4 ms·

> where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy Wouldn't someone talking to someone "lower" on the "

by cronix 6y ago

> where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy Wouldn't someone talking to someone "lower" on the "oppression hierarchy" just be what we basically have today? That sounds like "privilege," or an "imbalanced power dynamic." I think you'll only be able to talk to equals, whatever that is, and by whatever metric is en vogue for that day.

lazide 6y ago
People don’t talk candidly most of the time now to those lower on the hierarchy. In many Corp environments, almost no one talks candidly to anyone - too many minefields. You’d generally only talk candidly to those who were not just peers, but you already had a deep seated existing rapport with and trust. Friends? Everyone else gets the politically safe story that is supposed to be told. I’ve seen it in action, and it makes me sad because it becomes fundamentally corrosive. And if you think for some people that doesn’t include the right kind of outrage discussion or telling the right stories to the visible oppressed minority they’re mentoring so they can get the right checkbox when they hopefully get considered for SVP (or as plan B, their mentee does) - I’ve also got a bridge to sell you.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ZitchDog 6y ago
I believe when OP says "lower on the oppression hierarchy" they mean we only talk candidly with those who are as oppressed as us or less. i.e. someone higher on the oppression hierarchy would be more oppressed.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  yes, i have been perceiving same as he sayed. my thinking is that this is a bad thing for persons who are having less advantages: if white manager can give forthright feedback to only white persons this is actual bad for black one and maybe will harm the black one more than it help. this is likewise if most in office are feeling less cameraderie with a black for that they are not able speaking so openly and believe they are having to guard tongues. i wonder about these un-intended consecuences.
  - ambicapter 6y ago
    That is the gist of the article linked up top, yes.
retrac 6y ago
I do some work with HIV prevention. Sometimes I give talks where I'm very blunt about the realities of HIV among men who have sex with men. I've watched people immediately shift from mild hostility and discomfort to wholehearted acceptance of what I am saying, when I tell them I'm gay myself. In that circumstance, I think it is clear that my sexual orientation is the basis by which they are judging the authoritativeness I have to speak on the topic. Never mind the formal qualifications, or the logic or veracity of what I am actually saying. Like, I know we all have little unconscious checklists like that for judging whether someone is credible, but it is uncomfortable to see the effect live.
- duckfang 6y ago
  As a bisexual male, I think a good part of disdain about connecting HIV and gay goes to the older naming of the disease: GRID. gay-related immune deficiency It also dates me, but I had a blood transfusion in 1982. At that time, it was a Russian Roulette if I ended up with HIV blood or not. I didn't. Had I been innfected, I would have ended up like Ryan White.
  - randallsquared 6y ago
    Even knowing the term GRID dates you. :) Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#1981%E2%80%931982:_From_GRID_to_AIDS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#1981%E2%80... , the "GRID" moniker was only used for under two years, forty years ago. I think it's unlikely that the name is to blame.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - benatkin 6y ago
      I was born in 1982 and I knew about it. I don't think it's unlikely. It was early in the chain of events, so even if it was six months it could have had a big impact.
- DenisM 6y ago
tsm_sf 6y ago
The subtext of this entire conversation is that you'll never be able to talk "freely" in front of subordinates, so you need to either pine for yesteryear or take another look at your power dynamics.

by cronix 6y ago

lazide 6y ago

People don’t talk candidly most of the time now to those lower on the hierarchy. In many Corp environments, almost no one talks candidly to anyone - too many minefields. You’d generally only talk candidly to those who were not just peers, but you already had a deep seated existing rapport with and trust. Friends? Everyone else gets the politically safe story that is supposed to be told. I’ve seen it in action, and it makes me sad because it becomes fundamentally corrosive. And if you think for some people that doesn’t include the right kind of outrage discussion or telling the right stories to the visible oppressed minority they’re mentoring so they can get the right checkbox when they hopefully get considered for SVP (or as plan B, their mentee does) - I’ve also got a bridge to sell you.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ZitchDog 6y ago

I believe when OP says "lower on the oppression hierarchy" they mean we only talk candidly with those who are as oppressed as us or less. i.e. someone higher on the oppression hierarchy would be more oppressed.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
yes, i have been perceiving same as he sayed. my thinking is that this is a bad thing for persons who are having less advantages: if white manager can give forthright feedback to only white persons this is actual bad for black one and maybe will harm the black one more than it help. this is likewise if most in office are feeling less cameraderie with a black for that they are not able speaking so openly and believe they are having to guard tongues. i wonder about these un-intended consecuences.
- ambicapter 6y ago
  That is the gist of the article linked up top, yes.

retrac 6y ago

I do some work with HIV prevention. Sometimes I give talks where I'm very blunt about the realities of HIV among men who have sex with men. I've watched people immediately shift from mild hostility and discomfort to wholehearted acceptance of what I am saying, when I tell them I'm gay myself. In that circumstance, I think it is clear that my sexual orientation is the basis by which they are judging the authoritativeness I have to speak on the topic. Never mind the formal qualifications, or the logic or veracity of what I am actually saying. Like, I know we all have little unconscious checklists like that for judging whether someone is credible, but it is uncomfortable to see the effect live.

duckfang 6y ago
As a bisexual male, I think a good part of disdain about connecting HIV and gay goes to the older naming of the disease: GRID. gay-related immune deficiency It also dates me, but I had a blood transfusion in 1982. At that time, it was a Russian Roulette if I ended up with HIV blood or not. I didn't. Had I been innfected, I would have ended up like Ryan White.
- randallsquared 6y ago
  Even knowing the term GRID dates you. :) Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#1981%E2%80%931982:_From_GRID_to_AIDS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#1981%E2%80... , the "GRID" moniker was only used for under two years, forty years ago. I think it's unlikely that the name is to blame.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - benatkin 6y ago
    I was born in 1982 and I knew about it. I don't think it's unlikely. It was early in the chain of events, so even if it was six months it could have had a big impact.
DenisM 6y ago

tsm_sf 6y ago

The subtext of this entire conversation is that you'll never be able to talk "freely" in front of subordinates, so you need to either pine for yesteryear or take another look at your power dynamics.