4 ms·
Maybe I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I read it as the exact opposite. I read it as him saying: the argument that "why can’t white people identif
by basch 4y ago
Maybe I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I read it as the exact opposite.
I read it as him saying: the argument that "why can’t white people identify as black and say the n-word" is a troll argument, made in bad faith, and is disruptive to work culture and productivity, and people making that argument have no place in their culture.
I arrive at that conclusion because the heading starts "What are they upset about?" They are upset "whether someone can identify as a different race and be allowed to use the N-word." I dont really think someone parading against wokism would in good faith argue that somebody can identify as a different race. They would only do so facetiously. Three tweets above it, his SYN flood DoS analogy makes its pretty clear he is against people derailing good conversation with in bad faith arguments.
As an aside, I'm honestly a little concerned that basically every other commenter arrived at a different conclusion. We are all all over the place. Is our ability to connectively parse tribal language, in a consensual way, really this broken? Is what he wrote really that cryptic or unclear? EDIT: I guess he is the facetious bad actor.
- RC_ITR 4y agoNo, we are just reading a very charged statement and revealing our biases. One only needs to look at the history of biblical textualism to see that this is nothing new. Edit: my interpretation of “they” btw is that “woke” people are upset someone made that argument, which ceo is arguing is a way to shut down good faith argument.
- basch 4y agoYour interpretation is the other way I read it. Either the pronoun people and the n-word people are the same people, or they are two different groups of opposite upset people. Given your interpretation, is he saying "engaging troll arguments further is a form of disruption"? It's also possible the n-word people are prowokism but making a twisted not in bad faith argument that everybody saying the word is more inclusive. And meaning it earnestly. This reading seems the least likely. His more egregious transgression, to me, is going from "If nobody is ever offended, we either don't have enough diversity of thought or we don't have enough transparency in communication" to 'let's sever ties with our 20 most outraged, so there isnt so many offended here.' There's some contradiction between words and actions. If he wants to build a offense-inclusive environment, it needs to include all outrage. These 20 people should be encouraged to continue as an anti-culture team, as a counterfource and check & balance counter to their culture, albeit in a way that doesnt monopolize internal attention.
- basch 4y agoUpdate: The NYT says he's the one who made the troll argument. So maybe he is the disruption that doesnt fit his own culture. Extending someone the benefit of the doubt only goes as far as until they prove otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-...
- bertil 4y agoI admire your effort to try to parse it, but I don't really think we should, or can: it's not a topic that can be explained in 280 characters, one can only fit so many layers of implicit ironic quotation in a tweet, so… Don’t make convoluted points about discrimination on twitter. It's not suited for such points. If you need to, draft something deliberate, long-form and edit it several times. Have a close friend review it, edit some more, and link to it from a tweet, but everything about this thread tells me no one gained much by being exposed to it. As a CEO, he should have known better, learn to communicate clearly and in the right forum, and not force you & others in a futile exercise on exegesis.
- titanomachy 4y agoNot sure why this is being downvoted. A thoughtful person would probably not try to summarize their views on race, equity, or free speech in a tweet.
- Redoubts 4y agoIt’s really weird to give him this benefit of the doubt, given his post in /7.