Share this page!

Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
Twitter logo
15 Feb, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Does anyone feel they can "speak freely" at work?
Maybe I'm weird, but I've always operated under the assumption that close friends and family are the people you speak freely around.
Do all of you love every boss you've ever had? And if not, did you regularly tell them they suck?
Charitable interpretation is for arguments, not surveys.
If different respondents interpret "speak freely" in different ways, then it's not a good question.
As a result, many of those commenting on this survey are primarily asserting their preconceptions.
Consider this:
In one org, everyone's a Shia Muslim with similar levels of religiosity. At another, there's people of various religions.
When religion comes up, people at the first org speak more freely.
But are they freer? Or just in a more homogenous environment? Is one better?
At a symposium that insists upon free speech, charitable interpretation, and open debate, everyone says they feel they can speak freely on race.
At a closed-door KKK meeting, everyone says they feel they can speak freely on race.
Are these equally good?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Nicholas Grossman

Nicholas Grossman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NGrossman81

Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
14 Feb
James Damore's Google gender diversity memo is back in the news thanks to the NYT story about Slate Star Codex, and most get it wrong.
It's neither entirely sexist nor brave truth-telling. As I showed in @ArcDigi, it's deeply flawed scientific reasoning.
arcdigital.media/evaluating-the…
Damore's argument about gender and diversity in the tech industry is full of logical fallacies and misguided assumptions.
It reads more as a just-so story, in which he sees more men than women in tech, assumes that's natural, and goes looking for things to confirm his priors.
Damore & his defenders claim to be scientific by referencing studies that find differences between men & women on average.
But small average differences in the general population doesn't tell us anything about big differences in a non-representative sub-population (tech recruits)
Read 5 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
7 Feb
As someone whose main contribution to discussions of PC, cancel culture, etc. is criticizing catastrophizing, I’d like to say that a large group of NYT staffers declaring, in writing, that intent is irrelevant when evaluating speech is something worthy of philosophical pushback.
Intent isn’t the only relevant factor when evaluating speech. But it’s a factor.
Saying something isn’t the same as recounting what someone else said, esp not if the intent of recounting it is criticism.
Doesn’t mean you can’t criticize the recounting, just that it’s not the same
Consider “where are you from?” Identified as a microaggression in the US when the implication is “not America, so where really?”
But it’s also small talk, intending to get an answer like “Cleveland,” setting up chitchat about the Cavs or the rock and roll hall of fame or whatever
Read 5 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
7 Feb
Did some Capitol attackers believe they were doing it at Trump's instruction?
Yes. There's hard evidence.

Even if we assume Trump didn't want them to think that, is it reasonable to say he couldn't have known they would?
No, not at all.

So he bears at least some responsibility.
Why'd they attack the Capitol?
To disrupt electoral vote certification.

Why did they want to do that?
Trump's lies about the 2020 election.

Why were they in DC?
Trump told them to come. Said it'd be "wild."

Would the attack have happened without Trump doing these things?
No.
Let's be incredibly generous to Trump and assume:
-he just says stuff and thinks none of his voters actually believe him
-he really wanted a peaceful demonstration
-he didn't act to stop the attack for hours because he was confused
Then he's still responsible via gross negligence
Read 4 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
7 Feb
I don't know how much Dems think QAnon is driven by poverty and lack of education, but to the extent they do, they're wrong.
In some ways, educated people are more susceptible, misapplying skepticism and critical thinking, almost like an autoimmune disease
newrepublic.com/article/161266…
-Cults can attract well educated people, who have an especially hard time getting out since it requires admitting to themselves they were wrong and not savvy enough to see through it.
-Terrorists are rarely impoverished. If you are, you worry about day-to-day, like getting food.
Many participants/supporters of the Capitol attack have money/education:
-Who can travel to DC in the middle of a work week?
-For militias and military cosplayers, gear is expensive
-You need some understanding (even if misguided) to pick Jan. 6 and denounce current officeholders
Read 4 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
6 Feb
Would Trump have beaten Biden if not for impeachment?
Who knows. But otherwise, I agree that impeachment exposed Trump's Ukraine scheme, which led the media and public to be more skeptical when Team Trump dropped their "October surprise" about Hunter Biden, undermining the hit.
I argued in Feb 2020 impeachment was worth it even though the Senate didn't convict.
Reason 2: Revealed the Truth
"Impeachment exposed the months-long effort... got details of the Ukraine scheme on the record and undermined Trump’s effort to lie about it."
arcdigital.media/4-reasons-impe…
And in October 2020, I wrote that smearing Hunter Biden was Team Trump's big play and totally flopped. One big reason was the exposure from impeachment. Another was that Trump became a victim of his own success warping the media environment around scandals
arcdigital.media/smearing-hunte…
Read 5 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
5 Feb
Trump incited the Jan 6. insurrection with months of lies, not just 1 speech. And he told followers to come to DC that day.
As Liz Cheney put it, he "summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack... None of this would have happened without the President."
The Capitol attack had preplanned and spontaneous elements.
But both were incited by Trump. Both were in DC to help Trump hold on to power. The planners decided it was worth the risk and the protestors-turned rioters decided to attend because of the lie-based movement Trump built
A POTUS doing his duty would’ve told the truth, conceded, and supported the peaceful transfer of power, at least after losing in court and the Electoral College.
All previous modern presidents did that. No insurrection.
Trump didn’t. Culminated in violent insurrection.
His fault.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @NGrossman81 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @NGrossman81!

Read all threads by @NGrossman81