Dr. Mansa Keita Profile picture
Feb 12 4 tweets 1 min read
A lot of people who say a lot about how corporations should treat speech, have never held roles of much responsibility within corporations.
Imagine saying corporations shouldn't insist employees uphold the company's values and thinking you're making a good point.

I get people are idealistic, but be a bit realistic too at least.
I regularly see corporate takes on here that make me wonder if people intellectualize too much about things they do not remotely comprehend.
A for-profit corporation's only true loyalty is to its shareholders. Everyone else is only useful insofar as they help to advance the mission of serving shareholders.

It's ugly, but it's reality.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Dr. Mansa Keita

Dr. Mansa Keita 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 @rasmansa

Feb 8
I'd like to remind people that heterodox implies atypical or even fringe.

It tells you nothing about reasonableness or correctness.
"Here's this heterodox black person that has a different opinion about racism than you do" reflects way less on me than some people may think.

Tells me some stuff about the person using the argument though.
Really interesting how Identity Politics and Standpoint Epistemology are embraced by those looking to their favorite black people to help them dismiss racism.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 6
Even today, our kids generally say "the s word" when referring to the word "stupid".

We don't allow them to call anyone that in any sense. They can refer to things that way, but not people.
My wife and I swear, in my case rarely. We almost never swear in the presence of our kids, and when we do they call us out on it.

I'm not making any moral judgment with this, just thinking of how differently even good parents parent.
Derogatory references to people just seem like something we don't want to encourage. If they truly mean to refer to a person under that derogatory term then it's legitimate, but they better be prepared to defend that use or face consequences.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 5
Some argue you must abide offensive speech, because freedom. They also argue you must not use your speech in retaliation, because freedom.
I remain convinced that all sides just want to set their own boundaries on socially acceptable speech, but only one side insists they want to constrain the speech of others in the name of free speech.
There was a time I would argue that side would only socially constrain the speech of others using speech, a tactic I believe to be fair.

But over the last few years, I've realized a tremendous willingness to support the use of state power to constrain speech.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 4
If there was a movement to have Spotify remove sexist or racist content, I'd support it.

The free market can be used for good things too. "What if there were calls for Spotify to remove music t
Let's see how long before someone comes in and calls me an authoritarian or illiberal... because I support using the free market for something good.

The free market shouldn't only be used for exploiting the poor and marginalized.
I remember one time someone was insisting on his right to use the n-word because rappers do. He then asked if I preferred he boycotted such music. I said "yes, and I'd support you!"

He proceeded to call me names like illiberal and authoritarian.

Funny how that works.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 3
This is an incredibly broad definition of racism.

So now anyone who suggests black students are less qualified for elite schools, or black workers for management jobs, is engaging in racism.

All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now being racist. ADL interim definition of racism
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now engaging in racism according to the Anti-Defamation League.

All those who assume black people are less intelligent or capable, are engaging in racism.
I know some like it because it also labels attempt to address the impacts of racism are racist, but they rarely want their assumptions of inferiority to be labeled racism.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 2
My hottest take:

While Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black and others around her thought she was black, she *was* black.

As there's no essence to race, a person is whatever they are recognized as in terms of social positioning.
Because social race isn't fixed, a person *can* transition between races as socially labeled. If within one social circle a person presents and is racialized as race X and in another circle as race Y, then both labels are concurrently valid socially.
Of course, all of this is built on this truth about social race. It's a label placed upon us that we chose to recognize and others can recognize too

So nothing prevents multiple, even conflicting labels within different circles. Nothing prevents fluidity

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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(