17 ms·

This thread is shocking. It sounds like some workers tried to introduce DEI and were ridiculed from the top down. Also, they may have had "20 people" who were

by leshow 4y ago

This thread is shocking. It sounds like some workers tried to introduce DEI and were ridiculed from the top down. Also, they may have had "20 people" who were brave enough to say something but I guarantee there were more who just didn't want to speak up.

ramesh31 4y ago
dubswithus 4y ago
From the tweet: > We've got people in 70+ countries, speaking 50+ languages in the company, trying to build products for people in 190. Differing perspectives will be shared. That's DIVERSITY. It's not always easy. You've gotta be resilient, humble, open and highly tolerant of differing norms.
- eropple 4y ago
  That tweet is nonsense. Let's talk concretely: should a queer person be expected to be tolerant of a coworker who believes that they should be beaten or killed for their sexual orientation? This question has a yes or no answer.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    No but what's the realistic action. Don't hire from certain countries? Push American values onto entire other countries from the safety of your computer? It's just not a battle that can be won so why fight it?
    - vkou 4y ago
      The realistic action is to expect everyone to behave like professionals. Your boss doesn't get to police what you think, but he can, and absolutely should police what you do at work. 'Bring your whole self to work' is nonsense. If your whole self is at odds with acceptable workplace behaviour, it should stay at home.
      - banannaise 4y ago
        "acceptable workplace behavior" is a rich white cis straight male standard, but you're probably not ready to hear that. Judging everyone on how well they can act like a rich white cis straight male is naturally discriminatory to everyone who isn't, in proportion to how much unlike that they are.
        Fargoan 4y ago
        That's a ridiculous and untrue statement. Treat everyone with respect and don't bring up discriminatory beliefs
        rgoulter 4y ago
        I'm kinda curious what you think about these principles: 1. Treat people like human beings, not political abstractions. 2. Criticize to uplift and empower, never to tear down or destroy. 3. Root everything you do in love and compassion. https://theoryofenchantment.com/about/ https://theoryofenchantment.com/about/
        banannaise 4y ago
        I would love it if those were the actual principles of workplace behavior, as enforced.
        retweet360 4y ago
        > but you're probably not ready to hear that. What does this mean?
        zen_1 4y ago
        >"acceptable workplace behavior" is a rich white cis straight male standard, but you're probably not ready to hear that. I guess I'm now rich and white since I'm familiar with what is and what isn't acceptable workplace behavior. When does my check arrive, and when do you think my skintone will start to change?
        4y ago
  - drstewart 4y ago
    How is this belief surfaced? Is the queer person being threatened by the coworker? Why does it need to be treated differently than any other death threat? I know quite a few high profile queer tech leaders that are constantly posting negative things about cis white men on Twitter. Am I expected to work with them when they're clearly not tolerant of me based on my immutable characteristics?
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Random people on Twitter can hurt your feelings, but they don't have access to internal systems or private information that can harm your welfare or impair your ability to get your work done. You're not expected to work with anyone you don't work with.
      - stedaniels 4y ago
        That's a pretty narrow view of society. Many people work with people they don't want to, don't like, hate, despise even.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Human beings are capable of all kinds of petty emotions for all kinds of petty reasons, most of which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As a society, we recognize that prejudice, especially against the vulnerable, is particularly bad.
    - eropple 4y ago
      It is telling that, when a yes-or-no question is offered, the regressive tech contingent cannot stop themselves from posting and yet also can't answer the question. To address the but-for in better faith than it deserves: as a cis white dude, I absolutely do not care what a tech leader says about much of anything. I do care what my co-workers say and believe, but my co-workers are not of a political, religious, or cultural persuasion that implies that I should be killed for being a cis white dude, and I would expect my employer to do something about it if that were the case. Wouldn't you? So, let's try again: queer people should be expected to work with those who believe that they should be killed for being queer. Yes or no?
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    How do you know the beliefs of a coworker? Do you ask them extremely probing questions? I think I have a right not to be interrogated at work.
    - eropple 4y ago
      This is a yes-or-no question. Should queer people be expected to work with people who believe that they should be killed for being queer? This is the contention at hand. If you're going to participate in the discussion, you're going to need to grip it with both hands. I obviously think that it's a ridiculous statement, and nobody should be expected, either socially or contractually, to work with somebody who believes they should be killed. Do you?
      - Fargoan 4y ago
        Yes. It's a stupid question. Should I have to work with people who think atheists should be killed? Also yes. If they're not bringing up their beliefs at work then it doesn't matter. If they are then that's a problem
        SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        Taking this hypothetical in good faith how can it possible that one can work with a co worker who believes they are subhuman? A co worker who hates me for writing code they don’t like makes things like 360 reviews dicey, but a co worker who literally wants my death would make me concerned for every pr and 1:1.
        dubswithus 4y ago
        What makes you think you aren't working with a group of such people now? I take comfort in not knowing the opinions and life philosophies of my coworkers. I need to compartmentalize some things so that I can continue paying my bills.
        4y ago
  - kravens_last 4y ago
    Alluded to a Saudi hire of some sort.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Evolve1714 4y ago
  - felixhammerl 4y ago
    Spiekermann said it best: Don't work for assholes. Don't work with assholes. https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/a3/a3e652c7fa0a1cada86d95e84b15f67a3c444689_1100.jpg https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/a3/a3e652c7fa0...
  - eric_cc 4y ago
    Yes. As long as said person does not bother them at work. Violence or threat of violence at the workplace should not be tolerated regardless of motive.
  - retweet360 4y ago
  - unmole 4y ago
    > Let's talk concretely: should a queer person be expected to be tolerant of a coworker who believes that they should be beaten or killed for their sexual orientation? > This question has a yes or no answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" still remains the gold standard though.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
      From your Wikipedia article: > Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes–no questions are leading). And specifically referencing your example, still from your article: > Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions[3] (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That is to say: the question posed is not a leading question, and the article you linked as a citation in fact directly refutes your specific example. Your article helpfully informs us that your example is a “loaded question,” and we can ask Wikipedia what distinguishes such a question: > A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question Yet the original question still fails this new test: there is no controversial assumption, and certainly no presumption of guilt. Unless, of course, you think it preposterous that anyone would hold a belief such as “queer people should be beaten to death for their sexual orientation.” Or that it’s unlikely or even impossible that one’s coworkers would hold such a belief. Unfortunately, neither of those are exceedingly controversial - it is trivial to find ample evidence of outright calls for the execution of LGBT individuals in the past month, and I leave that as an exercise to the reader. The most controversial assumption here is that such a person might be a coworker. And frankly, that just doesn’t rise to the level of a “loaded question.” You just didn’t want to answer.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- leshow 4y ago
  The thread is very clear they are only open to perspectives that don't challenge any of their own opinions. They complain on the one hand that one shouldn't care about offending, and on the other say that they wouldn't want to ask a Saudi hire what their preferred pronouns are.
gorwell 4y ago
You must not have experienced this brand of activists yet. They are toxic to the entire team and organization in which they are present. They sow division, intolerance, hatred, bigotry and exclusion unlike anything I've seen in decades of work experience.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  I had a boss (construction) identify himself as a racist, use the N-word, and tell me he was glad to be moving to another state where there are fewer black people (but "Mexicans are okay"). I don't feel one bit sorry for you.
  - gorwell 4y ago
    It's the same kind of person. The difference is that your boss correctly identified himself. The activists in question are the same, but misidentify themselves, hiding under a false label. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. I also made the mistake thinking they were sheep at first. They talk all about diversity and inclusion and tolerance, but in practice it's precisely the opposite.
    - vore 4y ago
      As mentioned in phphphphp's reply to your original comment, surely the CEO here is also "sowing division, intolerance, hatred, bigotry and exclusion unlike anything you've seen in decades of work experience".
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      Assuming you're correct that they don't genuinely want inclusion and tolerance (and I might agree with you depending on the individual), that doesn't make them the same kind of person as racists. You see, racists have a long tradition of actually murdering people, not just being annoying. What a truly absurd take.
      - not_really 4y ago
jseliger 4y ago
Another perspective: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/ https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-i... Or mine, from 2020: https://jakeseliger.com/2020/12/03/dissent-insiders-and-outsiders/ https://jakeseliger.com/2020/12/03/dissent-insiders-and-outs...
- tptacek 4y ago
  The Intercept article is about activists working in progressive political organizations, not about whether people who have particular pronouns are somehow corrosive to organizational goals. Having clearly-stated preferences for how you're addressed isn't activism. It is, in fact, basic nuts-and-bolts professionalism; voicing a negative reaction to such a preference is in fact more akin to activism.
  - bumbledraven 4y ago
    > Having clearly-stated preferences for how you're addressed isn't activism. To "address" means to speak directly to. The pronouns people declare aren't about how they're addressed, but rather about how they're referred to in the third person by others. For example, suppose you've declared your pronouns to be he/him. I wouldn't use those pronouns when speaking to you. I would just use "you". The pronouns you declared become relevant when I refer to you while talking to others.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      That's a distinction I didn't make because I don't care about it and it isn't relevant to the point I made. If a colleague with a doctorate wishes to be referred to as "doctor", it is unprofessional to choose to refer to them otherwise. Further, knowingly and deliberately using an undesired form of address for them is trolling; it's the exact opposite of professionalism. None of this is news to Kraken, whose CEO helped maintain a "more troll-ish than 4chan" group on their Slack. Professionalism simply isn't one of their company values. At any rate: my point remains --- there's no apparent overlap between Kraken, where unprofessionalism and cultural activism is coming from management, not from activist employees, and progressive organizations, which is what the Intercept article is talking about.
akomtu 4y ago
DEI to inclusiveness is what Inquisition is to the original christianity principles. Imagine the ego of those who picked this acronym (dei=god). DEI has become identity fundamentalism at this point, a worship of body and emotions. Corps push it because it breaks bonds between employees (a careless joke may be reported to DEI apparatchiks, so better to be bland and professional). So a small company that wants to grow should watch out for DEI stuff and stop it early and firmly. A big established corp benefits more from top-down DEI policies, as those crystalize the status quo.
usrn 4y ago
Thank goodness honestly, I wish my CEO had that kind of backbone.

by leshow 4y ago

ramesh31 4y ago

dubswithus 4y ago

From the tweet: > We've got people in 70+ countries, speaking 50+ languages in the company, trying to build products for people in 190. Differing perspectives will be shared. That's DIVERSITY. It's not always easy. You've gotta be resilient, humble, open and highly tolerant of differing norms.

eropple 4y ago
That tweet is nonsense. Let's talk concretely: should a queer person be expected to be tolerant of a coworker who believes that they should be beaten or killed for their sexual orientation? This question has a yes or no answer.
- tayo42 4y ago
  No but what's the realistic action. Don't hire from certain countries? Push American values onto entire other countries from the safety of your computer? It's just not a battle that can be won so why fight it?
  - vkou 4y ago
    The realistic action is to expect everyone to behave like professionals. Your boss doesn't get to police what you think, but he can, and absolutely should police what you do at work. 'Bring your whole self to work' is nonsense. If your whole self is at odds with acceptable workplace behaviour, it should stay at home.
    - banannaise 4y ago
      "acceptable workplace behavior" is a rich white cis straight male standard, but you're probably not ready to hear that. Judging everyone on how well they can act like a rich white cis straight male is naturally discriminatory to everyone who isn't, in proportion to how much unlike that they are.
      - Fargoan 4y ago
        That's a ridiculous and untrue statement. Treat everyone with respect and don't bring up discriminatory beliefs
      - rgoulter 4y ago
        I'm kinda curious what you think about these principles: 1. Treat people like human beings, not political abstractions. 2. Criticize to uplift and empower, never to tear down or destroy. 3. Root everything you do in love and compassion. https://theoryofenchantment.com/about/ https://theoryofenchantment.com/about/
        banannaise 4y ago
        I would love it if those were the actual principles of workplace behavior, as enforced.
      - retweet360 4y ago
        > but you're probably not ready to hear that. What does this mean?
      - zen_1 4y ago
        >"acceptable workplace behavior" is a rich white cis straight male standard, but you're probably not ready to hear that. I guess I'm now rich and white since I'm familiar with what is and what isn't acceptable workplace behavior. When does my check arrive, and when do you think my skintone will start to change?
        4y ago
- drstewart 4y ago
  How is this belief surfaced? Is the queer person being threatened by the coworker? Why does it need to be treated differently than any other death threat? I know quite a few high profile queer tech leaders that are constantly posting negative things about cis white men on Twitter. Am I expected to work with them when they're clearly not tolerant of me based on my immutable characteristics?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Random people on Twitter can hurt your feelings, but they don't have access to internal systems or private information that can harm your welfare or impair your ability to get your work done. You're not expected to work with anyone you don't work with.
    - stedaniels 4y ago
      That's a pretty narrow view of society. Many people work with people they don't want to, don't like, hate, despise even.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Human beings are capable of all kinds of petty emotions for all kinds of petty reasons, most of which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As a society, we recognize that prejudice, especially against the vulnerable, is particularly bad.
  - eropple 4y ago
    It is telling that, when a yes-or-no question is offered, the regressive tech contingent cannot stop themselves from posting and yet also can't answer the question. To address the but-for in better faith than it deserves: as a cis white dude, I absolutely do not care what a tech leader says about much of anything. I do care what my co-workers say and believe, but my co-workers are not of a political, religious, or cultural persuasion that implies that I should be killed for being a cis white dude, and I would expect my employer to do something about it if that were the case. Wouldn't you? So, let's try again: queer people should be expected to work with those who believe that they should be killed for being queer. Yes or no?
- dubswithus 4y ago
  How do you know the beliefs of a coworker? Do you ask them extremely probing questions? I think I have a right not to be interrogated at work.
  - eropple 4y ago
    This is a yes-or-no question. Should queer people be expected to work with people who believe that they should be killed for being queer? This is the contention at hand. If you're going to participate in the discussion, you're going to need to grip it with both hands. I obviously think that it's a ridiculous statement, and nobody should be expected, either socially or contractually, to work with somebody who believes they should be killed. Do you?
    - Fargoan 4y ago
      Yes. It's a stupid question. Should I have to work with people who think atheists should be killed? Also yes. If they're not bringing up their beliefs at work then it doesn't matter. If they are then that's a problem
      - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        Taking this hypothetical in good faith how can it possible that one can work with a co worker who believes they are subhuman? A co worker who hates me for writing code they don’t like makes things like 360 reviews dicey, but a co worker who literally wants my death would make me concerned for every pr and 1:1.
        dubswithus 4y ago
        What makes you think you aren't working with a group of such people now? I take comfort in not knowing the opinions and life philosophies of my coworkers. I need to compartmentalize some things so that I can continue paying my bills.
        4y ago
- kravens_last 4y ago
  Alluded to a Saudi hire of some sort.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Evolve1714 4y ago
- felixhammerl 4y ago
  Spiekermann said it best: Don't work for assholes. Don't work with assholes. https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/a3/a3e652c7fa0a1cada86d95e84b15f67a3c444689_1100.jpg https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/a3/a3e652c7fa0...
- eric_cc 4y ago
  Yes. As long as said person does not bother them at work. Violence or threat of violence at the workplace should not be tolerated regardless of motive.
- retweet360 4y ago
- unmole 4y ago
  > Let's talk concretely: should a queer person be expected to be tolerant of a coworker who believes that they should be beaten or killed for their sexual orientation? > This question has a yes or no answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" still remains the gold standard though.
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    From your Wikipedia article: > Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes–no questions are leading). And specifically referencing your example, still from your article: > Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions[3] (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That is to say: the question posed is not a leading question, and the article you linked as a citation in fact directly refutes your specific example. Your article helpfully informs us that your example is a “loaded question,” and we can ask Wikipedia what distinguishes such a question: > A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question Yet the original question still fails this new test: there is no controversial assumption, and certainly no presumption of guilt. Unless, of course, you think it preposterous that anyone would hold a belief such as “queer people should be beaten to death for their sexual orientation.” Or that it’s unlikely or even impossible that one’s coworkers would hold such a belief. Unfortunately, neither of those are exceedingly controversial - it is trivial to find ample evidence of outright calls for the execution of LGBT individuals in the past month, and I leave that as an exercise to the reader. The most controversial assumption here is that such a person might be a coworker. And frankly, that just doesn’t rise to the level of a “loaded question.” You just didn’t want to answer.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
leshow 4y ago
The thread is very clear they are only open to perspectives that don't challenge any of their own opinions. They complain on the one hand that one shouldn't care about offending, and on the other say that they wouldn't want to ask a Saudi hire what their preferred pronouns are.

gorwell 4y ago

You must not have experienced this brand of activists yet. They are toxic to the entire team and organization in which they are present. They sow division, intolerance, hatred, bigotry and exclusion unlike anything I've seen in decades of work experience.

SantalBlush 4y ago
I had a boss (construction) identify himself as a racist, use the N-word, and tell me he was glad to be moving to another state where there are fewer black people (but "Mexicans are okay"). I don't feel one bit sorry for you.
- gorwell 4y ago
  It's the same kind of person. The difference is that your boss correctly identified himself. The activists in question are the same, but misidentify themselves, hiding under a false label. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. I also made the mistake thinking they were sheep at first. They talk all about diversity and inclusion and tolerance, but in practice it's precisely the opposite.
  - vore 4y ago
    As mentioned in phphphphp's reply to your original comment, surely the CEO here is also "sowing division, intolerance, hatred, bigotry and exclusion unlike anything you've seen in decades of work experience".
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    Assuming you're correct that they don't genuinely want inclusion and tolerance (and I might agree with you depending on the individual), that doesn't make them the same kind of person as racists. You see, racists have a long tradition of actually murdering people, not just being annoying. What a truly absurd take.
    - not_really 4y ago

jseliger 4y ago

Another perspective: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/ https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-i... Or mine, from 2020: https://jakeseliger.com/2020/12/03/dissent-insiders-and-outsiders/ https://jakeseliger.com/2020/12/03/dissent-insiders-and-outs...

tptacek 4y ago
The Intercept article is about activists working in progressive political organizations, not about whether people who have particular pronouns are somehow corrosive to organizational goals. Having clearly-stated preferences for how you're addressed isn't activism. It is, in fact, basic nuts-and-bolts professionalism; voicing a negative reaction to such a preference is in fact more akin to activism.
- bumbledraven 4y ago
  > Having clearly-stated preferences for how you're addressed isn't activism. To "address" means to speak directly to. The pronouns people declare aren't about how they're addressed, but rather about how they're referred to in the third person by others. For example, suppose you've declared your pronouns to be he/him. I wouldn't use those pronouns when speaking to you. I would just use "you". The pronouns you declared become relevant when I refer to you while talking to others.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    That's a distinction I didn't make because I don't care about it and it isn't relevant to the point I made. If a colleague with a doctorate wishes to be referred to as "doctor", it is unprofessional to choose to refer to them otherwise. Further, knowingly and deliberately using an undesired form of address for them is trolling; it's the exact opposite of professionalism. None of this is news to Kraken, whose CEO helped maintain a "more troll-ish than 4chan" group on their Slack. Professionalism simply isn't one of their company values. At any rate: my point remains --- there's no apparent overlap between Kraken, where unprofessionalism and cultural activism is coming from management, not from activist employees, and progressive organizations, which is what the Intercept article is talking about.

akomtu 4y ago

DEI to inclusiveness is what Inquisition is to the original christianity principles. Imagine the ego of those who picked this acronym (dei=god). DEI has become identity fundamentalism at this point, a worship of body and emotions. Corps push it because it breaks bonds between employees (a careless joke may be reported to DEI apparatchiks, so better to be bland and professional). So a small company that wants to grow should watch out for DEI stuff and stop it early and firmly. A big established corp benefits more from top-down DEI policies, as those crystalize the status quo.

usrn 4y ago

Thank goodness honestly, I wish my CEO had that kind of backbone.