I've talked through the unconstitutionality of the California recall with a few informed, well-read friends recently who completely didn't understand how the process works until I explained it. This process is confusing *by design.* TL;DR - vote no. (1/
Why is it unconstitutional? It has the potential to allow a small plurality of the state to determine our governor, against the interests of a much larger population. This defies the "one person, one vote" principle on which our democratic system is meant to operate. How? (2/
The vote happens in two parts. In the first question, you will be asked whether you want to recall Governor Newsom. In the second, you will be asked who you would like to replace him. (3/
In some truly fortuitous timing, I had therapy today. My therapist reminded me that there are two ways to manage anxiety: top down, and bottom up. Sharing here in case this helps anyone else in the way it helped me. 1/
Top down means starting with your head. Writing your thoughts on paper. Slowing down your "what ifs." Responding to your own worst case scenarios. Reminding yourself of the strategies and tools you have available. When you can calm your mind, that calm can move into your body. 2/
Bottom up means calming your body first. When your body is calm, your brain can't be anxious. This means doing things that feel good for your body. Taking hot showers or baths. Stretching. Even putting on warm socks. Breathing. 3/
The “cultural issues” we’re “policing” are the very things that will improve the lives of the most marginalized people in our society. When we advocate for Black Lives Matter, or trans rights, or accessibility - these aren’t just random cultural issues.
We’re advocating for the very things that are essential to ensure that everyone in our society is included. That all of our lives can be improved.
A lot of people seem confused about "diversity of thought." First, no one I've ever met is opposed to "diversity of thought" as a concept. It's a red herring to position this as people who believe in "diversity of thought" vs. those who don't. 1/
Theoretically, diversity of thought sounds like an appealing concept. But, there's a reason most organizations that prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion don't talk about it in these terms, and why it's so cringey to those of us who care about DEI. 2/
First, one thing we know is demographic diversity may be one of the fastest ways to *achieve* diversity of thought. 3/
Apologize. Take ownership. Even for small mistakes. Especially for big mistakes.
It doesn’t make you look bad to say “I fucked up.” It *does* make you look bad to not realize you fucked up. There’s nothing more refreshing than someone saying “I totally messed that up, I’m sorry.” I can’t even be mad about the underlying thing anymore.
When you mess up and your instinct is to get defensive, double down, think of all the ways this was someone *else’s* fault, slow down. Go with the exact opposite instinct.
A lot of organizations are reaching out to our team asking us if we can facilitate "uncomfortable conversations around race in a safe environment." An important question is, uncomfortable for *who*?
Initially this ask seems right up our alley. DEI workshops, for example, should make people from majority groups uncomfortable. But often, the ask seems to be about how we can make all ideas feel equally valid, and give all perspectives air time.
That's not the type of conversation organizations should be making space for. "Uncomfortable" here means uncomfortable for marginalized groups (and in this specific case, Black employees), who would have to listening to racist perspectives and treat those perspectives as valid.