4 ms·
The employees were also the ones to create that negative aspect of culture, and maintain it through out the last decades. It is unclear currently if the employ
by true_religion 6y ago
The employees were also the ones to create that negative aspect of culture, and maintain it through out the last decades.
It is unclear currently if the employees leaving are the same ones who supported the old culture or those who lobbied for the new, or if both groups are the same. I've seen one report that a person called Basecamp culture akin to 'genocide' when that person had been an active supporter in the 'genocidal' culture themselves. It may have been a genuine change of heart, but their hyperbolic language couldn't have lead to good discussion making nor made it clear what kind of punishment that person should get for their past admitted misdeeds.
- joshuamorton 6y ago> The employees were also the ones to create that negative Yes and? This doesn't explain why you should then trust the CEO, who took longer to come around, more than the employees. Yes they both did a bad thing. One group began addressing it first. Why trust the other group more? > I've seen one report that a person called Basecamp culture akin to 'genocide' when that person had been an active supporter in the 'genocidal' culture themselves. Right so this isn't what was said. They posted a diagram that contained the word genocide as a potential (very) long term outcome of not taking more minor forms of racism seriously. The CEO took this as this person accusing him of genocide, when that isn't what happened.
- true_religion 6y agoYeah, that diagram is problematic. It’s like the anti drug ads that said if you smoke pot, you find gangsters who pay out to Colombian drug lords, who also finance other parties who handle the money for terrorists so at the end of a long chain of events college stoners fund terrorism. Even if such a tenuous connection is true, it’s unhelpful to point it out.