3 ms·

“Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support…” Please, stop right there. If you find yourself in this line of thinking, consider for a moment that you’r

by zaroth 5y ago

“Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support…” Please, stop right there. If you find yourself in this line of thinking, consider for a moment that you’re being a zealot.

Aicy 5y ago
Given that the next few words were "...the right of Black people to not be killed randomly" I do not consider that being a zealot, but just a normal person.
- Zababa 5y ago
  That's because "the right of black people to not be killed randomly" is the motte, and supporting the movement Black Lives Matters and all that it stands for is the bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy. I'll add that people "randomly killing black people" are mostly killed by black people https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-....
  - okwubodu 5y ago
    Unless I’m missing something the root comment did not mention BLM. That’s a whole different sentence. Please, if the only purpose of your comment is derailing, keep it to yourself.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      The root comment was: > The thing I hate about this line of thinking is the supposed "distractions" of being mission-focused are nearly all related simply to basic rights/dignities for marginalized groups. I don't think anyone is saying companies need to take a strong stance on every political issue, but merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter" or "we as a company welcome and accept our LGBTQ+ employees and don't tolerate anyone who doesn't" are just...basic things you need to do in 2021. They aren't a distraction, I would say not saying them is a distraction. The context is people asking the Coinbase CEO to make a statement about BLM. You can read about it here: https://www.wired.com/story/turmoil-black-lives-matter-political-speech-coinbase/ https://www.wired.com/story/turmoil-black-lives-matter-polit... This is the start of the first paragraph of that article: > IN EARLY JUNE, a week after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, employees at Coinbase gathered, virtually, for an emotional meeting. In the previous few days, mirroring workplaces elsewhere, the company’s Slack channels had been filled with comments about the nationwide protests and demands for more support for Black employees. In the background hovered a specific question: Would Coinbase and its CEO, Brian Armstrong, make a public statement about Black Lives Matter and the racial justice movement, as so many Silicon Valley companies had? I think it's fair to say here that the root comment changed the goalposts from "make a public statement about Black Lives Matter and the racial justice movement" to "merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter"". Which, in that case, would fit my characterisation of that comment as a motte-and-bailey fallacy. I appreciate your intent in keeping the discussion on topic, however in that case I think I was on topic.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

by zaroth 5y ago

“Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support…” Please, stop right there. If you find yourself in this line of thinking, consider for a moment that you’re being a zealot.

Aicy 5y ago

Given that the next few words were "...the right of Black people to not be killed randomly" I do not consider that being a zealot, but just a normal person.

Zababa 5y ago
That's because "the right of black people to not be killed randomly" is the motte, and supporting the movement Black Lives Matters and all that it stands for is the bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy. I'll add that people "randomly killing black people" are mostly killed by black people https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-....
- okwubodu 5y ago
  Unless I’m missing something the root comment did not mention BLM. That’s a whole different sentence. Please, if the only purpose of your comment is derailing, keep it to yourself.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    The root comment was: > The thing I hate about this line of thinking is the supposed "distractions" of being mission-focused are nearly all related simply to basic rights/dignities for marginalized groups. I don't think anyone is saying companies need to take a strong stance on every political issue, but merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter" or "we as a company welcome and accept our LGBTQ+ employees and don't tolerate anyone who doesn't" are just...basic things you need to do in 2021. They aren't a distraction, I would say not saying them is a distraction. The context is people asking the Coinbase CEO to make a statement about BLM. You can read about it here: https://www.wired.com/story/turmoil-black-lives-matter-political-speech-coinbase/ https://www.wired.com/story/turmoil-black-lives-matter-polit... This is the start of the first paragraph of that article: > IN EARLY JUNE, a week after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, employees at Coinbase gathered, virtually, for an emotional meeting. In the previous few days, mirroring workplaces elsewhere, the company’s Slack channels had been filled with comments about the nationwide protests and demands for more support for Black employees. In the background hovered a specific question: Would Coinbase and its CEO, Brian Armstrong, make a public statement about Black Lives Matter and the racial justice movement, as so many Silicon Valley companies had? I think it's fair to say here that the root comment changed the goalposts from "make a public statement about Black Lives Matter and the racial justice movement" to "merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter"". Which, in that case, would fit my characterisation of that comment as a motte-and-bailey fallacy. I appreciate your intent in keeping the discussion on topic, however in that case I think I was on topic.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]