5 ms·

"The ideal Krakenite is thick-skinned and well-intentioned." I think that means "if someone is mean to you, or says something offensive, you will be expected t

"The ideal Krakenite is thick-skinned and well-intentioned." I think that means "if someone is mean to you, or says something offensive, you will be expected to suck it up and not complain. They meant well, after all." Also, edited because I just noticed: "It’s time to think about taking more of your paycheck in bitcoin because the fundamentals have only improved." That's insane. Sorry. "Take your money in a form that is rapidly losing value to prove your devotion to our cause" is the language of a cult. This is horrifying.

Traster 4y ago
Yeah the thing that struck me about his Twitter thread was the absurd scare quotes around the terms he clearly disagreed with. It doesn’t come across as well intentioned at all. It’s like a get out of jail free card for literally any behaviour.
Vanclief 4y ago
They also are looking "diversity of thought" over "stereotypical team diversity measurements". It looks like to me that they are looking for people with common sense that don't get offended by everything and don't make everything a political issue. I hope we get more companies to do that.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  It reads to me like they looked at what progressive-leaning companies put in their diversity statements and decided "we'll just do the opposite of that!" Their diversity/culture documentation is essentially a right-wing screed against "woke" companies. They're right about one thing: It's not particularly professional.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  Why is it so hard for people not to be dicks? I manage to go to work every day and avoid harassing my co-workers just fine. Avoiding offensive language is not difficult unless you are an inherently offensive person...
  - poszlem 4y ago
    As always in those situations - people like the parent post author pretend that "what is offensive to who" is a settled issue and not the main front in the current culture war.
    - ivraatiems 4y ago
      Would you contend that the offensiveness of racial slurs like the n-word is not a settled issue? That's the level we're at here. This isn't "somebody said Latina and not Latinx." This is "the CEO wants to be free to use a word that has been notoriously offensive for decades at work."
      - poszlem 4y ago
        I don't see where you took the n-word from, but even that to me as a non-american is peculiar. As much as I don't think the word should be used as a slur, people have lost jobs over using it when quoting someone else or even using it verbatim when enumerating things that should not be said which to me is insane. In my mother tongue there are no "words-than-must-not-be-named" and I struggle to understand the logic behind it. It reminds me of that Paul Grahams text "What you can't say" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html: "I can think of one more way to figure out what we can't say: to look at how taboos are created. How do moral fashions arise, and why are they adopted? If we can understand this mechanism, we may be able to see it at work in our own time. Moral fashions don't seem to be created the way ordinary fashions are. Ordinary fashions seem to arise by accident when everyone imitates the whim of some influential person. The fashion for broad-toed shoes in late fifteenth century Europe began because Charles VIII of France had six toes on one foot. The fashion for the name Gary began when the actor Frank Cooper adopted the name of a tough mill town in Indiana. Moral fashions more often seem to be created deliberately. When there's something we can't say, it's often because some group doesn't want us to. The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo's situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus's ideas. Copernicus himself didn't. In fact, Copernicus was a canon of a cathedral, and dedicated his book to the pope. But by Galileo's time the church was in the throes of the Counter-Reformation and was much more worried about unorthodox ideas. To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn't need taboos to protect it. It's not considered improper to make disparaging remarks about Americans, or the English. And yet a group has to be powerful enough to enforce a taboo. Coprophiles, as of this writing, don't seem to be numerous or energetic enough to have had their interests promoted to a lifestyle." And I don't agree with having someone else's taboos enforced on me. (Which I'm sure some people will read as "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY <<N**R>> AT WORK", but I don't think I can help those people other than ask them to re-read what I wrote)
- banannaise 4y ago
  Diversity of thought is great, but framing it as the only kind of diversity you need is often code for "We're totally on board with misogyny, racism, and homophobia, which is diverse from all this woke bullshit! If you can't deal with seeing those things at our company, there's the door! And it's totally coincidence that our leadership is all white men!"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Hamcha 4y ago
Some of the writing feels like a cult (krakenites, the Mission, true believers) while the other seems like they're trying to pander to right-wingers. Perhaps they see the current climate of companies going all "woke", and want to appeal to those who feel left out? Do they even realize how abrasive it comes out reading it in a corporate document and not some *chan site?
duxup 4y ago
It's particularly interesting coming from those at the top of the food chain at a company. Yeah they can say what they want and too bad if someone isn't thick skinned enough / nothing happens. If someone not at the top of the food chain says something and someone further up isn't thick skinned enough... they can retaliate. Then there's the weird setup where often folks complaining about people not being thick skinned enough are just reacting to situations where they're ... not being thick skinned / didn't like what they heard.
zaphar 4y ago
It is basically impossible for me not to find something I could be outraged about or offended by in any company I've ever worked in. If I was not able to respond in a way other than lashing out I would be unemployable, and for good reason. There is off course nuance here. There are certain principals I am not willing to violate and will burn bridges to speak out against. But it's important to distinguish between those principals and other offensive ideas so you know when to fight those battles and when not to. You seem to be reading this article and reading stuff between the lines that other people aren't. The article itself doesn't give you enough detail to know whose between the line reading is correct. Seems like maybe that's worth remembering.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  I'm reading their extended culture docs at https://kraken-culture.notion.site/ https://kraken-culture.notion.site/. I agree you can't get what I'm saying from the main article in the post. But that culture documentation is really something.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    I'll read those later so I can understand the context from your statement more. What sections specifically in that doc concern you the most?
    - ivraatiems 4y ago
      The "best" parts are part VI (where they rip off the US constitution and talk a ton about firearms) and part VII where they regurgitate right-wing "anti-woke" talking points.
      - cowtools 4y ago
        Seems pretty reasonable to me. Part VI doesn't go in depth about firearms. In any case, it would be pretty alarming to me if a cryptocurrency exchange wasn't oriented towards freedom and against regulation. Cryptocurrency, like cryptography or firearms is fundamentally a freedom-enhancing technology so long as they're in the hands of individuals and not institutions. Concerning part VII, It emphasizes the importance of tolerance of diverse ideas, and respect for co-workers. Generally speaking, I think that the "identity politics" (e.g. "inter-sectionalism") that characterize "woke-ness" are pretty untolerant and anti-productive, even for the pursuit of progressive/leftist causes. It would be wise for any group with pro-freedom goals to weed out these types from their organization ahead of time.

Traster 4y ago

Yeah the thing that struck me about his Twitter thread was the absurd scare quotes around the terms he clearly disagreed with. It doesn’t come across as well intentioned at all. It’s like a get out of jail free card for literally any behaviour.

Vanclief 4y ago

They also are looking "diversity of thought" over "stereotypical team diversity measurements". It looks like to me that they are looking for people with common sense that don't get offended by everything and don't make everything a political issue. I hope we get more companies to do that.

ivraatiems 4y ago
It reads to me like they looked at what progressive-leaning companies put in their diversity statements and decided "we'll just do the opposite of that!" Their diversity/culture documentation is essentially a right-wing screed against "woke" companies. They're right about one thing: It's not particularly professional.
babypuncher 4y ago
Why is it so hard for people not to be dicks? I manage to go to work every day and avoid harassing my co-workers just fine. Avoiding offensive language is not difficult unless you are an inherently offensive person...
- poszlem 4y ago
  As always in those situations - people like the parent post author pretend that "what is offensive to who" is a settled issue and not the main front in the current culture war.
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    Would you contend that the offensiveness of racial slurs like the n-word is not a settled issue? That's the level we're at here. This isn't "somebody said Latina and not Latinx." This is "the CEO wants to be free to use a word that has been notoriously offensive for decades at work."
    - poszlem 4y ago
      I don't see where you took the n-word from, but even that to me as a non-american is peculiar. As much as I don't think the word should be used as a slur, people have lost jobs over using it when quoting someone else or even using it verbatim when enumerating things that should not be said which to me is insane. In my mother tongue there are no "words-than-must-not-be-named" and I struggle to understand the logic behind it. It reminds me of that Paul Grahams text "What you can't say" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html: "I can think of one more way to figure out what we can't say: to look at how taboos are created. How do moral fashions arise, and why are they adopted? If we can understand this mechanism, we may be able to see it at work in our own time. Moral fashions don't seem to be created the way ordinary fashions are. Ordinary fashions seem to arise by accident when everyone imitates the whim of some influential person. The fashion for broad-toed shoes in late fifteenth century Europe began because Charles VIII of France had six toes on one foot. The fashion for the name Gary began when the actor Frank Cooper adopted the name of a tough mill town in Indiana. Moral fashions more often seem to be created deliberately. When there's something we can't say, it's often because some group doesn't want us to. The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo's situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus's ideas. Copernicus himself didn't. In fact, Copernicus was a canon of a cathedral, and dedicated his book to the pope. But by Galileo's time the church was in the throes of the Counter-Reformation and was much more worried about unorthodox ideas. To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn't need taboos to protect it. It's not considered improper to make disparaging remarks about Americans, or the English. And yet a group has to be powerful enough to enforce a taboo. Coprophiles, as of this writing, don't seem to be numerous or energetic enough to have had their interests promoted to a lifestyle." And I don't agree with having someone else's taboos enforced on me. (Which I'm sure some people will read as "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY <<N**R>> AT WORK", but I don't think I can help those people other than ask them to re-read what I wrote)
banannaise 4y ago
Diversity of thought is great, but framing it as the only kind of diversity you need is often code for "We're totally on board with misogyny, racism, and homophobia, which is diverse from all this woke bullshit! If you can't deal with seeing those things at our company, there's the door! And it's totally coincidence that our leadership is all white men!"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Hamcha 4y ago

Some of the writing feels like a cult (krakenites, the Mission, true believers) while the other seems like they're trying to pander to right-wingers. Perhaps they see the current climate of companies going all "woke", and want to appeal to those who feel left out? Do they even realize how abrasive it comes out reading it in a corporate document and not some *chan site?

duxup 4y ago

It's particularly interesting coming from those at the top of the food chain at a company. Yeah they can say what they want and too bad if someone isn't thick skinned enough / nothing happens. If someone not at the top of the food chain says something and someone further up isn't thick skinned enough... they can retaliate. Then there's the weird setup where often folks complaining about people not being thick skinned enough are just reacting to situations where they're ... not being thick skinned / didn't like what they heard.

zaphar 4y ago

It is basically impossible for me not to find something I could be outraged about or offended by in any company I've ever worked in. If I was not able to respond in a way other than lashing out I would be unemployable, and for good reason. There is off course nuance here. There are certain principals I am not willing to violate and will burn bridges to speak out against. But it's important to distinguish between those principals and other offensive ideas so you know when to fight those battles and when not to. You seem to be reading this article and reading stuff between the lines that other people aren't. The article itself doesn't give you enough detail to know whose between the line reading is correct. Seems like maybe that's worth remembering.

ivraatiems 4y ago
I'm reading their extended culture docs at https://kraken-culture.notion.site/ https://kraken-culture.notion.site/. I agree you can't get what I'm saying from the main article in the post. But that culture documentation is really something.
- zaphar 4y ago
  I'll read those later so I can understand the context from your statement more. What sections specifically in that doc concern you the most?
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    The "best" parts are part VI (where they rip off the US constitution and talk a ton about firearms) and part VII where they regurgitate right-wing "anti-woke" talking points.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      Seems pretty reasonable to me. Part VI doesn't go in depth about firearms. In any case, it would be pretty alarming to me if a cryptocurrency exchange wasn't oriented towards freedom and against regulation. Cryptocurrency, like cryptography or firearms is fundamentally a freedom-enhancing technology so long as they're in the hands of individuals and not institutions. Concerning part VII, It emphasizes the importance of tolerance of diverse ideas, and respect for co-workers. Generally speaking, I think that the "identity politics" (e.g. "inter-sectionalism") that characterize "woke-ness" are pretty untolerant and anti-productive, even for the pursuit of progressive/leftist causes. It would be wise for any group with pro-freedom goals to weed out these types from their organization ahead of time.