4 ms·

How do you avoid being framed as “us vs. them” when you are being openly called a white supremacist? What you’re describing is “appeasement.” Presume they’re o

How do you avoid being framed as “us vs. them” when you are being openly called a white supremacist? What you’re describing is “appeasement.” Presume they’re operating in good faith and that maybe they’re kind of right. So you cut a compromise, and sure enough, the white supremacy is still there! And what do they recommend? More appeasement. I agree it was a management problem, but the problem is it wasn’t identified and nipped in the bud sooner.

etchalon 5y ago
No one was calling anyone a white supremecist in the conversation. They were likely talking about white supremacy as a cultural and political force in the context of how the policy could perpetrate it.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  You are correct activists use this undeclared redefinition of the term white supremacy to mean "someone that does not have a social justice activist mindset". Which is exactly the issue. Why? It is a tool to utilize confusion to remove the targets moral authority. Both yes and no are bad answers that make you loose moral authority, which is the point of the power tool. Never trust anyone that uses such a tool, as it shows that the activist attacker is willing to smear individuals they disagree with using deceptive language in order to reduce the unlucky targets moral standing. Is this someone that is worthy of trust?
  - etchalon 5y ago
    … you’re literally doing the same thing you’re accusing them of. Creating an arbitrary binary and than applying moral judgment to it.
    - asabjorn 5y ago
      Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works? If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with. Social justice tactics when it boils down to it are effective, but not very creative. Domain specific language is coopted and it’s definitions changed to mean what’s useful for activism. Goal is to redirect as much as possible of an organizations resources and attention towards the ideology instead of whatever it used to do.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.
        asabjorn 5y ago
        It’s nonsense that you have to accept a premise to argue against it. That’s exactly what I did. On this website it’s expected that if you don’t have an argument, don’t make one. With your assertion in mind that there is no issues with the activist technique. Do you denounce pedofilia? Do you denounce defrauding elderly relatives? See how this activist technique works, no answer is good and the question is directed at you as a potential complicit person, and using it is in my opinion a sure sign of a worse character than what I’d like to engage with.
        etchalon 5y ago
        Please point out where I asserted there are no issues with activist techniques. As far as I can remember, all I've done is point out that you constructed an arbitrary binary specifically to decry the creation of arbitrary binaries. I then called your hair a bird.
        asabjorn 5y ago
        > Please point out where I asserted there are no issues with activist techniques. Refer to the comment I replied to where you argue "No one was calling anyone a white supremecist", and then justified this conclusion by stating the social justice redefinition of the colloquial term: > No one was calling anyone a white supremecist in the conversation. They were likely talking about white supremacy as a cultural and political force in the context of how the policy could perpetrate it. To your other statement: > all I've done is point out that you constructed an arbitrary binary specifically to decry the creation of arbitrary binaries. There are many different types of individual viewpoints and behaviors, so a critique of or an unwillingness to accept a type of behavior normally means that you have tons of others you accept. Disagreeing being a binary choice is a social justice dogma that model the world very badly.
- moduspol 5y ago
  That doesn’t change the fact that leadership then must either: * Accept the claim that the company is and has been supporting white supremacy, de facto surrendering decisions on anything an employee suggests might support white supremacy * Disagree with the claim The redefinition of white supremacy (as you’ve defined it) is a bad faith rhetorical tool designed to create these kind of situations. Leaders are under no obligation to appease employees acting in bad faith.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    So, two thoughts: First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Second, saying that white supremacy is present in the company is not the same thing as saying that the company is run by white supremacists. The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.
    - moduspol 5y ago
      > First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why this is a false dichotomy, and what other options there are. > Second You cannot run a company that perpetuates white supremacy without implicitly supporting that white supremacy, whether you know it or not. I've already been clearly told that malice and intent are not required. Or are you genuinely going to make the case that "someone who supports white supremacy" is not interchangeable with "white supremacist?" I'm not interested in debating your personal redefinitions of terms.
      - mumblemumble 5y ago
        Honestly, nah. Since we've already touched on the subject of "bad faith rhetorical tools," getting on other people's cases for acknowledging that the English language is soaked in polysemy isn't exactly an encouraging sign. It's difficult to have an enjoyable conversation with someone who's brandishing a cape.

etchalon 5y ago

No one was calling anyone a white supremecist in the conversation. They were likely talking about white supremacy as a cultural and political force in the context of how the policy could perpetrate it.

asabjorn 5y ago
You are correct activists use this undeclared redefinition of the term white supremacy to mean "someone that does not have a social justice activist mindset". Which is exactly the issue. Why? It is a tool to utilize confusion to remove the targets moral authority. Both yes and no are bad answers that make you loose moral authority, which is the point of the power tool. Never trust anyone that uses such a tool, as it shows that the activist attacker is willing to smear individuals they disagree with using deceptive language in order to reduce the unlucky targets moral standing. Is this someone that is worthy of trust?
- etchalon 5y ago
  … you’re literally doing the same thing you’re accusing them of. Creating an arbitrary binary and than applying moral judgment to it.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works? If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with. Social justice tactics when it boils down to it are effective, but not very creative. Domain specific language is coopted and it’s definitions changed to mean what’s useful for activism. Goal is to redirect as much as possible of an organizations resources and attention towards the ideology instead of whatever it used to do.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.
      - asabjorn 5y ago
        It’s nonsense that you have to accept a premise to argue against it. That’s exactly what I did. On this website it’s expected that if you don’t have an argument, don’t make one. With your assertion in mind that there is no issues with the activist technique. Do you denounce pedofilia? Do you denounce defrauding elderly relatives? See how this activist technique works, no answer is good and the question is directed at you as a potential complicit person, and using it is in my opinion a sure sign of a worse character than what I’d like to engage with.
        etchalon 5y ago
        Please point out where I asserted there are no issues with activist techniques. As far as I can remember, all I've done is point out that you constructed an arbitrary binary specifically to decry the creation of arbitrary binaries. I then called your hair a bird.
        asabjorn 5y ago
        > Please point out where I asserted there are no issues with activist techniques. Refer to the comment I replied to where you argue "No one was calling anyone a white supremecist", and then justified this conclusion by stating the social justice redefinition of the colloquial term: > No one was calling anyone a white supremecist in the conversation. They were likely talking about white supremacy as a cultural and political force in the context of how the policy could perpetrate it. To your other statement: > all I've done is point out that you constructed an arbitrary binary specifically to decry the creation of arbitrary binaries. There are many different types of individual viewpoints and behaviors, so a critique of or an unwillingness to accept a type of behavior normally means that you have tons of others you accept. Disagreeing being a binary choice is a social justice dogma that model the world very badly.
moduspol 5y ago
That doesn’t change the fact that leadership then must either: * Accept the claim that the company is and has been supporting white supremacy, de facto surrendering decisions on anything an employee suggests might support white supremacy * Disagree with the claim The redefinition of white supremacy (as you’ve defined it) is a bad faith rhetorical tool designed to create these kind of situations. Leaders are under no obligation to appease employees acting in bad faith.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  So, two thoughts: First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Second, saying that white supremacy is present in the company is not the same thing as saying that the company is run by white supremacists. The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.
  - moduspol 5y ago
    > First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why this is a false dichotomy, and what other options there are. > Second You cannot run a company that perpetuates white supremacy without implicitly supporting that white supremacy, whether you know it or not. I've already been clearly told that malice and intent are not required. Or are you genuinely going to make the case that "someone who supports white supremacy" is not interchangeable with "white supremacist?" I'm not interested in debating your personal redefinitions of terms.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      Honestly, nah. Since we've already touched on the subject of "bad faith rhetorical tools," getting on other people's cases for acknowledging that the English language is soaked in polysemy isn't exactly an encouraging sign. It's difficult to have an enjoyable conversation with someone who's brandishing a cape.