Labels like virtue-signaling are an unintentional examination and acknowledgement of white culture. They're telling us that many white people don't believe what they say. They will conform to any ideology if they feel it serves them. They're saying that's what white people do.
As soon as you start to think about it this way, it's a pretty serious indictment. It's an acknowledgement of so many of the things we talk about. That Whiteness is incentivized against true equity. That Whiteness is socialized to reject input from PoC.
Wow. This story is wild. I have to be careful because it hits literally every confirmation bias I have. Rich white guys who are incompetent and waste tons of money. Republicans making shady deals and screwing people over. Right wing punditry as fall back. bloomberg.com/news/features/…
"I got rich playing baseball. I bet that qualifies me to run a video game studio."
"A Republican governor is offering me 10s of millions of dollars to move to his state and create jobs. Seems legit."
"This loan has terrible terms and we're burning through capital at an accelerated rate. Better spend harder."
"Huh. When our new investors found out we were out of money and weren't going to deliver the game, they backed out. That's unexpected."
"Yesterday, we offered everyone at Basecamp an option of a severance package... For those who cannot see a future at Basecamp under this new direction." world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all…
It's worth reading DHH's pay. It's kind a ramble, but there is important information there. He talks about how they failed to facilitate and meditate contentious discussion at the company.
I believe him when he says it felt disruptive. But I blame a lack of clear and decisive leadership. This is where white men like these show they lack the range. That they're not up to the task of navigating an environment where a diverse group of people all get to have a voice.
I was talking to @operaqueenie about this at lunch. Fried and all these other Owners would have us believe that people are spending all day arguing about these issues instead of working. I think it's important to address that fallacy.
For the record, it is in fact a fallacy. You cannot square the *record* profits that companies have been posting with this idea that people aren't working. It's incredibly disingenuous and dishonest. So what are people actually talking about?
Here's what Fried says in his post.
"It's a major distraction. It saps our energy, and redirects our dialog towards dark places. It's not healthy, it hasn't served us well."
That's sounds ominous. But it's always worth asking. Who is "us"?
Whew. We had some pretty bad technical difficulties on Spaces this time. I think it was mostly still a great conversation. But it brought home to be how important it is for the technology to be rock solid.
This has a lot of implications. The company can still be for profit. Just not at the cost of people's health and happiness. Instead, the leadership of the company is beholden to the employees. So it has to balance profit motive with other things that matter.
It's hard for one company to survive in this entrenched market environment though. Instead we also have to think about bringing companies together into a shared ecosystem based on values. One where we choose to do better together and reject the current set of dominant incentives.
Aniyia and I watched this last night, and I want to share it this morning. We've never heard a white man in elected office talk like this. Clear and direct about the problems of racialized police oppression. I recommend watching it in full. msnbc.com/the-last-word/…
What struck me about this is not only that the Governor was saying the things I wanted to hear. It's specifically that the language he is using is the language of the movement. It shows how far we've come in changing the conversation. This is advocacy work.
If we can get every elected official to understand these issues the way that Tim Walz now understands them, we might see meaningful change.
There is a thing I've seen a lot today. It's a "concern" among conservatives and moderates that the Chauvin verdict is not a victory because it was "influenced" by public opinion. I want to talk about that for a second because it is worth addressing.
I want to start by saying that I understand where this comes from. If we're talking about the "spirit" of the court system. A judge and jury are supposed to try as much as possible to decide on cases without being influenced by other parties.
And whenever a crime and a trial get this much public attention, there's always an argument to be made that it's impossible for the outcome to be "unbiased". I agree with that in general. But I also think it's part of a wider narrative that has more nuance.
Some British hip hop is pretty good. Aniyia has been into it for a while. Is the cockney accent the must pervasive there? It feels like it's the most expressive for rhyming, so it makes sense to me. But I'm certainly out of my depth in terms of understanding the culture.
Something has been bothering me though. I do think there is a disconnect between giving relief to individuals, so they can stay home during a pandemic, and helping people's *businesses* survive the pandemic. We never figured out how to reconcile these.
I can't tell you how infuriating this kind of gaslighting is. It comes in lots of different flavors. but this combination of "it takes time" as though it hasn't been decades and decades and "you have a lousy attitude" as though I have to be "nice" in order to deserve to live.
This is a decent article that discusses not just Clubhouse's recent data leak, but the increasing prevalence of data leaks in tech products. threatpost.com/clubhouse-user…
This tweet from the above article kind of sums up the problem. It's not these companies are incompetent at security (though they might be). It's that they still don't agree that this data that they collect from us *should* be protected.
Here's what was leaked from CH:
"Names, user IDs, photo URL, number of followers, Twitter and Instagram handles, dates that accounts were created and even the profile information of who invited them to the app"
It's easy to get confused about where the critique is actually focused. It's a mistake to think that the problem with a riot is "chaos". Sure, that's the fear they sell to white people. And that is one aspect of the issue. But that is not what the powers that be are afraid of.
I'll say a few more words about this. Because I think there is a lot of work to do on the rift between individual contributors and middle managers. Those two groups should be working together to deal with issues that arise in the company.
As a manager, it can be tough when it feels like all people do is bring you problems and expect you to fix them. It feels draining, and you start to wonder if those people take any responsibility for the problems themselves.
This guy has no idea why this is such an ignorant comment. Which is part of the critique. What we want is for creators to have flexibility that is not constrained by white supremacy. The response from Whiteness is "well then jettison all context and pretend nothing matters".
Superman is an alien who just *happens* to look like an all American white male humanoid. Did you know that for the longest time all other Kryptonians just happened to be white as well? Coincidence I'm sure.
As time went on. Our time here in the real world. There was social and political progress. And eventually comic creators were like "yikes, I don't think all Kryptonians should be white". So they stopped doing that. There was never any creative barrier to it.
I think companies should be more transparent about compensation. But let's be clear. Putting ranges in job descriptions doesn't really do any of these things Nathan suggests. Not without other tradeoffs anyway.
Does it save time? Sort of. If you mean you'll have a whole set of people self-select out of your process. Many don't want people self-selecting out early. There's flexibility to how things might work out. Posting salary ranges can suggest more rigidity than there truly is there.
Does it set expectations up front? Sort of. I mean there should be salary ranges that are consistent internally. But often the job description can't capture things like different levels that you might be evaluated at. Is the range for one level or multiple?