
LinkedIn Staffers Go All-Lives-Matter During ‘Dumpster Fire’ Meeting on Racism - NN88
https://www.thedailybeast.com/linkedin-staffers-go-all-lives-matter-during-dumpster-fire-meeting-on-racism
======
pluto9
> “We’ll spend most of our time together in open discussion, so please
> consider bringing questions or experiences you’d like to share,” read the
> invitation email to staff.

This reminds me of the James Damore incident. They asked for people's honest
thoughts, and that's what they got. What they actually wanted was for their
employees to shut up and toe the line.

I always wonder what the thought process is behind this sort of thing. Do
executives live in such a bubble that they honestly believe all their
employees agree with them? Or do they simply expect them to be too intimidated
to speak their minds?

I suppose the answer is clearly the latter, since their solution is to de-
anonymize the meetings.

~~~
daodedickinson
>I always wonder what the thought process is behind this sort of thing. Do
executives live in such a bubble that they honestly believe all their
employees agree with them? Or do they simply expect them to be too intimidated
to speak their minds?

Same mystery as Mao asking for a thousand flowers to bloom, and there's also
the possibility it's a tactic to bait out opposition so it can be destroyed.

------
Avicebron
> “We require members on our platform to have real identities and we will not
> allow anonymous questions in all hands meetings in the future

And just like that the wrong-think was purged from the ranks. No question is
legitimate if it goes against the party line. Yikes, hopefully there is a way
to actively fight this.

~~~
colejohnson66
If preventing people from asking anonymously is censorship, then what isn’t?
Seriously, if you want to be anonymous with your racism, take it somewhere
else; LinkedIn is not required to host your garbage.

Edit: LinkedIn is not banning people for being racist. They’re simply saying,
“if you want to be racist, do it with your real name.” There’s no censorship
with that.

~~~
pluto9
If doing something with the express purpose of silencing certain perspectives
isn't censorship, then what is?

> LinkedIn is not banning people for being racist. They’re simply saying, “if
> you want to be racist, do it with your real name.”

 _" So we can ban (fire) you."_

Edit: Also, for the record, I don't accept the premise that they're racist.
This post has a hint of "when did you stop beating your wife?" to it.

------
daodedickinson
Lesson learned by the LinkedIn CEO: you can't allow anonymity in a struggle
session.

Without anonymity, elections devolve into struggle sessions.

------
blarg1
> In 2017, Google fired an employee who argued against the company’s diversity
> hiring initiatives by circulating a memo claiming women are “biologically”
> less likely to succeed in tech.

