Leadership is afraid of them. When I was there I had the same skip as some prominent “activist”. I’ve seen other people let go for poor performance pretty quickly but somehow this nutbag was spending all of his time on internal g+ and company-wide mailing lists where he bragged about how many people he reported to hr monthly among other things. All while doing fuck all for his actual work. Lasted 3 years before finally getting canned then sued
Doesn't sound as leadership were scared of them then. Dismissal processes for things that aren't gross misconduct frequently take a while as they go through various warning stages.
There were plenty of things that could be considered “gross misconduct” that I won’t go into. And as I said - same part of the org had people gone much quicker when just not performing.
Thanks for being the only reply so far to attempt to actually address what I asked.
I have some critiques of what you've linked; I don't put much stock in the "I turned out fine" school of thought, for one. But it was an interesting read.
Striving for the "impossible" is something we do all the time, as hackers. It seems to me like the disagreement is not over whether one can achieve an impossible standard of justice, but rather, over what is impossible.
Social justice would be great and we hope that, someday, the identity politics progressives will actually show some interest in promoting it instead of cancel culture, outrage, and grandstanding.
> The extremes are a product of the ineffectiveness of more measured tactics.
You can use that logic to justify _absolutely anything_.
The extremes are there because people performing them actually like performing them. They do it because performing the extremes gives them status and power over others -- sometimes real, sometimes imaginary. They do it because it costs very little and it feels good and it can sometimes bring completely outsized rewards (career, uni degrees, money, fame, etc.).
It was true when people added names to Sulla's proscription lists in 81 BC. It was true when people reported their neighbours as 'kulaks' in 1930. It is true now because nothing really changes under the sun.
You won't like my answer. SJ is all about hypocrisy. Wrt the corp culture, SJ poisons the well. I'll explain. Most of the diverse folks are fine, but a tiny fraction of them are covert activists: they have fragile ego and would report you to hr for anything. It's a matter of survival to spot such activists and avoid them. Soon you realise that it's just too hard to distinguish good folks from bad ones and you start avoiding the entire group. This is when this subconscious bias forms. Another way to look at it is if you have an organisation and you don't keep an eye on corruption, soon these few bad apples would destroy the image of the entire organization.
I don't think it's going to be a very interesting discussion if we can't agree that the phrase "social justice warrior" means "someone who fights for social justice."
SJW is a derogatory expression, like "TERF", social justice warriors don't call themselves social justice warriors. I would call social justice warfare a set of sophistic mindsets and tactics in order to push an intersectional narrative accross every community. "Codes of Conducts" for instance are an euphemism for "political and thought control" in a community. It doesn't make a community better, it just forces it to accept an intersectional narrative and eliminate political dissidence, through ideological purity.
The best example is the atheist community that was about atheism. Some people "hijacked" that community and pushed for "atheism +", where now it was no longer enough to be atheist, you had to also be an intersectional feminist, pro-LGBT+,anti-racist, anti-islamophobia... not that it is a bad thing but it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. So "atheism +" gatherings ended up talking about anything but atheism itself, since it had now to talk about representation of women, LGBT+, minorities in conferences.
I don't think it's going to be a very interesting discussion if we can't agree that the phrase "social justice warrior" means "someone who fights for social justice."
I guess you also believe that "Nice Guy" is just a decent man? There are a lot of decent people fighting for social justice, but "social justice warrior" is an epithet for those who just wants to fight and happened to grow up under the social justice banner. The only thing they are good at is creating enemies.
