I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post. I'd likely use the opportunity to point out both the bad behavior and engage with the content itself. I have a lot of respect for Lori for being able to really highlight a specific issue (harassment and ignoring boundaries) and focus only on that issue because of it's importance. I think it's important framing, because I could see people quite easily being distracted by the content itself, especially when it is polarizing content, or not seeing the behavior as problematic without the focus being squarely on the behavior and nothing else. It's smart framing and I really respect Lori for being able to stick to it.
I don't want to discount the findings too harshly, because I believe that democrats have a ton of issues with their voters in general and can only go on promising everything but delivering nothing for so long before people wisen up, but I do want to just gently remind everyone how accurate polling was in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and its general decline among the population as a way to understand how people vote. Polling groups have not adapted to the times and frequently demand far too much out of a population which is overburdened and simply not interested in engaging with pollsters through archaic mediums and conventional means of identifying who is eligible to be polled are not applicable to a modern populace.
We were explicitly looking to not replicate Reddit - while both are link aggregator websites, we didn't particularly like the general vibe present on Reddit. I think a lot of folks on Beehaw agree with that premise, but functionally speaking there's not a huge difference between the platforms or communities. A lot of the difference seems to be about the vision and philosophy of what the place can and should be.
Often times they are laid off, with a generous multimillion severance package
Did you read the rest of the article? It talks about how she talked with others in the company about this, someone above her took it very personally as suggesting he was racist, and her prompt firing. It also highlights how bungie was exposed for both racial and gender bias by reporting just a few months before she was hired, indicating that these exposed problems likely still existed.
I don't mean any harm when I say this, but why would you jump to the defense of a company in the first place, dismissing claims of racism or other forms of bigotry? The world is incredibly biased, and regular large-scale studies on company culture (and social culture) reveal widespread bigotry in our world. Simply assuming the status quo absent enough evidence on either side to clearly paint a picture is more often than not correct. What purpose does trying to discredit her accomplish here? How do you think it makes black people feel to see the only reply in a thread is an attempt at discrediting her?
That's not entirely true. It's meant to categorize fields of study which try to pass themselves off as scientific, that is to say that they follow the scientific method. To call something pseudoscientific is to say that they aren't following the scientific method. Fields of study which rely a lot on biases, exaggerated claims, are lacking rigorous attempts of refutation, etc. fall into this category.
We are not and never intended to be Reddit or a Reddit alternative. This is clearly laid out in our docs. We are trying to do something fundamentally different, and are not interested in users who just want Reddit but elsewhere.
As usual, it has nothing to do with the kids and everything to do with being transgender 😔
I could be wrong but I don't think the ruling states on reverting amended birth certificates. The article highlights a specific trans person wondering if the state government will try to revert their birth certificate, not stating it as a fact or highlighting where it exists in the ruling.
There will always be groups of people who prefer the old and new. With more cohesive branding with our community logos and eventually a lemmy theme, I'm hoping we can rotate logos semi-regularly as a way to represent the diversity of our website and to help support amazing local artists.
But that's just my thoughts on it, in this case it was a logo commissioned for a specific purpose (app icon), and we wanted to align with that and celebrate new and great art (as well as continue to support the artist who's helped us with all our community icons!)
The person who suggested it just got a beehaw tattoo and loved it. To me, it was instantly clear it checked the following characteristics of good branding or appealing attributes:
- Reasonably unique
- Coherent branding/image
- Open to enough interpretation to inspire ideas
- Cute, short, recognizable
- Bees are awesome and important to the world
- A good level of modern absurdity
- Some kind of je-ne-sais-quoi amalgamation of clear US imagery without being pro-US, inspirational/motivating, action-forward, idk what else to put here but just like, good in the way yahoo is good but from a different cultural background
Unfortunately it comes with the territory. When you stick up for the humanity of others, people who benefit from the system fight you because they like the system as it is, they've been subconsciously indoctrinated, or they're afraid of change. I know that I signed up for this and honestly it's not affecting me all that much (I still love you all), but I'm trying to pay close attention to the environment and perceptions of the environment around here and be as transparent as I can about that journey in case it's helpful to anyone out there
I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that's perfectly reasonable. I also think it's fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.
I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I'm a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.