3 ms·

I think it is actually worse. The author is preaching toxic complacency. If a company is fucked-up, it is sometimes not OK. If the work culture is toxic, it is

I think it is actually worse. The author is preaching toxic complacency. If a company is fucked-up, it is sometimes not OK. If the work culture is toxic, it is not OK for any workers (not even the ones that participate in the toxic work culture). The logical conclusion I must draw is that worker alienation is fine actually, and you must simply find a company that is alienating at the same level that you have been alienated. And even worse, the article extends the analogy to relationships, which can be interpreted to excuse domestic violence, as long as the victim is equally “fucked up”. This is not OK.

ajjenkins 4y ago
After thinking about the article some more, I reached the same conclusion. I was trying to figure out why the author wrote this, and my best explanation is that this was an attempt to defend companies that have been labeled “toxic”. Like, “Sure Activision/Blizzard was a fucked up company (and maybe still is), but all companies are fucked up, so it’s really no worse than any other company. It was just the wrong type of fucked up for certain types of people (women, minorities, etc.).” None of this is explicitly said in the article though, so hopefully this wasn’t actually the point the author was trying to make.