5 ms·
A small group of very loud, and generally (unfortunately) rather unproductive people is doing just that. But then again, if the response is to kowtow to the ac
by slackfan 6y ago
A small group of very loud, and generally (unfortunately) rather unproductive people is doing just that.
But then again, if the response is to kowtow to the activists and not fire them for not doing their job - then I suppose I have no remorse for when your business eventually goes under, because you were not focused on your primary business objective.
And as somebody who comes in to work to work and keeps his politics firmly in his personal sphere, it's a good indicator for why I might not ever want to work for you.
- fallingknife 6y agoIn the past these sort of people would have just been fired. Why is it different now?
- slackfan 6y ago"Feelings don't care about your facts" or something.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bluefirebrand 6y agoOften they belong to groups that are riskier to fire because of discrimination lawsuits. Safer to try and placate them.
- swalsh 6y agoI really think this is the answer. I think a lot about the fall out of the firing/accepted resignation of the AI ethics employee at Google. Based on anonomouys accounts from people talking about having worked with her, It seemed like she often turned interactions with her into hostile interactions, but people feared speaking up because she had a lot of power/influence which many found intimidating.
- jonathankoren 6y agoLolz. An anonymous whisper campaign. Yeah that’s legit. It was pretty obvious that Google was engaging in ethics washing. They wanted someone to pay lip service, but instead got a team that actually tried to do their task and hold the company to account. As the saying goes, if it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth. Google never wanted any of that. Like all megacorps, they want the status quo to be seen as inevitable and good. So they kneecapped the group for being naïve and thinking they were there to do a job, instead of just be gauzey feel good magazine fodder.
- minikites 6y agoCan someone leave their politics at home if they work for Raytheon? If someone's life can be segmented so strictly in that way, it's a good sign that they're likely very privileged and insulated from any real political actions. Despite paranoid cries to the contrary, nobody is taking privileges away from white men.
- slackfan 6y agoTwo points. 1. If you think this only relevant to white men - you are an incredibly privileged racist. 2. Yes, you can leave your politics at home if you work for Raytheon. Because if you work for Raytheon - you by default need to subscribe to a certain macro-view of the world, which has little to no bearing on your individual politics. Working at Raytheon is not a requirement for anybody.
- minikites 6y ago1. They're the only ones complaining about "activism". Everyone else benefits from that activism, which is why white men are so threatened. When you're used to being superior, equality looks like a threat. 2. You're right that nobody is required to work for Raytheon, but that's kind of my point. Someone who voluntarily works for Raytheon is at the very least not bothered by their actions, which does reflect on their politics. You merely assert that it somehow doesn't, with no reasoning behind it. Someone working for Greenpeace (for example) shows exactly the same thing on the opposite side of the political spectrum and illustrates my point that you can't really leave your politics at home. There are no apolitical companies or organizations.
- slackfan 6y ago1. As a minority working in tech - we're tired of this trope, and wish you white folks pushing your fake woke diversity bullshit would stop. But you know, who's gonna listen to us, you know better than us, don't you. Maybe you should go outside your comfort zone and listen, oh great white savior. 2. Not every company is Raytheon or Greenpeace is my point.