1/ A common message I get in the replies to Tweet is that things are too polarized, that you need to get both sides and then have a discussion. Yeah, that would work. Just should have happened tens of years ago.
1
2
2/ If you have been oppressed for many years, if you hadn't had a chance to express concerns, if you haven't had a chance to get heard, you get emotionally weaker. Some people keep silent and suffer. Others stay resistant and fight back.
1
3/ You can have a decent discussion. But then you need to get an equal spot at the table. You need to get that without having to fight for it.
1
4/ Once you get there after a long fight, it will take a long time to get off that "fight mode". The past experience just doesn't go away.
1
5/ And it shouldn't be the work of the oppressed one to then calm down before coming into the discussion. The oppressor should be patient enough and deal with it. It was their shit that caused it
1
6/ In this particular case, the rage is not because leadership introduced something weird. It's the fact that they are trying to silence the discussions. That's trying to get rid of us from the table again. That's destroying the ongoing hard fight to be heard.
1
7/ And since it's tech, it's obvious that the fight is gonna happen on exactly that platform.
1
8/ One of the things that I want people to understand more and more is that these strong feelings and anger didn't come from anywhere. It's something that developed over centuries. It's just now that more and more people join to fight against it rather than suffering in silence
1
9/ Also, something people shouldn't forget: Politics is not party A vs. party B. It's about deciding for the people and society and finding solutions for their problems. Employees are part of that society.
1
1
Much of this is related to Bourdieu's Theory Of Social Capital, about which I've seen a talk by @malk_zameth recently (at @DDDBE). There's a version of that talk online somewhere.
2
2