4 ms·
Many companies regularly work within mainstream political action such as LGTBQ+ rights, data privacy, homelessness, local housing or public works, and children'
by adjkant 6y ago
Many companies regularly work within mainstream political action such as LGTBQ+ rights, data privacy, homelessness, local housing or public works, and children's orgs such as Big Brother Big Sister. While these vary in controversiality, relevancy, and apolitical nature, it's not at all uncommon to see companies working in these areas (and others unlisted). Often companies grow into them along with size and profits, so I don't know if Coinbase historically can be taken as sign of consistency either. What Coinbase did was effectively say "well now that BLM has entered mainstream politics and other companies are taking stances, we no longer feel that the mainstream politics of the industry are agreeable to us."
The George Floyd spark very much "outed" Coinbase here, because it became an issue you couldn't avoid taking a side on. That's just the state of the world and you're right that they couldn't have anticipated it, but they chose to make a clear stance rather than trying to ride the thin line, and they became less diverse for it. I don't know why anyone would be surprised their prior actions match that recent stance.
Again, I'm trying to avoid the philosophical "Should companies be political" debate that's already been hashed, but simply stating how their actions translate in the current landscape.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIf Wired's reporting is accurate (https://www.wired.com/story/turmoil-black-lives-matter-political-speech-coinbase/ https://www.wired.com/story/turmoil-black-lives-matter-polit...), Coinbase did try to ride the line, but a bunch of activists demanded for Armstrong to publicly chant the slogan and eventually went on strike until he did.
- adjkant 6y agoThen they made their choice - their employees believed their company was not supporting them as people and forced the issue. Coinbase then chose its side. Is there anything more to say?
- jlokier 6y agoFrom those actions alone you can't determine if Coinbase rejected George Floyd/BLM, or rejected all kinds of slogan chanting that the CEO was pressured to chant by strikes. It was, after all the first time he was pressured that way.
- adjkant 6y agoI disagree from my interpretation of what we do know. They could have made the case about that specifically if they wanted to, but they decided to deflect with a blanket policy on politics. To say we can't determine anything is silly - we're making best guess judgements, not trying Coinbase in court for murder. I've made this comment elsewhere, but I really would love to know why people are digging in so hard here. Let's just call a spade a spade.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- secondcoming 6y agoThis series explains it all https://youtu.be/p5Wny9TstEM https://youtu.be/p5Wny9TstEM
- commandlinefan 6y ago> you couldn't avoid taking a side on. Pretty sure there’s only one “side” anybody’s actually ever taken there.
- klyrs 6y agoYou can't be saying that the country is completely unified over this issue... what do you mean by this?
- MetalGuru 6y agoHe’s asking specifically about Coinbase. Referencing how “most companies” do things isn’t relevant to his question. And can you explain to me why one is absolutely required to publicly vocalize their stance on the George Floyd issue? How is not wanting to speak on the topic in the workplace equivalent to being racist?
- nerdponx 6y agoSeems like an application of the "white silence is violence" principle. Vox (among others) wrote a piece on it: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21278245/antiracist-racism-race-books-resources-antiracism https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21278245/antiracist-racism-race...
- wolco2 6y agoCan this principle be universally applied?
- nerdponx 6y agoI'm not sure. I think it probably applies in personal life. But is there an imperative to 1) bring it into the workplace, and 2) to fall in line with any specific group and their chosen preferred language/actions? I'm equivocal on both of these. In the case of (1), why should the act of fighting injustice pause by some notion of decorum at work? Where should our priorities and values lie? In the case of (2), many people have good reasons to find the prevailing leftist/progressive rhetoric distasteful. But right now the groups who espouse that rhetoric are also the most active and most effective groups taking action right now. If you aren't with them, who exactly are you with? Or so the rhetoric might go.
- LunaSea 6y agoIf (1) is true, shouldn't companies have the right to fire you due to political reasons / disagreement?
- mancerayder 6y ago>The George Floyd spark very much "outed" Coinbase here, because it became an issue you couldn't avoid taking a side on. You said this so casually. It's an axiomatic truth that everyone has to 'take a stand', implying that you have to call it out, and in a context moreover where not a single person applauded the murder of Floyd. How disingenuous for you to call it a stand, implying that there's a debate. Instead what you mean is, sign up to a calling out of the police. What betrays the problem at hand, why companies cannot feasibly all be political by nature, is that there a zillion possible social causes that one could rationally argue are impossible to call out, from shootings domestically (1100 in my city this year so far), to corporate malfeasance (sweat shops overseas, finance fraud), to foreign policy (bombings of middle eastern countries). If you and I worked together and you stood up and demanded everyone call out the Floyd thing, outed as you call it, you and I would be debating the above points in front of everyone. THAT is why companies should allow for an apolitical space.