4 ms·

The simplest solution from a company perspective is to not hire activist type employees. It just never ends well. You may very well find the activist's point va

by fleddr 4y ago

The simplest solution from a company perspective is to not hire activist type employees. It just never ends well. You may very well find the activist's point valid and just, but it still won't end well in most cases. Other than the fact that perhaps they should spend time on actually working, the typical activist method cannot ever succeed. It starts with some sweeping assertion affecting a large group: men oppress women, this cast has a bias to this cast, white people discriminate against black people. So it starts with a sweeping accusation. Which is presented as fact. The accused can't bring forward any counter point as this confirms the accusation, according to activist logic. Instead, you need to sit down and be "educated" and humiliated on things you don't even agree you did, as an individual. We shouldn't be surprised that this approach makes people angry and creates even more division. Activism, DEI and its struggle sessions are wildly unpopular and ineffective. Recently there was a good article (a serious one, I promise, from a progressive research institute) concluding the same: DEI in corporates is a massive failure. It's done nothing to progress any cause, instead deepened division. In extremer cases it even ends in a shouting/bullying match. Vague sweeping claims do not work. If you have a case of discrimination, document it the best you can, have a good story with tangible evidence. And then take it forward.

rdtsc 4y ago
Consequently, to filter out the potential troublemakers, for short a period of time encourage “bring your whole self to work”, “open and honest conversations” etc. See who starts to raise issues and then put them on PIP for purely “technical” reasons.
- fleddr 4y ago
  If anybody would say "bring yourself to work" my first response would be "are you really sure"? They're collective lies. Things we tell each other to make us feel better about ourselves. Same for "open and honest conversations" which really means a tiny subset of allowed conversations fitting ideology.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
krainboltgreene 4y ago
It's wild to me how much of right wing rhetoric on Hacker News is portrayed as "simply how it is" and "activist logic" is portrayed as always wrong, a failure, and counter-productive. None of the situations described in the parent has ever happened. Nor do any of the scientific studies agree with the positions above that are implied to be facts. However, because it is written dispassionately (even condescendingly) the flaws will be ignored and the sentiment applauded.
- fleddr 4y ago
  Even wilder to call it right-wing, given that I'm a moderate leftist in a social democracy (western Europe). Makes me pretty close to a "commie". Pushing back against government overreach is now also right-wing, as is defending free speech. But hey, hard to argue with California logic where the top 1% earners of the world working for harmful neoliberal companies spend their time telling themselves they are victims and oppressed, and doing the "right" thing.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    I said you were spouting right-wing rhetoric, not that you were right wing. You can be a useful fool. It is not shocking to me that you can't understand the difference while talking about the things you talk about.
jrsj 4y ago
If the system for reporting and handling these cases on an individual basis actually worked then there wouldn't be a problem. The entire point of discussing this is to make those systems work better. Presenting counter arguments is fine, but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo.
- fleddr 4y ago
  I agree that you need a solid reporting structure and complaint handling. Likewise you need a solid case. It's a two way street. Preventing counter arguments is NOT fine, that's the issue with generic claims. You can read in the article itself the extreme annoyance the activist experienced when there was a pushback. Think of it this way, would it be fine in this situation if an additional speaker was brought in, one projecting the exact opposite of her claims? Absolutely no way that would happen, which means it's not a discussion. It's an accusation with a fixed outcome. "but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo." I know this language is normalized but saying that people benefit from some status quo is a wild claim. You need extraordinary evidence. And even then it means nothing to the individual. People will keep throwing around demeaning stuff to generalize entire demographics like it's nothing, but it will never ever work. This is why progressive politics is so broken. It builds enemies instead of allies. It burns bridges instead of making new ones.
  - jrsj 4y ago
    These are all good & fair points. I think in this case "but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo." would also apply equally to someone trying to silence any dissent or criticism of the ideas they themselves were putting forwards. Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all. And any standards that are created need to be applied universally too -- you can't just label some as protected groups and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves if they're experiencing a problem, which is basically how things work today. And that's where my complaint about silencing this topic at Google stems from. If others have been able to do it and get special privileges for themselves than preventing further discussion along these lines only further cements those advantages and the disadvantage of others. It either needs to be eliminated entirely or allowed to continue to evolve.

by fleddr 4y ago

rdtsc 4y ago

Consequently, to filter out the potential troublemakers, for short a period of time encourage “bring your whole self to work”, “open and honest conversations” etc. See who starts to raise issues and then put them on PIP for purely “technical” reasons.

fleddr 4y ago
If anybody would say "bring yourself to work" my first response would be "are you really sure"? They're collective lies. Things we tell each other to make us feel better about ourselves. Same for "open and honest conversations" which really means a tiny subset of allowed conversations fitting ideology.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

krainboltgreene 4y ago

It's wild to me how much of right wing rhetoric on Hacker News is portrayed as "simply how it is" and "activist logic" is portrayed as always wrong, a failure, and counter-productive. None of the situations described in the parent has ever happened. Nor do any of the scientific studies agree with the positions above that are implied to be facts. However, because it is written dispassionately (even condescendingly) the flaws will be ignored and the sentiment applauded.

fleddr 4y ago
Even wilder to call it right-wing, given that I'm a moderate leftist in a social democracy (western Europe). Makes me pretty close to a "commie". Pushing back against government overreach is now also right-wing, as is defending free speech. But hey, hard to argue with California logic where the top 1% earners of the world working for harmful neoliberal companies spend their time telling themselves they are victims and oppressed, and doing the "right" thing.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  I said you were spouting right-wing rhetoric, not that you were right wing. You can be a useful fool. It is not shocking to me that you can't understand the difference while talking about the things you talk about.

jrsj 4y ago

If the system for reporting and handling these cases on an individual basis actually worked then there wouldn't be a problem. The entire point of discussing this is to make those systems work better. Presenting counter arguments is fine, but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo.

fleddr 4y ago
I agree that you need a solid reporting structure and complaint handling. Likewise you need a solid case. It's a two way street. Preventing counter arguments is NOT fine, that's the issue with generic claims. You can read in the article itself the extreme annoyance the activist experienced when there was a pushback. Think of it this way, would it be fine in this situation if an additional speaker was brought in, one projecting the exact opposite of her claims? Absolutely no way that would happen, which means it's not a discussion. It's an accusation with a fixed outcome. "but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo." I know this language is normalized but saying that people benefit from some status quo is a wild claim. You need extraordinary evidence. And even then it means nothing to the individual. People will keep throwing around demeaning stuff to generalize entire demographics like it's nothing, but it will never ever work. This is why progressive politics is so broken. It builds enemies instead of allies. It burns bridges instead of making new ones.
- jrsj 4y ago
  These are all good & fair points. I think in this case "but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo." would also apply equally to someone trying to silence any dissent or criticism of the ideas they themselves were putting forwards. Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all. And any standards that are created need to be applied universally too -- you can't just label some as protected groups and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves if they're experiencing a problem, which is basically how things work today. And that's where my complaint about silencing this topic at Google stems from. If others have been able to do it and get special privileges for themselves than preventing further discussion along these lines only further cements those advantages and the disadvantage of others. It either needs to be eliminated entirely or allowed to continue to evolve.