Also, they may have had "20 people" who were brave enough to say something but I guarantee there were more who just didn't want to speak up.
I don't feel one bit sorry for you.
I also made the mistake thinking they were sheep at first. They talk all about diversity and inclusion and tolerance, but in practice it's precisely the opposite.
What a truly absurd take.
/s
- CEO claims "Most American ladies have been brainwashed"
- CEO says that the company must "control the language" of employees and must not allow employees to self-identify
- CEO argues using racial slurs is fine as long as it's affectionately
- Lawsuits are filed against employees for posting Glassdoor reviews
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that what makes Kraken toxic, is not in fact people asking for consideration, but instead a CEO who thinks that (among other things) women are brainwashed. Maybe not the sort of leadership you wish to align yourself with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-...
It's interesting, Coinbase had the exact same issue and it ended with some employees leaving the company. But it doesn't look like the trouble has stopped, now apparently different people seemingly unrelated to the DEI crowd are also unhappy with the way the company is run. See that recent petition for example that lead Brian to react with a bizarre Twitter rant.
Many of these crypto companies seem to have grown way too fast and hired too many new people at once. They failed to integrate them.
Or mine, from 2020: https://jakeseliger.com/2020/12/03/dissent-insiders-and-outs...
To "address" means to speak directly to. The pronouns people declare aren't about how they're addressed, but rather about how they're referred to in the third person by others.
For example, suppose you've declared your pronouns to be he/him. I wouldn't use those pronouns when speaking to you. I would just use "you". The pronouns you declared become relevant when I refer to you while talking to others.
None of this is news to Kraken, whose CEO helped maintain a "more troll-ish than 4chan" group on their Slack. Professionalism simply isn't one of their company values.
At any rate: my point remains --- there's no apparent overlap between Kraken, where unprofessionalism and cultural activism is coming from management, not from activist employees, and progressive organizations, which is what the Intercept article is talking about.
I'd suggest that is weird and unprofessional of them to want. Seems like a weird power play thing in a way gender pronouns don't
> We've got people in 70+ countries, speaking 50+ languages in the company, trying to build products for people in 190. Differing perspectives will be shared. That's DIVERSITY. It's not always easy. You've gotta be resilient, humble, open and highly tolerant of differing norms.
This question has a yes or no answer.
'Bring your whole self to work' is nonsense. If your whole self is at odds with acceptable workplace behaviour, it should stay at home.
Judging everyone on how well they can act like a rich white cis straight male is naturally discriminatory to everyone who isn't, in proportion to how much unlike that they are.
1. Treat people like human beings, not political abstractions.
2. Criticize to uplift and empower, never to tear down or destroy.
3. Root everything you do in love and compassion.
What does this mean?
I guess I'm now rich and white since I'm familiar with what is and what isn't acceptable workplace behavior. When does my check arrive, and when do you think my skintone will start to change?
It baffles me that people think it's ok to be a bigot anywhere, including the workplace. You don't get a free pass from the bare minimum societal expectation because you're sitting in a cubical.
I know quite a few high profile queer tech leaders that are constantly posting negative things about cis white men on Twitter. Am I expected to work with them when they're clearly not tolerant of me based on my immutable characteristics?
You're not expected to work with anyone you don't work with.
To address the but-for in better faith than it deserves: as a cis white dude, I absolutely do not care what a tech leader says about much of anything. I do care what my co-workers say and believe, but my co-workers are not of a political, religious, or cultural persuasion that implies that I should be killed for being a cis white dude, and I would expect my employer to do something about it if that were the case.
Wouldn't you?
So, let's try again: queer people should be expected to work with those who believe that they should be killed for being queer. Yes or no?
You like painting people into a corner, do you?
Rhetoric question.
> So, let's try again: queer people should be expected to work with those who believe that they should be killed for being queer. Yes or no?
No. But what does this have to do with DEI programs? Is the expectation that people who want to kill queers all of the sudden see the light from a powerpoint provided by HR? Or do people who want to kill queers get so outraged by DEI programs that they quit?
I think, in many workplaces, if you express the serious desire to kill a coworker, you will be fired, regardless if the reason is because of some protected class, or they just hate blue eyed people, or whatever.
However, I'm curious about this: "my co-workers are not of a political, religious, or cultural persuasion that implies I should be killed". If someone is a Muslim from Iran, is that sufficient evidence that they think queer people should be killed? If someone donated to a senator who is against immigration, is it sufficient evidence that they hate immigrants?
The interesting and unstated part of the question is, how do we know what a person believes? What's the threshold of evidence needed to condemn someone as a bigot? And who should be making this call?
Speaking like this reveals that you are part of the subculture obsessed with gender identity. If you talked this way to me at work, I certainly would not want to associate with you. I do not go to work for exposure to this type of non-sense.
The thing is today we know race is pseudoscience and doesn't actually exist. It's an outdated idea that's been proven completely wrong by advances in genome sequencing. The problem is many do not understand this because they don't understand nor care about science, they care more about feelings. That shouldn't be your problem though, because ultimately a racially and sexually charged atmosphere at work creates a toxic environment that makes it hard to work and may even affect your mental health. No one can be forced to tolerate that.
Of course being racist and sexist isn't illegal per se, but companies can use this as grounds for termination. As they should where coworkers are harassed.
This is the contention at hand. If you're going to participate in the discussion, you're going to need to grip it with both hands. I obviously think that it's a ridiculous statement, and nobody should be expected, either socially or contractually, to work with somebody who believes they should be killed. Do you?
I'm a left wing liberal and atheist but many of my friends are far right conservatives. The easiest way to avoid conflict is to not engage. I learned that when I was in high school.
What if they're my boss? How can I trust them to treat me fairly, when they very literally support the genocide of me and my family?
Why do you think that if someone — again, very literally — wants to murder me, that won't affect the way they treat me or discuss me when I'm not around?
I react the same way.
"It's good to be tolerant." "Even of Nazis!?".
I heard a nice proverb the other day: "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down just to feel its warmth".
Seems pretty human to be afraid of being left out.
The most impressive thing I've seen in this regard has been: https://theoryofenchantment.com/
I like its principles:
1. Treat people like human beings, not political abstractions.
2. Criticize to uplift and empower, never to tear down or destroy.
3. Root everything you do in love and compassion.
I think what we are discussing here is more nuanced in nature. As in someone has an opinion on issue of the day and someone else feels that political issue defines them. It could be homelessness, taxes, or something else.
If someone interrogates me about a political topic I might tell them my opinion or I might tell them I haven't thought about it. Of course someone may get very very angry about the latter.
The most common example of what we’re talking about is LGBTQ+. It’s essentially a mainstream conservative position to try to legislate trans people out of existence, for example. That’s “nuanced” in the same way that slavery was “nuanced” 150 years ago — it‘s clear what’s right and what’s wrong, but there are a lot of bigots going to bat for the wrong side.
In the United States, it isn't illegal to be a Nazi, so I don't know why you would contact the FBI or what you expect they would do about it.
If they want to abide by the civil rights act, then yes. As otherwise those beliefs would serve as a very strong filter against people of certain religious affiliations and national origins.
https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/a3/a3e652c7fa0...
Violence or threat of violence at the workplace should not be tolerated regardless of motive.
> This question has a yes or no answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" still remains the gold standard though.
> Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes–no questions are leading).
And specifically referencing your example, still from your article:
> Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions[3] (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
That is to say: the question posed is not a leading question, and the article you linked as a citation in fact directly refutes your specific example.
Your article helpfully informs us that your example is a “loaded question,” and we can ask Wikipedia what distinguishes such a question:
> A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Yet the original question still fails this new test: there is no controversial assumption, and certainly no presumption of guilt.
Unless, of course, you think it preposterous that anyone would hold a belief such as “queer people should be beaten to death for their sexual orientation.” Or that it’s unlikely or even impossible that one’s coworkers would hold such a belief.
Unfortunately, neither of those are exceedingly controversial - it is trivial to find ample evidence of outright calls for the execution of LGBT individuals in the past month, and I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
The most controversial assumption here is that such a person might be a coworker. And frankly, that just doesn’t rise to the level of a “loaded question.”
You just didn’t want to answer.