I hugely disagree with the way that white supremacism has had it's definition widened within certain circles and how those circles are now attempting to push that definition into wider usage through the type of bullying that's on display in this very article.
For most people white supremacism conjures up images of nazi germany, the slave trade, jim crow, lynchings, the kkk, etc. Our society today does not resemble those in such a way that we should begin using that word to mean something totally different. It feels like an awful rhetorical trick where the emotional resonance of the older meaning of the word is felt by everyone each time it's used while meaning something far more subtle. We're dealing with something far more complicated today, and no number of performative denouncements will help us solve our problems.
There's a lesson to be learned here. I wasn't there, of course, but, based on reading this article, it seems that arguing semantics was possibly Singer's single biggest tactical error in that meeting. There were much more pressing issues at play, and choosing such a banal hill to die on sent a strong message to at least some portion of the staff. Perhaps not one that he would have wanted to send if he had taken the time to count to ten before opening his mouth.
It's like in that Hacker News commenting guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"There's not much we can do as a company to confront the white supremacist society we live in" sounds downright dismissive compared to "there's not much we can do as a company to support police accountability or any of the other myriad ways in which racism shows up in our society, since that stuff mostly happens outside our company".
If a group of people trying to boil the ocean are convinced that the basin of the ocean is just a really big pot and argue that anyone who argues otherwise is a BAD PERSON obviously it would be great if we could convince them that the part where they're accusing people of being BAD PEOPLE for thinking differently is the real problem and reassure them that they can continue to believe that the ocean is in a really big pot.
Except that these two things seem utterly tied up together in their minds -- they learned it because it's stated exactly that way in many books and other media (you haven't read the nytimes best seller Non-ocean-pot-thinking Fragility?). They think it's as true as 2+2=4 because the theory's origins are academic and we must believe science don't you know?
Attacking the definitional issue seems doomed to fail to me as well, but I can't think of any other way forward that isn't worse.
Beyond that, I think it was foolish to prioritize debating language in the first place rather than focusing on making employees feel valued and included. People in leadership positions hold a lot of power in shaping where the conversation goes, and they could've pivoted to a more constructive conversation about company values at any point. But rather than do that, it was more important to be right.
Like I don’t agree with him. And I do see how a funny names list is a form of “violence” in a way. I also think Singer is a tad misleading.
But he’s just like, wrong. You can have a discussion or a disagreement on this topic. The way this has all been escalated and framed as “you’re not taking a stand against white supremacy” makes my head spin.
Again, I’m a staunch leftist. I agree with a lot of the arguments made, but the way they are being made and the expectations on the employer are very confusing to me.
A lot of comments have said childish and I agree. Everyone looks like a horribly communicative child in this story, and it’s really uncomfortable to watch.
I in no way see how his comments were “very questionable”. I disagree with them? But I just like think they’re wrong.
“Very questionable” is going off on a tangent about (((globalists))) and a worldwide conspiracy network. This is a very uncomfortable shift of the Overton window for me.
Consider the phrase "We live in a democracy culture": You can practically assume that everyone the conversation believes democracy is the correct way to govern, and NOT believing that would be considered very far outside of the overton window. Even as Democrats and Republicans fight over voter ID laws, both sides claim their view is more true to democracy.
So similarly, while racism exists, we do not live in a culture where it is the norm to openly state that "White people are superior." Yes, white nationalism exist and it is a nasty idealogy, but the fact that they have to airbrush their ideology in "ethnostatism" is a sign that openly expressing white supremacy is an unmarketable idea.
This is what I take the phrase "We don't live in a white supremacist culture" to mean. It is a very different claim from "racism doesn't exist". However, I think a more empathetic thing to say would be something along the lines of "White supremacy doesn't define our culture. We live in a nation where this ideology is openly condemned by the vast majority people on the left, center, and right. However, that doesn't mean it is completely absent, especially in our past, whose effects still linger on today."
If I worked there, I would've quit, or made plans to quit, immediately regardless of which side I was on or the nuances.
People read about this stuff because a civil war is interesting. It's not interesting when you're in it. If I worked for them, I might wait to quit and forgo the severance, because of the politically charged interpretations of people quitting without a job lined up. But I would make the decision to quit immediately, once it was clear 1/3 of the company was leaving.
A similar sort of situation is when you have a struggle over unionizing. I'm in favor of unions in the abstract, I guess. I currently have a union job. But a company that is in a battle over unionizing clearly has a toxic relationship between management and employees that has reached a breaking point. The rational response to to bail out.