17 ms·

I think the controversy was not so much about the "not posting about a social cause" but about what she did post, i.e. the pursuit of a vendetta against a journ

I think the controversy was not so much about the "not posting about a social cause" but about what she did post, i.e. the pursuit of a vendetta against a journalist who first exposed her behavior.

aklemm 6y ago
Exactly. The parent to your reply typifies the intellectual dishonesty we’re seeing in the anti-protest efforts. It’s really pathetic.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I am not anti-protest at all and actually support the BLM cause. To be honest I have nothing to gain from taking any side anyway. However, I am very concerned that not posting something can now be seen as a bad thing. It used to be that as long as you don't post "bad" things you'll be fine, now it seems that you have to post certain things (potentially contrary to your interests, opinions or the primary purpose of that particular social media feed) otherwise you'll be labelled as a "bad" person. When does it end? Does not having any significant social media presence on which to post this stuff now also make you a "bad" person?
  - dundarious 6y ago
    She did post a bad thing, and someone made a reference to BLM as a big societal thing someone might post about instead. You could get the same point across with "instead of posting about building her new gaming rig". There isn't even a quotation on the BLM remark.
dundarious 6y ago
Precisely. People are reading a lot into this paragraph: The posts rankled some workers, who found that her decision to write about the media in the midst of her maternity leave, rather than Black Lives Matter or Pride, reflected poorly on the brand. “Why is this the moment she chose to be present and speak up?” they asked. “It’s becoming very clear that it’s because Steph Korey values her own reputation over the wellbeing of the company and her employees.” I read that as someone remarking that, among all the huge societal events happening in the world, Steph took time out of her leave to talk about her own reputation in a way that again alienated the legitimate problems employees had with her previous actions. With this quotation being the kicker, “Her own actions (including deleting the only apology she ever made following The Verge article) prove that she has not learned or grown from the December incident”.
mc32 6y ago
I find it odd that people are irked that she wanted to defend herself against defamation on her own time. Not company time, it was during her leave --as if she owed anyone something? No, it was an opportunistic move by people who felt slighted by her. It was a calculated move that works in this climate. In another era these same people would have accused her of being a communist sympathizer --whatever works.

I think the controversy was not so much about the "not posting about a social cause" but about what she did post, i.e. the pursuit of a vendetta against a journalist who first exposed her behavior.

aklemm 6y ago

Exactly. The parent to your reply typifies the intellectual dishonesty we’re seeing in the anti-protest efforts. It’s really pathetic.

Nextgrid 6y ago
I am not anti-protest at all and actually support the BLM cause. To be honest I have nothing to gain from taking any side anyway. However, I am very concerned that not posting something can now be seen as a bad thing. It used to be that as long as you don't post "bad" things you'll be fine, now it seems that you have to post certain things (potentially contrary to your interests, opinions or the primary purpose of that particular social media feed) otherwise you'll be labelled as a "bad" person. When does it end? Does not having any significant social media presence on which to post this stuff now also make you a "bad" person?
- dundarious 6y ago
  She did post a bad thing, and someone made a reference to BLM as a big societal thing someone might post about instead. You could get the same point across with "instead of posting about building her new gaming rig". There isn't even a quotation on the BLM remark.

dundarious 6y ago

Precisely. People are reading a lot into this paragraph: The posts rankled some workers, who found that her decision to write about the media in the midst of her maternity leave, rather than Black Lives Matter or Pride, reflected poorly on the brand. “Why is this the moment she chose to be present and speak up?” they asked. “It’s becoming very clear that it’s because Steph Korey values her own reputation over the wellbeing of the company and her employees.” I read that as someone remarking that, among all the huge societal events happening in the world, Steph took time out of her leave to talk about her own reputation in a way that again alienated the legitimate problems employees had with her previous actions. With this quotation being the kicker, “Her own actions (including deleting the only apology she ever made following The Verge article) prove that she has not learned or grown from the December incident”.

mc32 6y ago

I find it odd that people are irked that she wanted to defend herself against defamation on her own time. Not company time, it was during her leave --as if she owed anyone something? No, it was an opportunistic move by people who felt slighted by her. It was a calculated move that works in this climate. In another era these same people would have accused her of being a communist sympathizer --whatever works.