[SamBam]

"If we were to try to get into it as a group discussion it would be very painful and divisive."

This sounds more like a threat than a promise. A promise he chose to carry out. Why should it be divisive, if you're actually going to listen? Is it because you'd end up saying things like "white supremacy is a myth" and denying the notion of institutional racism?

It sounds a lot to me like the continual "predictions" (threats) from some Republicans that there's going to be a "race war" or other war with liberals, if the left keeps doing what they're doing. They make it sound like it's something inevitable that they're predicting, but in reality they're simply saying what they want to do.

[factsaresacred]

> This sounds more like a threat than a promise

Rather it sounds like a person afraid to share his views for fear they would be misconstrued or met with emotional outbursts.

Employees were claiming Basecamp has a white supremacist culture, an indictment against anybody working there. The idea that you can't reject such preposterous accusations without being "complicit", or without the denial somehow serving as further evidence, is insane.

[falcor84]

Let me ask this in a more general way: If a member of a weaker minority group tells a member of a powerful majority group that they feel they've experienced a supremacist culture, is that on its own a `preposterous accusation`? What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it?

[factsaresacred]

> What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it?

The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of their claims. Management agreed that a list of funny names does not count.

Yet the employee continued to make unfalsifiable assertions such as:

"the silence in the background is what racism and white supremacy does...It doesn’t require active malice".

So denying an accusation of white supremacy is evidence of guilt, and remaining silent in the face of such an accusation is also evidence of guilt.

It's impossible to work with such people.

[falcor84]

>Management agreed that a list of funny names does not count.

But why? What process led those people to decide it doesn't count? And why would only the management have a voice in that decision?

[factsaresacred]

Does concluding that a list of funny names - mostly of western origin - is not evidence of white supremacy require a process? It's almost axiomatic.

Claims of white supremacy need to be backed up with proof.

Histrionic breakdowns and screaming at screens doesn't count as proof I'm afraid.

[anon7725]

> Why should it be divisive, if you're actually going to listen?

Why should it be divisive, indeed. “America is not a racist country” was just the position expressed by Sen. Tim Scott in a national prime time address, yet it’s enough to force an employee from a company?

[SamBam]

There is actually quite a bit of difference between the statements "America is a racist country" and "institutional racism exists" or even "there exists a belief of white supremacy."

And even between "America isn't a racist country" and "the people who talk about implicit biases are the real racists," which is closer to what he actually said (allegedly).

(And if we want to have this discussion, I bet we could do it in a way that wasn't "painful and divisive," because I have no desire to be those things, so I'm not going to predict/threaten it.)