13 ms·

"But Fried and his co-founder, David Heinemeier Hansson, had been taken aback by an employee post which argued that mocking customer names laid the foundation f

• threatofrain 5y ago
  > Seeing good companies get torn to shreds by this campus idiocy reminds me of how insulated academia is from the real world. What does this have to do with academia?
  • avs733 5y ago
    It’s coded language.
    • stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Pointing out that cancel culture is toxic and that free speech still has a place in polite isn't a bad thing. Academia really has a problem with siloing those of a different opinion and apparently it is extending to tech companies as well. I mostly just refuse to talk about that stuff at work. If it's not work related or "guess what I did last weekend" I'm not really interested.
      • SantalBlush 5y ago
        I keep reading the term "free speech" being brought up in these discussions. Some people have come to believe that free speech means "I can say what I want and nobody is allowed to respond negatively." But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.
        • s__s 5y ago
          Free speech by necessity requires tolerance. If there are extreme consequences to what you say you’re obviously not free to speak what you believe. Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.
          • crooked-v 5y ago
            Loss of livelihood is an entirely acceptable response to some ideas or opinions. For example: a doctor who holds the opinion that microorganisms don't actually exist and that diseases are caused by humours should be removed from their position as a doctor.
          • SantalBlush 5y ago
            >being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like. This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.
            • vxNsr 5y ago
              Because many people in this discussion, on the internet and in our country do see it as an acceptable response.
              • SantalBlush 5y ago
                >many people in this discussion No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
    • JPKab 5y ago
      No, it's not. Where do you think this ideology and hypersensitivity originated?
      • edoceo 5y ago
        I'm curious, was it academia? I mean, is there an origin story? I don't even know what terms search.
        • vimy 5y ago
          https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theo...
          • jakelazaroff 5y ago
            Here’s a far less biased overview: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
            • avs733 5y ago
              yeah but if we take a summary with a bias its easier to validate our opinions.
          • edoceo 5y ago
            thanks! I've read that and this part sticks out: ""they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it."" that doesn't seem like the scientific method to me. am I the dumb? edit: also the founder of the linked site is critical of Critical Race Theory - so maybe there is bias in this article. Whatever, I asked for a place to start - so, thanks again.
            • vxNsr 5y ago
              Every thinking person I know is critical of CRT. It doesn’t follow any scientific method, rewrites history and tells many lies to advance an agenda. It’s basically all target painting. Edit:I’m getting pretty heavy downvoting without any responses... anyone interested in actually explaining why they disagree?
  • jude- 5y ago
    Nothing. The parent has an axe to grind.
  • JPKab 5y ago
    Academia is where this ideology originated. It's where virtually all of the terminology came from. It's also where these employees were taught that collective identity dwarfs individual identity.
    • treeman79 5y ago
      Your being downvoted but it’s true.
      • gustavo-fring 5y ago
        Using all encompassing terms like "academia" is the problem. I've been in academia for more than a decade. We're a regional school with lots of foreign students as well as commuter students. The professors that I've interacted with regularly (and are in a dept that deals with that stuff) have never been anything but professional and they understand the importance of rigor. I've yet to see them make emotional caustic and overreaching claims because they can. I suspect most of academia is like this, you just don't hear about it, cause it's boring. If you desire it, you too can work at bad wages for 2 decades before hoping for tenure at a place you barely get to choose. Many of these terms that cause so many issues are those that are working jargon within a domain and make sense within the context of that domain with lots of awareness of the terminology, but when they are extracted out of that context and used by people (for a variety of reasons) for political and cultural battles, it becomes an issue. So academia is perhaps responsible, but all of academia is not.
    • canadianfella 5y ago
      You’re right.
  • clarkmoody 5y ago
    Intellectuals are the priests of the new alliance of throne and altar. http://profcj.org/alliance-of-throne-altar/ http://profcj.org/alliance-of-throne-altar/
    • ed25519FUUU 5y ago
      Religion doesn’t go away, it just evolves. Now the priest hand down by divine inspiration. Don’t question the orthodoxy.
• arp242 5y ago
  > Nor did he see the irony in the fact that holding a person responsible for horrible action of people who look like them is the same way of thinking that leads bigots to blame all Arabs for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. I like to do the "Muslim test" on these things: replace "white people" (or "men", or any other group) with "Muslims" and see how it sounds then. If it sounds yikes then it's probably not a good thing to say. I use "Muslim" because there's been a lot of discussion surrounding that in my own country, but you can use "Jew", "black", etc. as well. It's easy to forget how sweeping statements can be received by its targets. I think we've all been guilty of this sometimes. The only time I've ever had a HN comment moderated is when I made some overly general statements about British culture. Mea culpa. It's only natural to make mistakes, and that's okay. The difference is that I've apologized for it and realized my mistake, rather than double down hard (in my defence, as an EU expat living in the UK at the time, I was rather ... peeved ... about Brexit at the time, the surrounding debate regarding EU migrants, and various people ranting to me about this, as were most of my EU expat friends). I vote things like the Green party and Socialist party, and the only time I've been directly involved in political activism was to campaign in favour of an asylum centre in my home town after idiots started opposing it with all sorts of bullshit. It's perhaps a bit said that this needs to be said, but I'm hardly some alt-right troll. But I find the messaging on these kind of things increasingly tiresome and frankly toxic.
  • calvinmorrison 5y ago
    Muslims are adherents to a religion. Using "Arab" might be more relevant.
    • arp242 5y ago
      It's just that in the Netherlands significant amount of political discourse has been surrounding "Muslims" and "Islamification" in the last 15 years, so it makes sense for me personally. Anything could work really, "Arabs", "gays", "women", "gingers", or whatever else makes sense for you. The point is better understanding how the message is perceived, and is mostly an emotional thing. Exact accuracy regarding ethnicity and such doesn't really matter here.
    • 5y ago
• CerealFounder 5y ago
  I have a slightly different take as to what all this is and I havent seen it expressed almost anywhere. Since the proliferation of the internet the world has gotten exponentially more competitive. Information and access have been reduced to almost uniformity if you understand the tools. No while prizes have gotten larger, there are simply way more people competing for the top spot than before. These culture wars are simply just a new weapon for those without power to seize it. Its not much different that coming from wealth, being charismatic or the host of other weapons being wielded in a competitive game. Human kind has always been collective, but the largest motivation is survival of the self. You should look at this change a clever weaponization for a class that wants more power and not some intrinsic right or wrong. What is likely to happen is we will always see it moving forward, but eventually (outside of extreme circumstances like violence), these things become less powerful as the novelty of the charge wears off.
  • golemotron 5y ago
    > I have a slightly different take as to what all this is and I havent seen it expressed almost anywhere. Yes, technology can exacerbate the dynamic in Peter Turchin's "elite over-production." This article describes the class dynamic well. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/11/the-real-class-war/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/11/the-real-class-wa...
• mpyne 5y ago
  > Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought when he shut the thread down then that might explain part of the outcry. The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business. This still isn't "cause and effect", where anyone who chuckles at a funny name is fated to be building the next Stormfront unless stopped by an intrepid band of culture warriors. But we've known since Ben Franklin that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, so under the 'pyramid of hate' argument, a company trying to foster a safe workplace for all workers should strive to keep potential racism from turning into a problem by enforcing standards of workplace conduct that don't wait for actual racism. Just like we build secure software by building security in early into the release process. Just like we build functional and well-integrated software by building the testing early into the release process. Just like we avoid pest infestation by keeping the food off of the tables and floors. On and on it goes. The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRQBtDtZTGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRQBtDtZTGA
  • FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    > The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. Funny. That's the same thing the right-wingers are saying. > Just like we avoid pest infestation Well that's a nice phrase for a discussion of genocide.
    • tanseydavid 5y ago
      >> Funny. That's the same thing the right-wingers are saying. Your wording seems to have an unstated but implied meaning to it, but I am not getting what it is. Could you explain the implied meaning if you intended one?
  • didgeoridoo 5y ago
• treeman79 5y ago
  Had to quit a company last year due to bigotry. Constant bashing of white men on company calls. Exceptions if you were openly non straight. They also loved talking about how inclusive they were. Constant mocking of customer base, who was mostly traditional white people. I figure out quick I was hired only because they were desperate for someone with experience. Which sadly meant hiring an undesirable. At some point if I really need a job I may need to put on a dress.
  • otde 5y ago
    I really tried not to take the bait here, but come on, dude, that last bit was especially rancid. You do get that we’re real human beings with rich internal lives like everyone else and not shallow, opportunistic crossdressers, yeah? I’d be mortified if I worked with someone who thought like this, and I’m glad I don’t.
    • dasudasu 5y ago
      You almost certainly do, they just keep silent.
      • otde 5y ago
        I’m lucky to work for a small company where I am treated with respect by every one of my coworkers and my bosses. They are curious, thoughtful, and kind people, and I don’t need a window into their minds to know they’re not thinking “I could find a better job if I pretended to be trans.” Believe it or not, people are sometimes just kind because it’s the right thing to do.
        • ironmagma 5y ago
          If there’s anything the diversity-oriented mindset should have taught us, it’s that you can’t assume what others think just based on who they are or how they act.
    • s__s 5y ago
      I think you really misread that and defaulted to an overly defensive and negative stance.
• jgwil2 5y ago
  > My favorite moment was sitting there, and having a coworker (US born, but of Arab descent) who grew up in an extremely wealthy neighborhood with immense privilege, lecturing a blind white male employee about how much privilege he had, and then going on to talk about how white people were uniquely tainted by the slave trade that some of their ancestors engaged in. I find it pretty hard to believe this went down the way you say. > Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. So in your ideal professional environment, name-calling would be fine?
  • JPKab 5y ago
    That's exactly how it went down in one of my companies HR "listening circles" in February. The blind employee is married to a woman who immigrated to the US from Japan. He was being lectured by a young semi-useless data scientist who grew up in a wealthy suburb just outside of Dearborn. I'm totally making all of this up in your eyes because you don't like what you're hearing. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.
    • jgwil2 5y ago
      I think you have an agenda and you're shading the story to fit your narrative. I would bet that other people would describe it differently. I notice you didn't reply about the name-calling.
      • JPKab 5y ago
        I disagree with name calling. And I think you are arrogant and probably young. You form an opinion and cling to it. This ideology probably suits you.
        • jgwil2 5y ago
          > ...white people were uniquely tainted by the slave trade that some of their ancestors engaged in. Is that a quote? It sounds like you are paraphrasing your perception of someone's point in the least favorable possible way. If the guy really said "white people are tainted," then he might suck and I hope you pushed back.
• kiawe_fire 5y ago
  > Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence And if you actually employ someone who perpetrates violence or harassment, then it really doesn’t matter whether they were prompted to do so by a list of names intended as a joke. That person (a) needs help and (b) probably shouldn’t be kept as an employee for the safety of your workforce. I kind of can’t believe we live in a world in which we can’t acknowledge that keeping a list of funny names is disrespectful to our fellow human beings, without then jumping to genocide as the justification for why we shouldn’t do this (and subsequently implying anyone who advocates otherwise is this pro-genocide).
• cm2012 5y ago
  Matt Yglesias has a good theory on this. "My suspicion is that this is a weird tic of campus politics that has followed graduates into the professional arena where they unconsciously started deploying it in less appropriate contexts. If you’re in a dorm at a fancy college and you can convince an administrator that something is racist, the administrator will probably put a stop to it. At the same time, “this is bad for poor people” just isn’t going to get you far as a campus argument. After all, these schools more or less openly auction off a number of admissions slots to wealthy donors (while, of course, practicing affirmative action to keep things diverse) so they can hardly take a hard line on class politics."
  • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Matt Yglesias believes that the average college student cares about the inner workings of university donors, because Matt Yglesias' one talent is self-promotion, not thinking or research. The average college student is about as disengaged from the inner workings of the campus as one can possibly be. They are primarily there to take classes, socialize, and get the hell out of school.
• MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  > Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. Adults understand that dehumanizing someone is one path along the road that ends in violence.
  • Nevermark 5y ago
    Almost anything, including serious innocent misunderstandings, can be "one path along the road that ends in violence". We all know that smaller things can lead to bigger things, but the smaller thing is not the bigger thing. Unless the transitivity is close to 100% then unbounded conflation just introduces its own unjust currents, turning attempts at constructive change into a bog of dysfunction.