3 ms·

I think you're interpreting that backwards.

• smcl 4y ago
  Hmm, I revisited to check and Tweet #1 is: > We recently attempted to summarize what the @krakenfx culture has been over the past 11 years, and what we hope it continues to be. > We had a few heated debates and it turns out we have about 20 people out of 3200 who are totally not on board. Ok so 20/3200 are "totally not on board" - i.e. they're the group of people supposedly causing trouble that we are going to be discussing in this thread. While tweet #5 lists what this group are annoyed about: > 5/ What are they upset about? > * DEI (Silicon Valley's version) > * pronouns, whether someone can identify as a different race and be allowed to use the N-word > * whether differences in human sex exist at all > * being respected and unoffended > * being "harmed" by "violent" words So my overall read is that he's taking aim at "woke" culture, and my initial interpretation of the second item was "that non-black people are using the n-word" which tracks with the overall point. I guess it could be interpreted differently ("if you identify as black [these unhappy people] think you should be able to use the n-word") but that isn't really in line with the rest of the tweet. But my interpretation was, someone's clearly dropping n-bombs and either: 1. only a small minority are vocally upset about it, the rest are ok 2. only a small minority have no qualms with it, the rest are upset And the scare-quotes in 'being "harmed" by "violent" words' kinda look like he's ridiculing this point. Honestly it reads like a tech-bro version of the usual "these liberal snowflakes need a safe space..." rant to me.