4 ms·

Refusing to say it isn’t denying it exists. Those are different things. If I’m trying to count to 100 and someone says “Prepend, please say that white supremac

Refusing to say it isn’t denying it exists. Those are different things. If I’m trying to count to 100 and someone says “Prepend, please say that white supremacy exists.” And I respond “I’m busy counting to 100 and will not comply with your wishes.” That doesn’t mean I’m denying that white supremacy exists. It’s odd you would interpret it that way as it’s illogical.

whymauri 6y ago
But he wasn't counting to 100, he was at a company-wide all-hands specifically about political and social speech with tensions revolving race. You can't just erase the entire context of quote and meeting just to call someone's interpretation of that event 'illogical'.
threeseed 6y ago
You are just arguing semantics. If you do not acknowledge white supremacy exists and needs to be eliminated then you can't expect people to trust you on this issue. And trust is a critical part of being a leader.
- prepend 6y ago
  I think we disagree on this. I have worked with and for many great leaders who never “acknowledged white supremacy” so it is definitely possible for me, and others to trust such people. I’m not arguing semantics as my point is that there are many things more important than acknowledging white supremacy exists. This may not be true for others as it seems it’s super important for some. But if I’m in the business of counting to 100 (or anything) I can be quite successful without including taking about eliminating white supremacy. Note, I think that systematic racial inequity is bad and must be eliminated. But I don’t think the most effective way to do that is by talking about it all the time. And I think that I can not have any portion of my workday talking about it. This doesn’t mean I am for white supremacy. I think, at it’s most basic, I don’t think silence is the same as endorsement. The world isn’t black and white (no pun intended) and everyone isn’t forced to choose sides. And it’s certainly not important to state one’s position over and over and over.
  - MattRix 6y ago
    There are certain issues (like this one) where silence has historically been used as a form of endorsement. It is certainly not irrational to perceive it as being an endorsement.
    - prepend 6y ago
      Perhaps not irrational, but incorrect. I’d like to see whatever evidence means silence is a form of endorsement. It’s hard to know, but I have one data point in my own self in that I really don’t talk much about anything and certainly don’t endorse white supremacy and I actively live my life fighting inequity. Someone saying that I endorse something because I don’t speak about it is incorrect as I know myself better than others do. Following this logic leads to absurdity. Should people spend their days speaking for or against everything? What about people’s right to privacy? I mean there’s so many example of how silence=support is illogical, I’m not sure how people can hold this opinion. This assumes that there’s a single set of priorities and white supremacy is near the top for everyone. It’s also fairly odd in that it assumes that the whole world is in America so that even people in remote countries must make statements against white supremacy lest they endorse it. That’s just silly. On any topic, only a few thousand or perhaps millions express a position. Does that mean everyone else is against or for? Does silence always equal endorsement? Does it mean opposition? You haven’t stopped this conversation to call out how you recognize murder is evil and are against it. Does that mean you endorse murder? Isn’t murder important enough to speak out against? I certainly think murder is terrible and am shocked that someone would endorse murder through their silence. Etc etc etc, there’s a million of these. Not everything has to be a conflict and not everyone owes me an answer. Sometimes I just don’t know and don’t get to know. I should only assume when necessary and using some evidence to support my assumption
      - MattRix 6y ago
        I am not talking about silence at all times, but specifically silence at times when someone is given the opportunity to speak up about an issue and chooses not to.

whymauri 6y ago

But he wasn't counting to 100, he was at a company-wide all-hands specifically about political and social speech with tensions revolving race. You can't just erase the entire context of quote and meeting just to call someone's interpretation of that event 'illogical'.

threeseed 6y ago

You are just arguing semantics. If you do not acknowledge white supremacy exists and needs to be eliminated then you can't expect people to trust you on this issue. And trust is a critical part of being a leader.

prepend 6y ago
I think we disagree on this. I have worked with and for many great leaders who never “acknowledged white supremacy” so it is definitely possible for me, and others to trust such people. I’m not arguing semantics as my point is that there are many things more important than acknowledging white supremacy exists. This may not be true for others as it seems it’s super important for some. But if I’m in the business of counting to 100 (or anything) I can be quite successful without including taking about eliminating white supremacy. Note, I think that systematic racial inequity is bad and must be eliminated. But I don’t think the most effective way to do that is by talking about it all the time. And I think that I can not have any portion of my workday talking about it. This doesn’t mean I am for white supremacy. I think, at it’s most basic, I don’t think silence is the same as endorsement. The world isn’t black and white (no pun intended) and everyone isn’t forced to choose sides. And it’s certainly not important to state one’s position over and over and over.
- MattRix 6y ago
  There are certain issues (like this one) where silence has historically been used as a form of endorsement. It is certainly not irrational to perceive it as being an endorsement.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Perhaps not irrational, but incorrect. I’d like to see whatever evidence means silence is a form of endorsement. It’s hard to know, but I have one data point in my own self in that I really don’t talk much about anything and certainly don’t endorse white supremacy and I actively live my life fighting inequity. Someone saying that I endorse something because I don’t speak about it is incorrect as I know myself better than others do. Following this logic leads to absurdity. Should people spend their days speaking for or against everything? What about people’s right to privacy? I mean there’s so many example of how silence=support is illogical, I’m not sure how people can hold this opinion. This assumes that there’s a single set of priorities and white supremacy is near the top for everyone. It’s also fairly odd in that it assumes that the whole world is in America so that even people in remote countries must make statements against white supremacy lest they endorse it. That’s just silly. On any topic, only a few thousand or perhaps millions express a position. Does that mean everyone else is against or for? Does silence always equal endorsement? Does it mean opposition? You haven’t stopped this conversation to call out how you recognize murder is evil and are against it. Does that mean you endorse murder? Isn’t murder important enough to speak out against? I certainly think murder is terrible and am shocked that someone would endorse murder through their silence. Etc etc etc, there’s a million of these. Not everything has to be a conflict and not everyone owes me an answer. Sometimes I just don’t know and don’t get to know. I should only assume when necessary and using some evidence to support my assumption
    - MattRix 6y ago
      I am not talking about silence at all times, but specifically silence at times when someone is given the opportunity to speak up about an issue and chooses not to.