3 ms·

I hope you're very careful about who you throw slavery metaphors around with. Anyone with not-too-distant relatives that were _owned_ by wealthy old white dude

I hope you're very careful about who you throw slavery metaphors around with. Anyone with not-too-distant relatives that were _owned_ by wealthy old white dudes may find the equating of CEOs with slavery an "I have no time for this person" level offense.

zdragnar 4y ago
This silly notion that there has only ever been a single form of slavery, and that there's no point in discussing any other than what occurred in America in a specific time period is so very harmful. I understand why the topic at large is a sensitive one, and more for some than others. That doesn't mean I'll be overly concerned with someone who responds to such an analogy with some variation of "I have no time for you".
- afarrell 4y ago
  As someone who does have Black enslaved ancestors: Sure, we can discuss comparisons among transatlantic chattel slavery, the treatment of the helots, or the people trafficked south along the Volga. The problem with a CEO calling themselves a slave is that it pretends that someone who has made an active choice to start a company is a victim. As this article shows, a CEO can choose to walk away from their company without fear of violence or starvation. If I meet a CEO who labels themselves enslaved, that tells me they are unwilling to recognize their responsibility for their own choices. That mindset makes them unfit to hold the power of the leadership position they aspire to.
  - mise_en_place 4y ago
    Slave is a bit extreme, but servant leadership is what I think they were trying to get at.
    - d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
      Indeed. The OP was able to quit relatively easily because he had not yet taken investor money. Imagine trying to quit after taking their money. That is where the element of "servitude" comes in, which admittedly sounds extreme but makes a point.
      - maxwell 4y ago
        Why couldn't they quit after taking the money?
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        Does VC money come with a "CEO is not allowed to quit" clause? CEO's can quit anytime they want - only their preide or egos may prevent them.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    You don't need to get into serfdom or other historical forms of slavery. As I mention in a sibling comment, there's multiple types of modern slavery that get discussed with varying degrees of frequency- labor slavery, sex slavery, and wage slavery. Wage slavery obviously is nothing like the others, but in the context of applying to a CEO, and given the frequency that it comes up (especially with the recurring universal basic income discussions), I think it is a much closer analogy that jumping straight back to the time before the american civil war.
  - tjs8rj 4y ago
    It’s really not that deep. The acronym is just a tongue in cheek silly nothing. Being the CEO (or any kind of founder role) of an early stage can be a lot of effort and sacrifice without the “privileges” of power, influence, etc Sure, if Zuckerberg jokingly called himself “chief enslaved officer” that’d be a little tone deaf given his power and privilege, but the founder of some pre-pmf startup working 10hr days 7 days a week jokingly commenting that is just a small way to soothe the pain. Obviously they aren’t a slave in any real sense (no one in America currently is), it’s a comment on the real sacrifices and effort and stress of the job.
    - d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
      Exactly this, well articulated. We’re not talking about zucks or musks here :)
    - afarrell 4y ago
      And upon hearing it, I would decrease my trust that their words were shaped to portray reality clearly. It’d be much more clear to say, “man, I’ve been carrying a heavy weight of stress and loneliness.” > no one in America currently is Sadly, this is false. If I knew more about the current state of human trafficking, I’d provide some links.
- klik99 4y ago
  I don’t think the problem is discussing other kinds of slavery, because wage slavery is a thing that’s discussed, but there is a type of slavery that is very recent, still relevant because we’re still feeling the effects of it, and it does seem in bad taste to compare being a tech CEO to something people are still digging themselves out of the effects of. We’re all on someone’s dollar and beholden to them so by the “chief enslaved officer” logic we’re all slaves which really cheapens and nearly erases a very real and very recent thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- drc500free 4y ago
  The purpose of an analogy is to short-circuit a long explanation by appealing to an already deeply understood concept. It's important to understand how the referenced concepts are understood and experienced by the audience if it's going to be an effective analogy. Comparisons to how the concept could technically be defined in a dry academic context are a bit irrelevant, since the whole point is to trigger a flash of intuition. Anyone who's reaction is "no, that's no the way you were supposed to experience that analogy" should probably not being using analogies to convey anything at all. Using a trauma that you haven't experienced as a point of reference can also be seen as minimizing that trauma. Especially if you're going for a purposefully extreme juxtaposition like "being at the very top of a business with control over other people's labor and livelihoods is just like being a slave." Because it's nothing like that at all to someone with deeper experience with the subject, and is as false to them as other shocking juxtapositions like "stubbing your toe is like having your entire family murdered in the holocaust (because they both hurt!)" or "needing to have a license to operate a car is like being gangraped (because you don't want either!)." Those kinds of analogies can be interpreted as purposefully trivializing and mocking that trauma, because there are quite a few people out there who really enjoy doing that sort of thing. So when language is used like that, people who are hurt by the reference have to decide whether the speaker is simply ignorant of how it's going to land or if they are doing it on purpose. Some of them are going to chuck Hanlon's razor out the window and assume it's done on purpose as part of some sort of power game or sadism.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Since we're talking context here, I think it might be important to assess the various possible contexts: - recent historical labor slavery (predominantly but not exclusively race based, US focus) - modern labor slavery (less common in the US than other parts of the world) - sex slavery (with a debate over when sex work counts) - "wage slavery": being in a position where you must work to sustain yourself, without an expectation of receiving compensation based on the value you create Wage slavery is not an uncommon phrase, and you see it bandied about on HN semi-regularly, especially whenever the topic of universal basic income comes up. I would peg wage slavery as the closest context for analogy, though it's not perfect; in this case, the startup CEO is working predominantly for equity in the hopes that the equity will eventually be worth more than if they had taken a standard salary.

zdragnar 4y ago

This silly notion that there has only ever been a single form of slavery, and that there's no point in discussing any other than what occurred in America in a specific time period is so very harmful. I understand why the topic at large is a sensitive one, and more for some than others. That doesn't mean I'll be overly concerned with someone who responds to such an analogy with some variation of "I have no time for you".

afarrell 4y ago
As someone who does have Black enslaved ancestors: Sure, we can discuss comparisons among transatlantic chattel slavery, the treatment of the helots, or the people trafficked south along the Volga. The problem with a CEO calling themselves a slave is that it pretends that someone who has made an active choice to start a company is a victim. As this article shows, a CEO can choose to walk away from their company without fear of violence or starvation. If I meet a CEO who labels themselves enslaved, that tells me they are unwilling to recognize their responsibility for their own choices. That mindset makes them unfit to hold the power of the leadership position they aspire to.
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  Slave is a bit extreme, but servant leadership is what I think they were trying to get at.
  - d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
    Indeed. The OP was able to quit relatively easily because he had not yet taken investor money. Imagine trying to quit after taking their money. That is where the element of "servitude" comes in, which admittedly sounds extreme but makes a point.
    - maxwell 4y ago
      Why couldn't they quit after taking the money?
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Does VC money come with a "CEO is not allowed to quit" clause? CEO's can quit anytime they want - only their preide or egos may prevent them.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  You don't need to get into serfdom or other historical forms of slavery. As I mention in a sibling comment, there's multiple types of modern slavery that get discussed with varying degrees of frequency- labor slavery, sex slavery, and wage slavery. Wage slavery obviously is nothing like the others, but in the context of applying to a CEO, and given the frequency that it comes up (especially with the recurring universal basic income discussions), I think it is a much closer analogy that jumping straight back to the time before the american civil war.
- tjs8rj 4y ago
  It’s really not that deep. The acronym is just a tongue in cheek silly nothing. Being the CEO (or any kind of founder role) of an early stage can be a lot of effort and sacrifice without the “privileges” of power, influence, etc Sure, if Zuckerberg jokingly called himself “chief enslaved officer” that’d be a little tone deaf given his power and privilege, but the founder of some pre-pmf startup working 10hr days 7 days a week jokingly commenting that is just a small way to soothe the pain. Obviously they aren’t a slave in any real sense (no one in America currently is), it’s a comment on the real sacrifices and effort and stress of the job.
  - d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
    Exactly this, well articulated. We’re not talking about zucks or musks here :)
  - afarrell 4y ago
    And upon hearing it, I would decrease my trust that their words were shaped to portray reality clearly. It’d be much more clear to say, “man, I’ve been carrying a heavy weight of stress and loneliness.” > no one in America currently is Sadly, this is false. If I knew more about the current state of human trafficking, I’d provide some links.
klik99 4y ago
I don’t think the problem is discussing other kinds of slavery, because wage slavery is a thing that’s discussed, but there is a type of slavery that is very recent, still relevant because we’re still feeling the effects of it, and it does seem in bad taste to compare being a tech CEO to something people are still digging themselves out of the effects of. We’re all on someone’s dollar and beholden to them so by the “chief enslaved officer” logic we’re all slaves which really cheapens and nearly erases a very real and very recent thing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
drc500free 4y ago
The purpose of an analogy is to short-circuit a long explanation by appealing to an already deeply understood concept. It's important to understand how the referenced concepts are understood and experienced by the audience if it's going to be an effective analogy. Comparisons to how the concept could technically be defined in a dry academic context are a bit irrelevant, since the whole point is to trigger a flash of intuition. Anyone who's reaction is "no, that's no the way you were supposed to experience that analogy" should probably not being using analogies to convey anything at all. Using a trauma that you haven't experienced as a point of reference can also be seen as minimizing that trauma. Especially if you're going for a purposefully extreme juxtaposition like "being at the very top of a business with control over other people's labor and livelihoods is just like being a slave." Because it's nothing like that at all to someone with deeper experience with the subject, and is as false to them as other shocking juxtapositions like "stubbing your toe is like having your entire family murdered in the holocaust (because they both hurt!)" or "needing to have a license to operate a car is like being gangraped (because you don't want either!)." Those kinds of analogies can be interpreted as purposefully trivializing and mocking that trauma, because there are quite a few people out there who really enjoy doing that sort of thing. So when language is used like that, people who are hurt by the reference have to decide whether the speaker is simply ignorant of how it's going to land or if they are doing it on purpose. Some of them are going to chuck Hanlon's razor out the window and assume it's done on purpose as part of some sort of power game or sadism.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Since we're talking context here, I think it might be important to assess the various possible contexts: - recent historical labor slavery (predominantly but not exclusively race based, US focus) - modern labor slavery (less common in the US than other parts of the world) - sex slavery (with a debate over when sex work counts) - "wage slavery": being in a position where you must work to sustain yourself, without an expectation of receiving compensation based on the value you create Wage slavery is not an uncommon phrase, and you see it bandied about on HN semi-regularly, especially whenever the topic of universal basic income comes up. I would peg wage slavery as the closest context for analogy, though it's not perfect; in this case, the startup CEO is working predominantly for equity in the hopes that the equity will eventually be worth more than if they had taken a standard salary.