5 ms·

Clearly, this email was a terrible idea. People have a right to their own politics without it affecting their career. That being said, the statement sounds ter

by Latty 10y ago

Clearly, this email was a terrible idea. People have a right to their own politics without it affecting their career. That being said, the statement sounds terrible when summarised like this. The email was (to my eyes) clearly intended as a message of support to those who felt threatened by Trump's policies. By pairing it with Trump's politics specifically, it is turned into a threat to those who support Trump. Whether the author did this intentionally is pretty irrelevant, he's going to end up threatening those people just as he tried to defend others against being threatened. While he technically didn't say explicitly what the title claims, it's clearly implied (intentionally or not). If instead, the email had decried actual issues that will (in my opinion) come from the Trump presidency, then that would have been reasonable. This is, as always, the hard question of how far we have to tolerate intolerance. Generally we draw the line at a call to action, and supporting a candidate definitely doesn't cross that line.

ant6n 10y ago
> If instead, the email had decried actual issues that will (in my opinion) come from the Trump presidency, then that would have been reasonable. "I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump" While probably not a good idea (especially with Trump supporters having a bit of a chip on their shoulder), the e-mail did make it clear what behavior he's not going to accept at his work place.
- Latty 10y ago
  My view is that plenty of Trump's support is white people who believe they are under attack - there has been a push for some time that every gain for the rights of minorities comes at the cost of the majority. Those people are falling for a racist lie, and telling them 'If you support this candidate, get out.' isn't going to help that, just push them further to feel that lie is true, and entrench their support. Instead, if the email had explained the harm those policies might do to colleagues, and how the company aims to defend those people... maybe views get changed. Honestly, I imagine this email is an angry mistake, intended to provide help to those who will suffer support, however, it ends up being an unintended threat. It's hard to say without a magical detector for intent, but the damage is done.
  - ant6n 10y ago
    On the face of it this is of course reasonable, the problem is the context. You're basically asking people that have been oppressed and are fighting for their rights (often resulting in more vicious oppression), to now come and cuddle what they perceive as their current and former oppressors. Another issue is that the many white males who perceive themselves as under attack respond to it by engaging in even more vicious racism and sexism. Just look at the way they treated Obama who didn't actually do much if anything to threaten white people, he was barely noticeable as black. Maybe people who are fighting for their rights are sick and tired of the racists and sexists, and now having to reach out a hand to them yet again, when they themselves have always refused that.
    - Latty 10y ago
      "Come and cuddle" isn't really the same thing as not firing someone. I agree with your second point - but I don't see how that's solved by firing them - again, it's just going to reinforce the idea that "white men are under attack!". I get what you are saying, but it turns out almost half of the voting population agrees with his ideas, so the fight isn't over. I, too, thought we were past this point, but clearly we are not. It's exhausting, but it's reality. I'm hoping that it's just people believing the lie - hopefully people will realise that denying other's their rights won't magically solve unrelated problems they have. Enabling their victim complex by doing stuff like this definitely won't help.
      - ant6n 10y ago
        > "Come and cuddle" isn't really the same thing as not firing someone. True, but it's not like he was gonna fire Trump voters just for being Trump voters. So not firing them is not enough. They also want to get listened to, and they want the feminists and the "SJW"s to accept that they are oppressed now as well. Which will simply never happen.
        Latty 10y ago
        Well, I don't believe that was his intent, but someone who voted for Trump reading that email, who believes that white men are being persecuted, probably does. Leaving them scared, and entrenching them. It's a huge mistake to phrase it so carelessly as to allow that interpretation.
geofft 10y ago
> People have a right to their own politics without it affecting their career. Do they? Why? What if your politics is supporting the KKK? This isn't a hyperbolic example: when I was very young, my state almost elected a former KKK grand wizard to the governorship. Are people that the KKK wants to get rid of supposed to be supportive of the careers of KKK members? The only way I can see this working is if we treat "politics" as a sort of abstract break-room argument that we can all ignore at the end of the day. And this email is saying that, while that's usually true enough to get by, this particular presidency is an exception. (I don't expect it would have been sent for any other candidate in the primary of any party.) If it weren't possible for politics to have such exceptions time-to-time, it wouldn't be a pursuit that mattered.
- Latty 10y ago
  Sure, but what is the limit? To a lot of people, abortion is directly equivalent to murder. Should it be expected that they say "If you are pro-choice, hand in your resignation?". I don't have a good answer, but just supporting a candidate seems like it should not be enough. The email, in my eyes, was threatening to someone who had voted for Trump, regardless of the policies they support him on. That feels wrong to me. I don't understand how people justified voting for Trump to themselves without holding views I find abhorrent, but I'm not omniscient. At some point you have to say that if almost half of the voting population support someone, their views are at least common enough to take pause. I honestly don't know. Before all this, I'd have agreed with you. I thought that people who would be willing to support such - in my view - horrific policies would be few and far between, and would write them off, but clearly this is more widespread, we have not progressed as far as we thought. Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers and losing staff to reject Trump's politics, but I have to ask if that's effective if this is where we are at. It's all good and well to stand up for your principles, but does it actually result in progress? Defending your employees who might suffer as a result of the policies, 100% - it would be unconscionable not to, but the way the email was set up made it more than that.
  - tzs 10y ago
    > Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers I doubt that it is anywhere near half. GrubHub and similar services are mostly in cities. Clinton tended to do better than Trump in cities. Even in states like Texas and Florida, the major cities mostly went heavily Clinton. In Texas, the counties that Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio went Democrat by 27%, 13%, 39%, and 13% margins, respectively. Fort Worth and Corpus Christi went Republican by 9% and 2% margins, respectively. In Florida, the counties that include Miami, W. Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, and Tallahassee went Democrat by margins of 30%, 15%, 7%, and 25%, respectively. Jacksonville went Republican, by 2%.

by Latty 10y ago

ant6n 10y ago

> If instead, the email had decried actual issues that will (in my opinion) come from the Trump presidency, then that would have been reasonable. "I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump" While probably not a good idea (especially with Trump supporters having a bit of a chip on their shoulder), the e-mail did make it clear what behavior he's not going to accept at his work place.

Latty 10y ago
My view is that plenty of Trump's support is white people who believe they are under attack - there has been a push for some time that every gain for the rights of minorities comes at the cost of the majority. Those people are falling for a racist lie, and telling them 'If you support this candidate, get out.' isn't going to help that, just push them further to feel that lie is true, and entrench their support. Instead, if the email had explained the harm those policies might do to colleagues, and how the company aims to defend those people... maybe views get changed. Honestly, I imagine this email is an angry mistake, intended to provide help to those who will suffer support, however, it ends up being an unintended threat. It's hard to say without a magical detector for intent, but the damage is done.
- ant6n 10y ago
  On the face of it this is of course reasonable, the problem is the context. You're basically asking people that have been oppressed and are fighting for their rights (often resulting in more vicious oppression), to now come and cuddle what they perceive as their current and former oppressors. Another issue is that the many white males who perceive themselves as under attack respond to it by engaging in even more vicious racism and sexism. Just look at the way they treated Obama who didn't actually do much if anything to threaten white people, he was barely noticeable as black. Maybe people who are fighting for their rights are sick and tired of the racists and sexists, and now having to reach out a hand to them yet again, when they themselves have always refused that.
  - Latty 10y ago
    "Come and cuddle" isn't really the same thing as not firing someone. I agree with your second point - but I don't see how that's solved by firing them - again, it's just going to reinforce the idea that "white men are under attack!". I get what you are saying, but it turns out almost half of the voting population agrees with his ideas, so the fight isn't over. I, too, thought we were past this point, but clearly we are not. It's exhausting, but it's reality. I'm hoping that it's just people believing the lie - hopefully people will realise that denying other's their rights won't magically solve unrelated problems they have. Enabling their victim complex by doing stuff like this definitely won't help.
    - ant6n 10y ago
      > "Come and cuddle" isn't really the same thing as not firing someone. True, but it's not like he was gonna fire Trump voters just for being Trump voters. So not firing them is not enough. They also want to get listened to, and they want the feminists and the "SJW"s to accept that they are oppressed now as well. Which will simply never happen.
      - Latty 10y ago
        Well, I don't believe that was his intent, but someone who voted for Trump reading that email, who believes that white men are being persecuted, probably does. Leaving them scared, and entrenching them. It's a huge mistake to phrase it so carelessly as to allow that interpretation.

geofft 10y ago

> People have a right to their own politics without it affecting their career. Do they? Why? What if your politics is supporting the KKK? This isn't a hyperbolic example: when I was very young, my state almost elected a former KKK grand wizard to the governorship. Are people that the KKK wants to get rid of supposed to be supportive of the careers of KKK members? The only way I can see this working is if we treat "politics" as a sort of abstract break-room argument that we can all ignore at the end of the day. And this email is saying that, while that's usually true enough to get by, this particular presidency is an exception. (I don't expect it would have been sent for any other candidate in the primary of any party.) If it weren't possible for politics to have such exceptions time-to-time, it wouldn't be a pursuit that mattered.

Latty 10y ago
Sure, but what is the limit? To a lot of people, abortion is directly equivalent to murder. Should it be expected that they say "If you are pro-choice, hand in your resignation?". I don't have a good answer, but just supporting a candidate seems like it should not be enough. The email, in my eyes, was threatening to someone who had voted for Trump, regardless of the policies they support him on. That feels wrong to me. I don't understand how people justified voting for Trump to themselves without holding views I find abhorrent, but I'm not omniscient. At some point you have to say that if almost half of the voting population support someone, their views are at least common enough to take pause. I honestly don't know. Before all this, I'd have agreed with you. I thought that people who would be willing to support such - in my view - horrific policies would be few and far between, and would write them off, but clearly this is more widespread, we have not progressed as far as we thought. Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers and losing staff to reject Trump's politics, but I have to ask if that's effective if this is where we are at. It's all good and well to stand up for your principles, but does it actually result in progress? Defending your employees who might suffer as a result of the policies, 100% - it would be unconscionable not to, but the way the email was set up made it more than that.
- tzs 10y ago
  > Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers I doubt that it is anywhere near half. GrubHub and similar services are mostly in cities. Clinton tended to do better than Trump in cities. Even in states like Texas and Florida, the major cities mostly went heavily Clinton. In Texas, the counties that Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio went Democrat by 27%, 13%, 39%, and 13% margins, respectively. Fort Worth and Corpus Christi went Republican by 9% and 2% margins, respectively. In Florida, the counties that include Miami, W. Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, and Tallahassee went Democrat by margins of 30%, 15%, 7%, and 25%, respectively. Jacksonville went Republican, by 2%.