
Stating “All Lives Matter” Is in the “Red Zone” at Work. Thoughts Wanted - throwaway98094
I work for a large tech company in the Bay Area. Every month they host a broadcast to the entire company to talk about miscellaneous topics, most recent of which has been about the protests. On today&#x27;s broadcast, various high-ups shared their position on the usage of &quot;All Lives Matter&quot;. All of those who shared their thoughts made it clear that the statement &quot;All Lives Matter&quot; categorically belongs to the &quot;red zone&quot;, which is defined as &quot;illegal and toxic because the incidents are more frequent or severe&quot;. In other words, residing within this spectrum is within bounds of justification for severe repercussions or even firing. Stating &quot;Black Lives Matter&quot;, however, is clearly within the &quot;green zone&quot;, as is openly stated and encouraged. This isn&#x27;t codified as official policy yet, but the verbalization of it makes it clear HR will act as if it were.<p>I felt compelled to share this because I have found it to be deeply concerning. The intent of this post isn&#x27;t whether &quot;All Lives Matter&quot; or &quot;Black Lives Matter&quot; is the morally superior position, but rather is about the fact that one can now face serious repercussions for holding the wrong political opinion based on what management subjectively interprets as its meaning, all the while a different political opinion is openly endorsed and encouraged without consequence. I have felt a sudden chill today like no other. Political discourse in the company is becoming more common, open and encouraged, but it is clear only those with a particular political bent are allowed to engage. Others that I know who also work within the tech industry are seeing the same swift culture change within their own organizations. After watching this broadcast, I happened to stumble upon this article which I cannot help but make parallels with https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;the-medias-self-censors-11591829694?mod=hp_opin_pos_2.<p>I am curious to know if any of you are witnessing the same changes and have the same concerns.
======
dragonwriter
“All Lives Matter”, as a matter of (fairly recent) historical fact that is
widely recognized by both most people using it and most people hearing it, was
coined as a direct dismissal of “Black Lives Matter” and its message that
there is a need for recognition of an accountability for aggressions against
black people.

(While we’re in the neighborhood, “Blue Lives Matter” has a similar origin,
with added cynicism given the long-standing widespread social and
institutional hyper-response to any harm to police, much less fatal harm.)

------
garlicagreement
Also from the Bay Area, I think we would get this type of behavior much more
than other places given the history here

Regardless of my personal position on this matter, it does unsettle me to how
touchy some subjects have become, enough so that meetings need to be had

To be frank, I still find it quite uncomfortable when another professional
feels the need to both provide their and ask for my "pronoun".

This is why, against my preference, I stay away from these topics in the work
place — IMO it's a miss opportunity, you know, with all the tippy toeing
around subjects

------
karmakaze
"All Lives Matter" is what a programmer might say. It's an expression of
truth.

"Black Lives Matter" is the salient part of "All Lives Matter" and not
recognizing it is a show of non-support.

