17 ms·

One thought: If you see a resume with Coinbase until October 2020, that's probably someone who prefers political activism in the workplace. That might be seen

One thought: If you see a resume with Coinbase until October 2020, that's probably someone who prefers political activism in the workplace. That might be seen in a positive or negative light, depending on your stance. I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes.

Jtsummers 6y ago
That's if people even remember. Which means maybe the next 6-12 months, and after that it'll be forgotten.
sroussey 6y ago
Or it might mean a hostile work environment. Who knows.
paulgb 6y ago
Or they joined during the crypto euphoria era and have been disappointed by the general state of the market, and decided it was a good deal to give them some runway to find something that excites them more.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
Alternatively, if you see a resume with Coinbase through 2020-2021, that person probably prefers the opposite, which may also be seen in a positive or negative light, depending on your stance.
- libria 6y ago
  It signals that a person did not want to be politically active at their workplace enough to lose/quit their job. I think that says nothing of a persons political views and is just self-preservation or even indifference. Hiring would have to make some very tenuous assumptions to consider that a signal.
  - jiuahweruihawi 6y ago
    > I think that says nothing of a persons political views Rubbish - we all know what type of political activism is tearing these companies apart and we all know what political views are the only ones that can be safely expressed.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    Indifference to politics is a political view.
    - dlivingston 6y ago
      No, it is not. Politics apathy is present across all races, all classes, all genders. Those who are politically possessed like to claim that “everything is politics” and that “it’s a privilege to not care about politics”, but every Hispanic and Filipino immigrant I’ve known (which is not a negligible number) care about family, hard work, and stability: not politics.
      - throwaway4715 6y ago
        How does one ensure "stability" without getting involved in politics?
        jimmygrapes 6y ago
        Possibly by observing the actual changes implemented and interpreting them in their own context (i.e. IRS changes tax forms, but all the numbers stay the same when filling it out). Not being convinced that their fundamental right to attempt existence is threatened by imaginary what-ifs.
        username90 6y ago
        Getting involved in politics makes your life more unstable, which is why mostly privileged people engage in it. For example extremely few people from below median homes are politically active in USA, while home owners are among the most active. Ergo people are mostly politically active to defend their privileges and not to fix injustices. I'm not sure how anyone can think that being politically active would make your life more stable. Edit: An example of this is that black people are much less likely to vote than white people. Is this because black people support the status quo while white people want to change things? No, it is because black people don't have the time and energy to spare to vote. And no, this isn't about voting disenfranchisement, black people are less likely to vote even in very blue states.
- sprt 6y ago
  Which, as your parent seems to not realize, is also a political stance. This dichotomy is exactly what MLK refers to in the Letter from a Bermingham Jail (i.e. positive vs negative peace).
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    What does this mean? If this is yet another “if you’re not for us you’re against us” argument (e.g. if you don’t discuss police violence in the workplace then you necessarily support police violence), then this is false on its face. If this means “the decision to not discuss politics—especially politics unrelated to one’s work—at work is itself a political decision” then fine, but what’s the point? Is the idea that it’s a self-inconsistent position? If so, how? One can discuss even the policy not to discuss politics at work without discussing e.g. police violence.
    - Pils 6y ago
      one inconsistency is that Coinbase is based in SF. Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement?
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        > one inconsistency is that Coinbase is based in SF That's not an inconsistency. > Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement? No, of course not.
        Pils 6y ago
        > > Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement? > No, of course not. Awesome. So it follows that you would have no issue then with a coworker stating: "Police activity in SF has negatively impacted my ability to do work". Congratulations, you have a significantly broader definition of acceptable workplace speech than Coinbase.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  And so the sorting into apolitical and leftist companies can begin! It's probably for the best.
  - arawnx 6y ago
    Isn't it interesting that the crowd fighting for liberation & equity are mysteriously up against... the apolitical crowd? When the dichotomy is ethical realism vs. pragmatism, you have to ask yourself who's actually operating like a religion, who's actually a dogmatist in liberator's clothing.
    - booleandilemma 6y ago
      Nah. I’m one of the “apolitical” crowd. I have all sorts of weird, controversial opinions, but I simply leave them at the door and do the job I’m paid to do.
      - tayo42 6y ago
        What if that job conflicts with your opinions or morals?
    - AgentME 6y ago
      Most people don't worry about all aspects of the world's problems, and many people find themselves convinced that the status quo is more comfortable than the alternative. It's not at all surprising to me that a lot of political issues would have a "thought about it, realized the problems, and trying to fix it" position and a "apolitical, don't like thinking about it, don't want to consider changes to the status quo" position that end up butting heads. I don't see how you can go from that to "anyone arguing with 'apolitical' people is following a religion". (Obviously there are bad variants of this scenario like where someone misidentifies a problem or misidentifies the fix, but that doesn't seem necessarily like religious thinking either.)
      - arawnx 6y ago
        This is nonsense. There is no "the alternative;" there are no "apolitical" people. This is a circumstance of organizations, for whom being apolitical is the best way to alienate the fewest people. However, if you do indeed believe you have objective truth in your nonsensical dogmatic worldview, then hypothetically you'd be countered by somebody with a contrary truth. However this does not happen. The only opposition that these dogmatists get is from the new ethical relativists, i.e. people who advocate for apolitical organizations.
- muyuu 6y ago
  Not really. People default to not leaving a job with an impending recession and possibly the worst crisis in a century looming. Taking the package can be seen as a strong stance, not taking it... not really.
awinder 6y ago
I would not go further than associating an October exit date as someone who took a buyout, and anyone with an exit date in the first half of 2021 as a sucker.
dmode 6y ago
Or it may mean that they just took advantage of a severance offered and found another job
RangerScience 6y ago
Any circumstance in which someone is looking at that is a circumstance in which they could also be treating you like a specific individual; aka, if it matters to them, you're there to ask. Ironically / IMHO, the irritant at the center of the pearl that is many of these ('social justice') issues is people treating other people as a member of an imagined group rather than a specific human they can talk to.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Asking specific people about their political views during the hiring process (even general questions like "do you think tech workers should be politically active in the workplace?") is dangerous even if not necessarily illegal. Making hiring decisions based on the applicant's experience and employment history is pretty much best practice.
  - RangerScience 6y ago
    I mean - If it's a problem that they're political or apolitical, then it's already a part of your hiring process. Whether you talk to them (or not) about it doesn't change that - just means you're hiding that part of the process or including them in it.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      > If it's a problem that they're political or apolitical, then it's already a part of your hiring process. Definitely not. Unconscious bias is a huge issue in interviewing. Blinding your interviewers to political orientation, or any other factor, is far more effective than telling them just to ignore it.
      - RangerScience 6y ago
        Hmm. I'd expect directly addressing it - instead of either attempting to ignore it or blinding - to be the most effective. IMO it's not just about hiring, it's also about whether or not they'll succeed once hired, and I would expect any unconscious bias to impact that. Altho TBC I do think you're right that blinding is better than attempting to ignore.
xoxoy 6y ago
a lot of people might have just taken this opportunistically and did not have anything to do with politics. i don’t think you can really read into it.
leetcrew 6y ago
do people really read this much into resumes? I mostly just look to see if they have any relevant experience and/or impressive projects. aside from raising an eyebrow if I see a bunch of short stints at different companies, I don't try to ferret out their life story or political views by carefully analyzing their hire/leave dates.
- dudul 6y ago
  If I see a bunch of short stints, let's say 3 or 4 tenures in a row that didn't make it past 1 year, I would definitely ask for some details during an interview. I have some on my own resume and I don't mind explaining that here the company was acquired, here we ran out of money, here I had to move to be with family, etc etc. It's just normal due diligence for a hiring manager.
djsumdog 6y ago
I dunno. I wonder how many people they lost, not because they were political, but they wanted a break for 4~6 months.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Of course, anyone who were about to quit for any reason would take the offer.
  - aaronax 6y ago
    Anyone with poor morals, I would say.
eli 6y ago
Only a very foolish hiring manager would hold it against someone who left Coinbase. Or someone who stayed on. > I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes. This suggests you speak from a position of privilege. It is easy to implicitly endorse the status quo when it is beneficial to you.
- arawnx 6y ago
  Reddit is here, you seem lost: https://www.reddit.com/ https://www.reddit.com/ In fact, being able to lavishly throw around internal capital and play with people's careers over their political opinions is the position of privilege. Leveraging multimillion dollar firms to hammer Cathedral dogma into people's heads is privilege. Not wanted to berate people/be berated/get in political fights writing Selenium for a crypto startup is not privilege.
shiado 6y ago
Not necessarily. Everybody knows the best way to move up in tech is to switch. Depending upon your options taking this offer and moving to another company where you make more is the best possible path you could take. Throw in the desire right now for people to leave SF and it gets even better.
mtalantikite 6y ago
“I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes.” I can understand this fear, but generally if you choose a stance based on compassion for all beings you’ll be in the right in the long run. This particular issue was sparked by Coinbase not taking a stance on Black Lives Matter, which they are wrong about. Standing for dismantling racism is always correct.
- knaq 6y ago
  Standing for dismantling racism might always be correct, but burning down predominately black neighborhoods doesn't seem to relate to that in a positive way. You can't dismantle racism by causing devastation in the name of black people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Kiro 6y ago
  > but generally if you choose a stance based on compassion for all beings you’ll be in the right in the long run I like capitalism and the free market because I think it's the best system to give most prosperity to a broad spectrum of society. I believe that I take this stance based on compassion but I can assure you that this view is not popular among other people who are in the compassion camp.
  - mtalantikite 6y ago
    You can disagree about the methods to achieve the thing while still agreeing about what the compassionate stance is. We would likely agree that moving people out of poverty is a compassionate thing, even if we disagree about what the best way to do that is. No one is asking Coinbase to take a stance and say that the police must be abolished, or that the way forward for Black liberation is X policy. They were simply asking them to acknowledge that racism exists and Black lives do in fact matter.
- knorker 6y ago
  On the other hand working with crimecurrency is always wrong, so already there we can say that every coinbase employee who stays is evil. > Standing for dismantling racism is always correct. As opposed to standing against it, yes. As opposed to "we're just building a juicer, man", no. Not every group of people "must" take an active stance on every social issue. If they did then they would do nothing but that. This is why I'm hesitant to invest in Silicon Valley stock at the moment. If this trend continues they'll spend 100% of their time "making a stand", and not innovating or trying to fulfil their stated mission. I have a responsibility to keep my own house in order. To make sure I'm not racist, homophobic, etc... I don't have a responsibility to spend my life on a cause you select for me, even if that cause is just. If I were to pick a cause it would be that the central organization for a leading religion is actively harboring and protecting child rapists from international law enforcement. But still I would not, like you, say that every organization that doesn't march under that banner are "wrong about" that. Companies are not "supporting status quo of child rapists" if they don't put up banners on their website. They're just not. That's nonsense. You can't condemn me for not marching with you. That's fascism.
choppaface 6y ago
Technical interviewing is so extremely biased. This sentiment of “Coinbase October resume is activist” is a prime example of where false negatives come from, even when the candidate correctly inverts the binary tree on the whiteboard in C.
ISL 6y ago
As a way of reply to, "I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes." "Well, whatever life is, you’re going to die. So if you’re going to make things better for yourself or for those you care about, you had better become an activist while you’re still alive." -- Will Provine https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=ptb;c=ptb;c=ptpbio;idno=6959004.0007.003;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=ptpbiog https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=ptb;c=ptb;...
- chao- 6y ago
  Viewing activism as a binary—the only choices being "I am an activist" and "I am not an activist"—glosses over a wide spectrum of dispositional diversity that people inhabit. Put differently: There is a difference between advocacy and activism, between holding political opinions and being comfortable with them as a central focus of your life, or as a central characteristic that you wish people to see in you.
- 0-O-0 6y ago
  Becoming an activist is also a path for making things worse for yourself or for those you care about, I'd like to avoid that.
peteretep 6y ago
Dunno, I’m not sure I’ve ever loved a company enough that I wouldn’t take a six month windfall not to leave?

Jtsummers 6y ago

That's if people even remember. Which means maybe the next 6-12 months, and after that it'll be forgotten.

sroussey 6y ago

Or it might mean a hostile work environment. Who knows.

paulgb 6y ago

Or they joined during the crypto euphoria era and have been disappointed by the general state of the market, and decided it was a good deal to give them some runway to find something that excites them more.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

Alternatively, if you see a resume with Coinbase through 2020-2021, that person probably prefers the opposite, which may also be seen in a positive or negative light, depending on your stance.

libria 6y ago
It signals that a person did not want to be politically active at their workplace enough to lose/quit their job. I think that says nothing of a persons political views and is just self-preservation or even indifference. Hiring would have to make some very tenuous assumptions to consider that a signal.
- jiuahweruihawi 6y ago
  > I think that says nothing of a persons political views Rubbish - we all know what type of political activism is tearing these companies apart and we all know what political views are the only ones that can be safely expressed.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Indifference to politics is a political view.
  - dlivingston 6y ago
    No, it is not. Politics apathy is present across all races, all classes, all genders. Those who are politically possessed like to claim that “everything is politics” and that “it’s a privilege to not care about politics”, but every Hispanic and Filipino immigrant I’ve known (which is not a negligible number) care about family, hard work, and stability: not politics.
    - throwaway4715 6y ago
      How does one ensure "stability" without getting involved in politics?
      - jimmygrapes 6y ago
        Possibly by observing the actual changes implemented and interpreting them in their own context (i.e. IRS changes tax forms, but all the numbers stay the same when filling it out). Not being convinced that their fundamental right to attempt existence is threatened by imaginary what-ifs.
      - username90 6y ago
        Getting involved in politics makes your life more unstable, which is why mostly privileged people engage in it. For example extremely few people from below median homes are politically active in USA, while home owners are among the most active. Ergo people are mostly politically active to defend their privileges and not to fix injustices. I'm not sure how anyone can think that being politically active would make your life more stable. Edit: An example of this is that black people are much less likely to vote than white people. Is this because black people support the status quo while white people want to change things? No, it is because black people don't have the time and energy to spare to vote. And no, this isn't about voting disenfranchisement, black people are less likely to vote even in very blue states.
sprt 6y ago
Which, as your parent seems to not realize, is also a political stance. This dichotomy is exactly what MLK refers to in the Letter from a Bermingham Jail (i.e. positive vs negative peace).
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  What does this mean? If this is yet another “if you’re not for us you’re against us” argument (e.g. if you don’t discuss police violence in the workplace then you necessarily support police violence), then this is false on its face. If this means “the decision to not discuss politics—especially politics unrelated to one’s work—at work is itself a political decision” then fine, but what’s the point? Is the idea that it’s a self-inconsistent position? If so, how? One can discuss even the policy not to discuss politics at work without discussing e.g. police violence.
  - Pils 6y ago
    one inconsistency is that Coinbase is based in SF. Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement?
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > one inconsistency is that Coinbase is based in SF That's not an inconsistency. > Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement? No, of course not.
      - Pils 6y ago
        > > Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement? > No, of course not. Awesome. So it follows that you would have no issue then with a coworker stating: "Police activity in SF has negatively impacted my ability to do work". Congratulations, you have a significantly broader definition of acceptable workplace speech than Coinbase.
BurningFrog 6y ago
And so the sorting into apolitical and leftist companies can begin! It's probably for the best.
- arawnx 6y ago
  Isn't it interesting that the crowd fighting for liberation & equity are mysteriously up against... the apolitical crowd? When the dichotomy is ethical realism vs. pragmatism, you have to ask yourself who's actually operating like a religion, who's actually a dogmatist in liberator's clothing.
  - booleandilemma 6y ago
    Nah. I’m one of the “apolitical” crowd. I have all sorts of weird, controversial opinions, but I simply leave them at the door and do the job I’m paid to do.
    - tayo42 6y ago
      What if that job conflicts with your opinions or morals?
  - AgentME 6y ago
    Most people don't worry about all aspects of the world's problems, and many people find themselves convinced that the status quo is more comfortable than the alternative. It's not at all surprising to me that a lot of political issues would have a "thought about it, realized the problems, and trying to fix it" position and a "apolitical, don't like thinking about it, don't want to consider changes to the status quo" position that end up butting heads. I don't see how you can go from that to "anyone arguing with 'apolitical' people is following a religion". (Obviously there are bad variants of this scenario like where someone misidentifies a problem or misidentifies the fix, but that doesn't seem necessarily like religious thinking either.)
    - arawnx 6y ago
      This is nonsense. There is no "the alternative;" there are no "apolitical" people. This is a circumstance of organizations, for whom being apolitical is the best way to alienate the fewest people. However, if you do indeed believe you have objective truth in your nonsensical dogmatic worldview, then hypothetically you'd be countered by somebody with a contrary truth. However this does not happen. The only opposition that these dogmatists get is from the new ethical relativists, i.e. people who advocate for apolitical organizations.
muyuu 6y ago
Not really. People default to not leaving a job with an impending recession and possibly the worst crisis in a century looming. Taking the package can be seen as a strong stance, not taking it... not really.

awinder 6y ago

I would not go further than associating an October exit date as someone who took a buyout, and anyone with an exit date in the first half of 2021 as a sucker.

dmode 6y ago

Or it may mean that they just took advantage of a severance offered and found another job

RangerScience 6y ago

Any circumstance in which someone is looking at that is a circumstance in which they could also be treating you like a specific individual; aka, if it matters to them, you're there to ask. Ironically / IMHO, the irritant at the center of the pearl that is many of these ('social justice') issues is people treating other people as a member of an imagined group rather than a specific human they can talk to.

dmurray 6y ago
Asking specific people about their political views during the hiring process (even general questions like "do you think tech workers should be politically active in the workplace?") is dangerous even if not necessarily illegal. Making hiring decisions based on the applicant's experience and employment history is pretty much best practice.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  I mean - If it's a problem that they're political or apolitical, then it's already a part of your hiring process. Whether you talk to them (or not) about it doesn't change that - just means you're hiding that part of the process or including them in it.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    > If it's a problem that they're political or apolitical, then it's already a part of your hiring process. Definitely not. Unconscious bias is a huge issue in interviewing. Blinding your interviewers to political orientation, or any other factor, is far more effective than telling them just to ignore it.
    - RangerScience 6y ago
      Hmm. I'd expect directly addressing it - instead of either attempting to ignore it or blinding - to be the most effective. IMO it's not just about hiring, it's also about whether or not they'll succeed once hired, and I would expect any unconscious bias to impact that. Altho TBC I do think you're right that blinding is better than attempting to ignore.

xoxoy 6y ago

a lot of people might have just taken this opportunistically and did not have anything to do with politics. i don’t think you can really read into it.

leetcrew 6y ago

do people really read this much into resumes? I mostly just look to see if they have any relevant experience and/or impressive projects. aside from raising an eyebrow if I see a bunch of short stints at different companies, I don't try to ferret out their life story or political views by carefully analyzing their hire/leave dates.

dudul 6y ago
If I see a bunch of short stints, let's say 3 or 4 tenures in a row that didn't make it past 1 year, I would definitely ask for some details during an interview. I have some on my own resume and I don't mind explaining that here the company was acquired, here we ran out of money, here I had to move to be with family, etc etc. It's just normal due diligence for a hiring manager.

djsumdog 6y ago

I dunno. I wonder how many people they lost, not because they were political, but they wanted a break for 4~6 months.

BurningFrog 6y ago
Of course, anyone who were about to quit for any reason would take the offer.
- aaronax 6y ago
  Anyone with poor morals, I would say.

eli 6y ago

Only a very foolish hiring manager would hold it against someone who left Coinbase. Or someone who stayed on. > I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes. This suggests you speak from a position of privilege. It is easy to implicitly endorse the status quo when it is beneficial to you.

arawnx 6y ago
Reddit is here, you seem lost: https://www.reddit.com/ https://www.reddit.com/ In fact, being able to lavishly throw around internal capital and play with people's careers over their political opinions is the position of privilege. Leveraging multimillion dollar firms to hammer Cathedral dogma into people's heads is privilege. Not wanted to berate people/be berated/get in political fights writing Selenium for a crypto startup is not privilege.

shiado 6y ago

Not necessarily. Everybody knows the best way to move up in tech is to switch. Depending upon your options taking this offer and moving to another company where you make more is the best possible path you could take. Throw in the desire right now for people to leave SF and it gets even better.

mtalantikite 6y ago

“I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes.” I can understand this fear, but generally if you choose a stance based on compassion for all beings you’ll be in the right in the long run. This particular issue was sparked by Coinbase not taking a stance on Black Lives Matter, which they are wrong about. Standing for dismantling racism is always correct.

knaq 6y ago
Standing for dismantling racism might always be correct, but burning down predominately black neighborhoods doesn't seem to relate to that in a positive way. You can't dismantle racism by causing devastation in the name of black people.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 6y ago
> but generally if you choose a stance based on compassion for all beings you’ll be in the right in the long run I like capitalism and the free market because I think it's the best system to give most prosperity to a broad spectrum of society. I believe that I take this stance based on compassion but I can assure you that this view is not popular among other people who are in the compassion camp.
- mtalantikite 6y ago
  You can disagree about the methods to achieve the thing while still agreeing about what the compassionate stance is. We would likely agree that moving people out of poverty is a compassionate thing, even if we disagree about what the best way to do that is. No one is asking Coinbase to take a stance and say that the police must be abolished, or that the way forward for Black liberation is X policy. They were simply asking them to acknowledge that racism exists and Black lives do in fact matter.
knorker 6y ago
On the other hand working with crimecurrency is always wrong, so already there we can say that every coinbase employee who stays is evil. > Standing for dismantling racism is always correct. As opposed to standing against it, yes. As opposed to "we're just building a juicer, man", no. Not every group of people "must" take an active stance on every social issue. If they did then they would do nothing but that. This is why I'm hesitant to invest in Silicon Valley stock at the moment. If this trend continues they'll spend 100% of their time "making a stand", and not innovating or trying to fulfil their stated mission. I have a responsibility to keep my own house in order. To make sure I'm not racist, homophobic, etc... I don't have a responsibility to spend my life on a cause you select for me, even if that cause is just. If I were to pick a cause it would be that the central organization for a leading religion is actively harboring and protecting child rapists from international law enforcement. But still I would not, like you, say that every organization that doesn't march under that banner are "wrong about" that. Companies are not "supporting status quo of child rapists" if they don't put up banners on their website. They're just not. That's nonsense. You can't condemn me for not marching with you. That's fascism.

choppaface 6y ago

Technical interviewing is so extremely biased. This sentiment of “Coinbase October resume is activist” is a prime example of where false negatives come from, even when the candidate correctly inverts the binary tree on the whiteboard in C.

ISL 6y ago

As a way of reply to, "I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes." "Well, whatever life is, you’re going to die. So if you’re going to make things better for yourself or for those you care about, you had better become an activist while you’re still alive." -- Will Provine https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=ptb;c=ptb;c=ptpbio;idno=6959004.0007.003;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=ptpbiog https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=ptb;c=ptb;...

chao- 6y ago
Viewing activism as a binary—the only choices being "I am an activist" and "I am not an activist"—glosses over a wide spectrum of dispositional diversity that people inhabit. Put differently: There is a difference between advocacy and activism, between holding political opinions and being comfortable with them as a central focus of your life, or as a central characteristic that you wish people to see in you.
0-O-0 6y ago
Becoming an activist is also a path for making things worse for yourself or for those you care about, I'd like to avoid that.

peteretep 6y ago

Dunno, I’m not sure I’ve ever loved a company enough that I wouldn’t take a six month windfall not to leave?