Coinbase. If you don't like the idea that you are hired to do a job instead of running a social justice campaign, then don't take that job, work somewhere else! The sense of entitlement is absolutely astounding.
> The thing I hate about this line of thinking is the supposed "distractions" of being mission-focused are nearly all related simply to basic rights/dignities for marginalized groups. I don't think anyone is saying companies need to take a strong stance on every political issue, but merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter" or "we as a company welcome and accept our LGBTQ+ employees and don't tolerate anyone who doesn't" are just...basic things you need to do in 2021. They aren't a distraction, I would say not saying them is a distraction.
The context is people asking the Coinbase CEO to make a statement about BLM. You can read about it here:
This is the start of the first paragraph of that article:
> IN EARLY JUNE, a week after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, employees at Coinbase gathered, virtually, for an emotional meeting. In the previous few days, mirroring workplaces elsewhere, the company’s Slack channels had been filled with comments about the nationwide protests and demands for more support for Black employees. In the background hovered a specific question: Would Coinbase and its CEO, Brian Armstrong, make a public statement about Black Lives Matter and the racial justice movement, as so many Silicon Valley companies had?
I think it's fair to say here that the root comment changed the goalposts from "make a public statement about Black Lives Matter and the racial justice movement" to "merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter"". Which, in that case, would fit my characterisation of that comment as a motte-and-bailey fallacy.
I appreciate your intent in keeping the discussion on topic, however in that case I think I was on topic.
There is a difference between people/companies that believe that lives of black people matter and those that claim that BLACKLIVESMATTER. There is a difference between people/companies that believe that women need to have the same rights as men and those that claim to be feminists. There is a difference between people/companies that believe that gays/lesbians are normal people and those who put rainbows everywhere.
> There is a difference between people/companies that believe that lives of black people matter and those that claim that BLACKLIVESMATTER.
FWIW, in this case, that "difference" might be that Coinbase was simultaneously treating their black employees poorly--dare I say, as "second class citizens"--while actively refusing to take a few seconds to agree with something as banal/obvious as "black lives matter". The BLM statement struggle was merely a catalyst for what were already existing and somewhat long-standing racial tensions brewing inside the company that had led people to feel that, with its actions, the company did not in fact care about its black employees... context you can't just pretend didn't exist going into Brian's "let's not talk about this and everyone go back to work" post.
> The tensions at Coinbase came to a head in June, after the police killing of George Floyd. As many tech leaders publicly voiced support for Black Lives Matter protests, Black employees at Coinbase said on the Slack messaging platform that they were hurt by the silence of Mr. Armstrong and other executives about the matter. They organized a meeting where several of them told executives, often through tears, about their difficult experiences at the company, eight people who attended said.
Take careful note: this wasn't "merely" "our difficult experiences in the world", this was "our difficult experiences at the company". Seriously: too much of this comment thread seems to be hyperfocused on BLM statements--as I guess y'all really think taking a few minutes and a couple sentences to acknowledge that in solidarity somewhere is somehow a horrible distraction--while ignoring that this had started in the background of "Coinbase is mistreating its black employees so much that it had already lost 3/4s of them" (and that's before Brian's post, so a lack of strong improvement since then is telling). This is way more concrete than these abstractions.
> But according to 23 current and former Coinbase employees, five of whom spoke on the record, as well as internal documents and recordings of conversations, the start-up has long struggled with its management of Black employees.
> “It was the first time I realized what racism felt like in the modern world,” said Layllen Sawyerr, a compliance analyst who is Black. “I felt like I was being bullied every day at work.” She said she filed a discrimination complaint with Coinbase’s legal department before quitting in 2018.
If you tell people they're victims, they'll act like victims. Not acknowledging George Floyd "hurts" black employees? This is the kind of nonsense born of priviledge.
Anybody from the 3rd world reading this garbage feels sick. 20 year olds making 6 figures to build craigslist for crypto crying because their boss won't acknowledge an event.
>Nah, that's what the far right propaganda machine has tried to tell you.
Nah, that's what facts and being a data driven adult have told us. Apparently they line up with the far-right. Looks like reality had a right bias.
>You're told to believe that Group X is bad, and when you find that you actually believe in the core tenet of Group X, you have trouble reconciling that.
Except Group X is bad, and sharing common beliefs is immaterial. Hitler/Nazis believed smoking was bad for you and excessive drinking was a blight on society. I agree with them on that, but there's obviously no issues reconciling the fact that they were bad.
>You want black lives matter supporters who don't actually fight for change.
If they wanted that, they'd be OK with all the neurotic performative virtue signaling at work LOL!
>In short, you love the status quo, and you're scared that giving marginalised groups a better shake might take away some of what you have.
In short, you believe "you're either with us, or against us." Facts, nuance, and logically considering problems are systemic White supremacy culture in your eyes.
>you're scared that giving marginalised groups a better shake might take away some of what you have.
He supports egalitarianism which definitely helps marginalized groups along with everyone else. You're supporting institutional racism.
'Acknowledging discrimination in our industry is distracting, so to stop being distracted I'm going to focus on writing on how un-distracted we are because we're _mission focused._ I'm going to do this several times.'
I can't be the only person feeling a sense of irony, here. A big argument you see a lot is that people who raise concerns around equitable treatment only do it for clout, the ever popular 'virtue signaling' phrase. Is this not, to some extent or another, similar behavior but for a different audience?
Virtual signal* for thee but not for me? Is this something we've discussed yet?
* I've never been a fan of this term, anyway. Even if someone were 100%, consciously and purposefully 'virtue signaling', it has little baring on the validity of their argument.
What you've said makes no sense. Coinbase offered a bunch of employees the change to quit gracefully with an exit package rather than fire them. That's not virtue signaling, that's material reality.
> merely saying "we as a company [...] don't tolerate anyone who doesn't [share our political stance]" are just... basic things you need to do in 2021
> Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support [our political stance] simply does not belong in polite, modern society
That's extremely divisive and intolerant. Also, it's a cheap rhetorical trick to replace [political stance] with "doesn't want black people to be indiscriminately murdered". Literally no-one is arguing that black people should be indiscriminately murdered. Some people just want to do work at their workplace instead of engaging zealots in political debates that might lead to being cancelled at book burnings. That doesn't mean they want to genocide black people. You should learn to tolerate people who have political opinions different from yours.
This is such obnoxious virtue signalling. Do you issue statements decrying the 30 people murdered in a car explosion in Djibouti on a daily basis? Who decide which new social issue you're supposed to care about?
It's distracting, propagandist and politically charged bullshit. Just because I don't support BLM doesn't mean I don't have a problem with black people randomly being killed.
It's the exact same bullshit as shoving "support our troops or else you hate freedom" down people's throats.
It's disingenuous to pretend like "black lives matter" is merely a phrase that any decent person should agree to without question. BLM is a political group with a radical left-leaning agenda that encompasses much more than just "don't kill black people randomly" as you suggest. Discussing these things in the workplace inevitably leads to the accusation that if you don't support BLM, you must not think black lives matter. It's a very cheap tactic, akin to saying that you're not a patriot if you don't support the PATRIOT act.
This is a caricature of the “mission-focused” mindset. I’ll preface this message by saying that I am brown, raised in relative poverty in the third world, and left of center on most issues. I’ll also say that I have materially contributed a substantial portion of my income helping educate poor brown kids, which most of my preachy white colleagues haven’t and won’t.
The discourse at work in SV tech is not about, “hey, let’s not hang homosexuals”, which I am sure 99.99% of employees and employers fully agree with. It’s typically more in the vein of, “hey, why did we hire person Z, who the media has proven to be a bigot”.
As an explicit example:
Antonio Garcia Martinez’s firing was, IMO, bizarre and unwarranted and a manifestation of this attitude (coming from a company that is okay with using Uyghur labor).
I actually do not want my colleagues to have a very narrow view of what’s right and wrong — or a very black and white view of the world. And surely, I don’t want to expend cycles at work having such conversations.
This sounds like "other people have it much worse in the world, suck it up or help them instead of trying to do things you think will improve things in your own life".
In all of the discussion around the blog post from Armstrong last year and the similar discussion around Basecamp, I never once saw an example cited of these so-called distractions from being mission-focused that wasn't just affirming the basic dignity of a group of people. I don't understand why doing so should be controversial. Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support the right of Black people to not be killed randomly and of LGBTQ+ people to exist simply doesn't belong in polite, modern society. How is this controversial?
I simply cannot imagine working at a place that doesn't recognize the humanity of their workers. Utterly baffling and heartless mindset.