[tootie]

I very strongly disagree. No one is asking their companies to stand up for trade policy or any wonky stuff outside their business. It's almost entirely about representation and discrimination. Things are part of everyone's everyday lives and things very much in every company's power to resolve.

I think the notion that companies should only care about their bottom line is the thing that needs to end. Returning profits for shareholders isn't enough. Employees have started to think that who they work for should reflect their values. And why not?

[dannyw]

It's false equivalence to say that just because someone wants identity politics out of work, they also are against representation and discrimination.

Someone may support active efforts to address inequality in the workplace (eg better interviewing procedures, bias training, inclusive language in products), but be against anything that's political, such as supporting black lives matter or taking a position on middle east conflicts at work.

It doesn't mean they disagree with the latter. They just want it out of work, they might even support it.

[tootie]

I don't think identity politics is really the problem. That's not synonymous with wanting representation. And BLM isn't political. It's just acknowledging that black lives matter. It becomes political when a political party makes a point of not refusing to say it.

[gorydetails]

And clean coal simply means coal that is clean.

[tootie]

Yeah and it would be great if it existed. I don't get your point. Some movements are fundamentally insincere and some are genuine.

[LegitShady]

I've read their platform and I disagree.

[tootie]

They don't have a platform besides what's in the name. Any website with a formal agenda isn't "official" in any sense nor have 99% of people marching for justice read whatever you read. It's just black lives matter. And people engineering reasons to avoid saying it without explicitly saying black lives don't matter.

[LegitShady]

You have it exactly backwards - I believe black live matter, but I don't believe in the organization BLM and they do have an an organization and an agenda.

It's a kafka trap to name your organization with political goals some obviously positive name, and then declare anyone who does not support your organizations methods or particulars of its agenda as a hater of that positive name.

It's so transparent we're just in an age where being honest is rare, and people will convince themselves obviously untrue things - 'they don't have a platform' but they removed their 'what we believe page' including being against the nuclear family https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-b... .

It's a weird sort of denial of reality to just insist things don't exist, like an organization (which BLM is) with a formal agenda (which BLM has, even if they tried to obfuscate after being criticized for it's more radical and harmful ideas).

[joegahona]

> Employees have started to think that who they work for should reflect their values. And why not?

Because employees don’t all have the same values.

[tootie]

Maybe because it's not allowed to be discussed openly. My company has absolutely let rip on political discussions and it's been pretty healthy. Nobody doesn't want diversity. It's purely a question of what we do about it.

[nathanaldensr]

> Nobody doesn't want diversity.

How do you know? Do you think everyone is being honest with you when they appear to state their opinions, knowing that saying the wrong thing could get them canceled? Are you naive enough to believe all humans are truthful?

[tootie]

Doesn't really matter does it? You can liken it to a Turing Test. If you can convince a naïve observer your not racist or even that you are anti-racist, then you are. Maybe you're faking. Maybe you're a lifelike android. The world still ends up a better place.

[insert_coin]

> Employees have started to think that who they work for should reflect their values. And why not?

Then this is perfect, they can leave and find a job that does reflect their values. They should've quitted right when they realized their values weren't aligned but I guess they valued a severance package more. Still, win-win.