7 ms·

Some of the thread is reasonable - e.g. the ESL Saudi and pronouns - but trying to get ahead of a critical article by saying “FUD! Don’t believe the news! Apply

Some of the thread is reasonable - e.g. the ESL Saudi and pronouns - but trying to get ahead of a critical article by saying “FUD! Don’t believe the news! Apply now!” is not the best look.

toolz 4y ago
What should he be doing if he wants people to apply? Should he wait for the articles to spread the word that kraken isn't in a position to hire?
- uncomputation 4y ago
  First, don’t say “don’t believe the news” because that sounds extremely sketchy. Second, just affirm the/your facts instead of negating the anticipated argument. (Typical corporate speak, “We are focused on our mission,” “We welcome a diverse talent pool,” whatever you want). Third, don’t say apply now because it seems desperate. If you must, then at least don’t link to the application, just say something like “We are always hiring” or “If you want to join Kraken,” etc. This is basic PR I would expect from even a college club, much less the CEO of a financial exchange: not getting on Twitter using laughing emojis and crying FUD.
  - FabHK 4y ago
    Does he mention "the hit piece" at all in those tweets of his? I didn't see it. Clearly, there is a debate going on about the culture at Kraken, including in the media, and he stated his case. Don't see what's wrong with that. EDIT: oh, it is mentioned: "Someone's likely been sharing internal chat (in breach of their NDA) devoid of context, with a journalist who we expect to publish a hit piece in the next few days. " https://nitter.net/jespow/status/1536978821345292288 https://nitter.net/jespow/status/1536978821345292288
- sumeno 4y ago
  He should just use the pronouns people prefer and not call people the N-word, but instead he has to have big sit down conversations where he explains why actually it's ok for him to use the N-word and ignore people's pronouns. A bare minimum of consideration of people who are different from you goes an astoundingly far way.
BelleOfTheBall 4y ago
I'm a cis woman but any person who gets genuinely upset at people for asking to be addressed by their preferred pronouns comes off like a clown. If I change my name and ask to be addressed by my new name, anyone who wouldn't do it would be ridiculed. And yet someone changing their pronouns asking for the same is somehow too much. You don't have to be super-woke or tolerant to simply refer to people correctly.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  There is a slight difference though. In the pronoun case the asker is implicitly demanding that norms change on their behalf. The changing (or fighting the change) of those norms is an explicitly political act. Similarly, my wife not taking my name upon our marriage was an implicit political act and my mom going by Ms. was as well. At different points in time either of those acts could have brought ridicule to my wife and mother so that’s not a terribly good standard. Personally, I view addressing people as they want to be simply polite but let’s not pretend that our view of “correct” isn’t a political act that is potentially outside the current norms.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    I think it’s made to be political but I think the line of what is or isn’t political and avoiding it is itself a political behavior by its nature. It’s inherently political to say one name change is political because “I will go by Jacob instead of Jessica”, and another name change isn’t political because of “only my dad calls me David, I go by Dave”.
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      I go by Muhammad Ali because I don’t acknowledge my slave name and I call him Cassius Clay because his momma did are both political. It turns out the political impact of an action is derived from its deviance from acceptable norms or its reaction.
      - 4y ago

Some of the thread is reasonable - e.g. the ESL Saudi and pronouns - but trying to get ahead of a critical article by saying “FUD! Don’t believe the news! Apply now!” is not the best look.

toolz 4y ago

What should he be doing if he wants people to apply? Should he wait for the articles to spread the word that kraken isn't in a position to hire?

uncomputation 4y ago
First, don’t say “don’t believe the news” because that sounds extremely sketchy. Second, just affirm the/your facts instead of negating the anticipated argument. (Typical corporate speak, “We are focused on our mission,” “We welcome a diverse talent pool,” whatever you want). Third, don’t say apply now because it seems desperate. If you must, then at least don’t link to the application, just say something like “We are always hiring” or “If you want to join Kraken,” etc. This is basic PR I would expect from even a college club, much less the CEO of a financial exchange: not getting on Twitter using laughing emojis and crying FUD.
- FabHK 4y ago
  Does he mention "the hit piece" at all in those tweets of his? I didn't see it. Clearly, there is a debate going on about the culture at Kraken, including in the media, and he stated his case. Don't see what's wrong with that. EDIT: oh, it is mentioned: "Someone's likely been sharing internal chat (in breach of their NDA) devoid of context, with a journalist who we expect to publish a hit piece in the next few days. " https://nitter.net/jespow/status/1536978821345292288 https://nitter.net/jespow/status/1536978821345292288
sumeno 4y ago
He should just use the pronouns people prefer and not call people the N-word, but instead he has to have big sit down conversations where he explains why actually it's ok for him to use the N-word and ignore people's pronouns. A bare minimum of consideration of people who are different from you goes an astoundingly far way.

BelleOfTheBall 4y ago

I'm a cis woman but any person who gets genuinely upset at people for asking to be addressed by their preferred pronouns comes off like a clown. If I change my name and ask to be addressed by my new name, anyone who wouldn't do it would be ridiculed. And yet someone changing their pronouns asking for the same is somehow too much. You don't have to be super-woke or tolerant to simply refer to people correctly.

kasey_junk 4y ago
There is a slight difference though. In the pronoun case the asker is implicitly demanding that norms change on their behalf. The changing (or fighting the change) of those norms is an explicitly political act. Similarly, my wife not taking my name upon our marriage was an implicit political act and my mom going by Ms. was as well. At different points in time either of those acts could have brought ridicule to my wife and mother so that’s not a terribly good standard. Personally, I view addressing people as they want to be simply polite but let’s not pretend that our view of “correct” isn’t a political act that is potentially outside the current norms.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I think it’s made to be political but I think the line of what is or isn’t political and avoiding it is itself a political behavior by its nature. It’s inherently political to say one name change is political because “I will go by Jacob instead of Jessica”, and another name change isn’t political because of “only my dad calls me David, I go by Dave”.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    I go by Muhammad Ali because I don’t acknowledge my slave name and I call him Cassius Clay because his momma did are both political. It turns out the political impact of an action is derived from its deviance from acceptable norms or its reaction.
    - 4y ago