5 ms·

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 thi

by 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.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    "Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all." Fully agree, where "these things" also include topics the typical activist may not agree with. Personally, I think it's a myth for such truly open truth-seeking debates to be possible at all, at work even less so.

by jrsj 4y ago

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.
- fleddr 4y ago
  "Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all." Fully agree, where "these things" also include topics the typical activist may not agree with. Personally, I think it's a myth for such truly open truth-seeking debates to be possible at all, at work even less so.