Sixty Coinbase Employees Take Buyout Offer Over 'No Politics' Rule (arstechnica.com) 93
Sixty Coinbase employees have accepted a buyout offer after CEO Brian Armstrong announced a controversial new policy curbing political activism inside the company. Armstrong disclosed the figure in a Thursday email to employees. Ars Technica reports: Armstrong announced the new policy last week after a summer when many technology companies faced pressure from their employees to become more outspoken on issues of social justice. "While I think these efforts are well-intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division," Armstrong wrote in a September 27 blog post. "We've seen what internal strife at companies like Google and Facebook can do to productivity. I believe most employees don't want to work in these divisive environments."
Now Armstrong says that 60 employees accepted the package. Armstrong says that's about 5 percent of the company's headcount. A few more employees are still in discussions with the company and may accept it in the coming days. "For those of you who have decided to move on, I want to thank you for your contributions to Coinbase and we wish you the very best," Armstrong wrote. "And for those of you who are opting in to the next chapter, I want to thank you for your trust and commitment to this mission." Armstrong said that "people from under-represented groups" at Coinbase did not accept the buyout offer in disproportionate numbers. Armstrong said he was committed to "building a diverse, inclusive environment where everyone feels they belong." And while Coinbase is discouraging most forms of political advocacy, Armstrong acknowledged one exception: that cryptocurrency itself is "inherently political." Armstrong wrote that he is "OK being political about this one particular area because it relates to our mission."
Now Armstrong says that 60 employees accepted the package. Armstrong says that's about 5 percent of the company's headcount. A few more employees are still in discussions with the company and may accept it in the coming days. "For those of you who have decided to move on, I want to thank you for your contributions to Coinbase and we wish you the very best," Armstrong wrote. "And for those of you who are opting in to the next chapter, I want to thank you for your trust and commitment to this mission." Armstrong said that "people from under-represented groups" at Coinbase did not accept the buyout offer in disproportionate numbers. Armstrong said he was committed to "building a diverse, inclusive environment where everyone feels they belong." And while Coinbase is discouraging most forms of political advocacy, Armstrong acknowledged one exception: that cryptocurrency itself is "inherently political." Armstrong wrote that he is "OK being political about this one particular area because it relates to our mission."
So, it's still okay on your own time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is where you should keep your politics. Either that, or resign, as these 60 have reasonably done.
I don't actually care if they resigned because of "no politics at work" or because they felt their political views were purely incompatible with working for that employer--they put their money and their livelihood where their beliefs are.
Good on them, and good on Coinbase.
Re: So, it's still okay on your own time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless Im missing something, I have to agree. We have been on a spiral downhill since the 2000 election. Politics has been the watercooler discussion ever since 5 guys in Broward County FL admitted on TV they could not follow a damn arrow pointing to the hole they were supposed to punch and accidentally voted for Buchanan and then had the nerve to ask for a do-over. At first it was amusing. Now its just toxic. I dont even turn on the news anymore. Its all just constant lies, embellishments, and spin. Im just waiting for the apocalypse at this point. 2020 still has 3 more months to top the shit its thrown our way, dont rule it out.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You answered your own question. You think it's all lies and toxic now, so when someone disagrees with you the assumption is that their position is at best misinformed, more likely dishonest.
Politicians won't bother trying to reason with you, you think they are liars so what's the point? They will instead try to make you angry, because that's all there is left.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't even try to make him angry. They won't bother him at all. Didn't you read his post? He is mostly checked out of politics. Like roughly 50% of the country.
Re: So, it's still okay on your own time? (Score:5, Informative)
They won't even try to make him angry. They won't bother him at all. Didn't you read his post? He is mostly checked out of politics. Like roughly 50% of the country.
And this was the whole point and the whole aim. If the normal working people in normal working jobs aren't paying attention to politics then the seriously rich people can piss in their water and use their back yards as latrines and there ends up being nothing they can do about it. Note that, when there was foreign interference in advertising in the US, they were advertising black rights rallies to racists and white supremacist rallies to black people.
The owner of Coinbase is rich. He has his billion. He is immune to practical problems like someone deciding to frack next door because he can buy enough land around where he lives to not care. He doesn't want you discussing politics at work because he knows he can control you better if each of you is separated from the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal, working people will always stay checked out of politics until they feel actual hunger or pain. So far, most of them are only getting annoyed, and maybe having to drive an older car. The ones that are making noise about "civil war" or "the apocalypse" are just prone to fantasize about those things anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Normal working people pay attention, they just don't yammer on about it.
The problem is that this means that they end up reacting too late. In order to stop bad things happening you need to have an organisation and you need to have experience at protesting or other effective political action in the right way. Specifically, it helps if the elected representatives know that you have a possibility of removing them from office. One of the problems with the two party partisan split in the US is that it means that most of the time most of the representatives just don't fear for the
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, really well said. You put it better than I would have.
Re: (Score:1)
They won't even try to make him angry. They won't bother him at all. Didn't you read his post? He is mostly checked out of politics. Like roughly 50% of the country.
And this was the whole point and the whole aim. If the normal working people in normal working jobs aren't paying attention to politics then the seriously rich people can piss in their water and use their back yards as latrines and there ends up being nothing they can do about it. Note that, when there was foreign interference in advertising in the US, they were advertising black rights rallies to racists and white supremacist rallies to black people.
The owner of Coinbase is rich. He has his billion. He is immune to practical problems like someone deciding to frack next door because he can buy enough land around where he lives to not care. He doesn't want you discussing politics at work because he knows he can control you better if each of you is separated from the others.
It saddens me that more and more posts devolve into conspiracy theories these days.
There is no secret gathering of billionaires that aim to keep the workers from revolting (outside of the union busting thing). Billionaires are people just like you and me, with the same goals and the same desires. The owner of Coinbase didn't want his company to turn into some political machine because that would be bad for his business. There is no ulterior motive. He wants his business to thrive, and he wants his workforce
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even directly accusing him of anything. I have no doubt he's just as apolitical / apathetic as his employees now. What he sees is a bunch of employees talking about politics (which doesn't interest him) and not talking about work (which does interest him and gives him money). That doesn't fit with what he wants them to do so he wants them to change. He wants, effectively, to control them, possibly entirely without being aware of the bad things he's doing. He's finding the politically involved p
Re: (Score:1)
You answered your own question. You think it's all lies and toxic now, so when someone disagrees with you the assumption is that their position is at best misinformed, more likely dishonest.
Politicians won't bother trying to reason with you, you think they are liars so what's the point? They will instead try to make you angry, because that's all there is left.
Or politicians could try to restore faith and trust in the office again? After all, it was the politicians that created this nation-destroying climate to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean 1000 elderly retirees in Palm Beach County, FL. But otherwise, it does feel like that's the gist of it.
Re: (Score:2)
accidentally voted for Buchanan
While that seems very strange, I have a theory based on the design of that ballot. See, the butterfly ballot has names on both sides, with the right side shifted down half a line from the left. In this particular ballot, Buchanan was the first name on the right side, Bush and Gore were the first and second on the left side.
What if... say, someone bused in a bunch of senior citizens from a nursing home and told them "vote for the second guy or you'll lose your Social Security!" without mentioning any speci
Re: (Score:2)
well the order of the list is exactly how it appeared Gore on one side, Buchannon on the other. In fact, I think it went alphabetical. So it was something like Bush, Buchanan, Gore. HOWEVER, the 5 people on CNN asking to vote again were not senior citizens. They were 35 yr old grown ass men who make enough money to live in Broward County florida. Its one thing to realize you were a dumbass and did not bother to follow the arrow because you jumped to misleading conclusions and punched the wrong hole. Its ent
Re:So, it's still okay on your own time? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to say, warning flags on those 60 who feel they need to resign if they can not force their political views into the work place. For me double red flags. Can not work in a workplace without trying to force your politics onto other workers, yeah, you gotta go.
They are probably already annoyed enough just being at work and not being idly wealthy and enjoying like, only an arseholes forces their politics into that.
I would also suggest desensitivity training, special sessions when they hurl all kinds of insults at each other and learn to get the fuck over it like adults, teach them the little kiddie lesson, 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. Probably some manners training to make the workplace a more pleasant place, must greet other staff good morning et al, thankyous and please.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure a good part of those 60 just planned to leave the company before and just took that as an opportunity.
For the others, yeah, they're better out.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. You give me any chance to resign with severance from my company I'm going to take it, especially if they buy out my RSUs. Coinbase isn't one of the highest paying employers, so they can make at least as much elsewhere, if not get a raise. And plenty of places are still hiring. Undoubtedly many of them are just looking for a payout.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of non-state currency, which is the basis on which Coinbase can even exist, is inherently political. Heck, even the concept of a *corporation* is inherently political. Pretending otherwise just means you're in favor of imposing normative politics, which sounds great until you find out that normative doesn't include you.
First rule of buyouts (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are ever offered a buyout, take it. Always.
Because the next offer will be a layoff.
Did those 5% already have better offers? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If where you worked 3% to 4% left every _month_, those must have been terrible places. Where I live, the average turn over in IT companies has been 13% per _year_ in 2019.
Depends on the department. In my specialty, if a sales guy lasts more than 18 months, it is notable. We only have a few sales positions but that's more than 5% quit rate per month. That's not a great thing because the sales cycle from RFP to PO takes roughly 4-12 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
5% turnover/month is not 60% turnover per year. Much of that 5% each month are new hires from the last 1-2 months. Depending on the job, that can be for different reasons - anything from a super hard job where many people can't make the cut, to a high turnover industry (such as fast food), to a toxic work environment. The annual retention numbers (what % stayed on from the previous year) can be a more telling number in a lot of ways.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're turning people over in 1-2 months, you're either a completely hellish place to work for, or completely incompetent at hiring. Possibly both.
Re: (Score:1)
Leaving is a risky strategy, because you've made yourself unemployable. Nobody wants to hire an uncompromising activist.
All's well that ends well (Score:5, Insightful)
For the people who left, they get to leave feeling they didn't compromise values.
For the company, they get to have a company without people who feel so strongly about politics they are unwilling to stay with a company that has a neutral position... meaning they were probably constantly forcing politics into business conversations where it had no place.
So the entire workplace should now be more productive and pleasant.
Bonus win is that these employees would probably have been extra chatty and political leading to the election.
Re:All's well that ends well (Score:5, Insightful)
>"So the entire workplace should now be more productive and pleasant."
Exactly.
If it were my company, I wouldn't even offer a "buyout." We would be politically neutral and if you don't like it, you may leave on your own. If you annoy our customers, our business partners, and your coworkers and then we will show you the door, forcibly.
What you do on your own time- whatever. But political "activism" (just like religious "activism") doesn't belong at work.
Re: All's well that ends well (Score:2)
Putting their money where their mouth is makes sure the policy isn't interpreted as mealy mouthed corp speak. It gives them an avenue now and in the future to remove problems without pulling a Blizzard and acting like cowards. In addition to the immediate results it warns off bad hires and increases the comfort of everyone who agrees with it.
Re:All's well that ends well (Score:4, Insightful)
Politics isn't a protected class, but you know that.
Re: (Score:1)
It sort of is, actually. It's quite complex [natlawreview.com], and between the states, it spans pretty much the full range of options from totally unprotected to fairly well protected, with most being somewhere in the middle.
Category 3 includes rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example of a Category 3 policy is one that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with each other.
Certain things which might be taken as "political" are protected at work [dol.gov] by the NLRA, because that's the venue where the relevant people are.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to:
Prohibit you from soliciting for a union during non-work time,
such as before or after work or during break times; or from
distributing union literature during non-work time, in non-work
areas, such as parking lots or break rooms.
Question you about your union support or activities in a
manner that discourages you from engaging in that
activity.
Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce your hours or
change your shift, or otherwise take adverse action against
you, or threaten to take any of these actions, because you
join or support a union, or because you engage in concerted
activity for mutual aid and protection, or because you choose
not to engage in any such activity.
Threaten to close your workplace if workers choose a
union to represent them.
Promise or grant promotions, pay raises, or other benefits
to discourage or encourage union support.
Prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts, and
pins in the workplace except under special circumstances.
Spy on or videotape peaceful union activities and
gatherings or pretend to do so
Re: (Score:2)
Of course but what does that have to do with my comment?
Re: (Score:2)
Coinbase politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It became toxic when Twitter and Facebook gained prominence. Those two sites have made it easier than ever to whip up an outrage mob to silence unpopular opinions.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd say the rise of right-wing talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh and the advent of Fox News had a large hand in it. I remember listening to Rush spew some outright toxic and crazy shit in the 90s about the Clintons. Straight-up accusing them of murder and coverups, and I knew a lot of people who bought it 100%.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Limbaugh accusations weren't about Rector - they were literally accusations that the Clintons had business associates killed to cover up the Whitewater scandal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Coinbase politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Coinbase politics (Score:5, Insightful)
American politics is very toxic today, and the "we agree to disagree" stance is in itself attacked by some people. When did it become like this? It's hard to say because it's been a gradual thing. Now for a very long time it's been considered normally to keep hot button issues turned down low at work; don't proselytize for your religion, don't advocate for your political cause, and absolutely no shouting. But that doesn't mean it was zero politics or religion at work. Now a lot of older workers I think take this for granted. But many younger workers feel differently, and while younger people throughout history have been much more idealistic than average, it does feel like there's a larger change in the last decade.
In tech companies, or Silicon Valley, I think there is a bit of a disconnect at time. Some newer workers come in, assume everyone is obviously very liberal because we're in the bluest counties of California. But it turns out that no, even very blue counties are still closer to the center than far-left, and in tech companies in particular there is a huge bent towards libertarianism. I suspect a lot of people from out of state who move here for jobs come expecting to see the liberal bubble and are surprised to find that it's not at all like that when they discover that their neighbors and coworkers still encompass a full range of political views.
As for retarded, I had a brother with Downs Syndrome. The polite word that was used by us and the community of people with family members with similar issues was "retarded", which was short for "mental retardation" the official term used by many doctors. I can understand the offense to the term because it was indeed used as a pejorative for so long on the school grounds. This seems to be the nature of things, there's a commony accepted word that gets used as a pejorative, so a new word gets used, and that gets used as a pejorative so a new term is used, and it keeps repeating. Colleges are like businesses, they want a smooth running ship without lots of fighting in the hallways so they come up with rules that they hope keep the everyone calm so that normal operation can resume.
Re:Coinbase politics (Score:4, Interesting)
When did politics become so toxic?
In the US? That would probably be the 1980s.
I lean to the liberal side (by US standards anyway); but, growing up, one thing I admired about conservatives was they pretty uniformly believed in letting the other guy say his piece - on the liberal side, since the 1960s at least there has always been a subgroup which believed in shouting everyone else down. I remember a series of events where (IIRC) Jerry Falwell and Ted Kennedy were visiting campuses and debating. When they went to conservative schools like Falwell's Liberty College, the students would listen politely and then argue their point when Kennedy finished speaking. At the liberal schools, there was always a group trying to shout over everything Falwell tried to say.
Well, some time after that Newt Gingrich said (wish I could find the exact quote) "we have to stop being suckers and learn to be as loud and irritating as the enemy". Then, the rest of the Democrats said "hell with this, let's get loud too!" And, eventually, we got to this place we're all at.
Of course, I've seen the televised sessions sessions from the British House of Commons, where people are booing and shouting and just behaving like jerks. And I know that fistfights have broken out in the Japanese Diet. So maybe it was 1970s America which was the outlier... but I miss the intelligent and thoughtful arguments I used to have with my Republican friends in college.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that such behaviour by politicians is limited to the chambers in the Palace of Westminster.
Re: (Score:2)
And in Westminster a lot of it is really pantomime. There are things that are allowed in the chambers and those things get exaggerated. The "hear hear", the standing up and sitting down etc, the loud groans (but no clapping).
Re:Coinbase politics (Score:4, Insightful)
When did politics become so toxic?
In the US? That would probably be the 1980s.
I would say around 1776. Let's not forget that previous Congresses had duels (Hamilton-Burr anyone?), fistfights, a caning (of Senator Sumner in 1856), all-out brawls (1858 for example), and plenty of screaming at each other. Lying, back-stabbing, betrayal, slander, and a host of other bad behaviours have continued unabated to this day. All of it roughly corresponding to the mood of the public at the time. I find it interesting that 1975-2000 was generally so peaceful.
The problem on the so-called "liberal" campuses is that they're not liberal, they're "Woke", and Wokeness is a belief system more akin to a religion than a viewpoint or philosophy. To be Woke is to reject the foundations of liberal (Western) thought, from Greek logic and debate up through the scientific methods of the Enlightenment. The Woke reject the entire framework and refuse to participate in "intelligent and thoughtful arguments" because those are simply the tools of the enemy that keep them oppressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I've seen the televised sessions sessions from the British House of Commons, where people are booing and shouting and just behaving like jerks.
Do not mistake the strange British gladiatorial ritual of Prime Minister's Questions with what goes on 90% of the time in the house. Watch at some out of hours time some debate on an issue that people clearly disagree about and care deeply about. You will see one side politely giving way to the other, listening to points and generally answering them pretty directly. The average may be getting slightly worse but generally it's pretty good.
The rist of the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
When did politics become so toxic?
I think it was around 1998, and due to the rise of the internet.
With the internet just about anyone could be a journalist, and a lot of online commentary started to replace newspaper editorials and reader letters.
Also the rise of digital cameras, and later on the built-in cameras on cell phones, allowed anyone to be the on-site reporter. You didn't need a news crew to film on location, you could just go and record what you saw with voiceover. I remember one "citizen journalist" in particular giving an interview, who recounts going to one political candidate rally to find almost no one there, and going to the opponent rally to find it packed with people. He pointed out that the MSM was *not* accurately reporting the level of interest in the two rallies, and thought "wow - I'm reporting actual news here".
Also also, things like craigslist removed a lot of the revenue from classified ads.
Readership dropped, revenues plummeted, and the good journalists left first. What remained were the less productive reporters who couldn't easily get a job at another venue.
Then everything became clickbait, an attempt to grab your attention. Since people never read more than one article on any particular subject, it became important to be the *first* to break the news. Since you don't want people going over to another site, it became important to re-report every story that breaks on other sites. Of course, you also want your story to be more interesting to people, so you punch it up a little. And others punch up *your* story a little, and on and on it goes.
Traditional MSM outlets are burning their brand just to stay alive. The New York Times used to be the gold standard for journalistic integrity, but seems to be struggling [mediaite.com] with its ethics.
(That last link is a NYT ex-editor bemoaning the loss of integrity - and he's one of the ones who left early, leaving the less productive reporters behind.)
There's actually a revolution in reporting going on right now, in the form of a "long form discussion": people are interviewed for one-to-three hours online, are not impeded by the interviewer or the format, and get a chance to clearly express their views. Check out Joe Rogan's interview with just about anyone: it's unfiltered, unedited, un-censored, and the interviewee gets a chance to completely explain their position, or hang by their own petard.
Compare with a typical CNN discussion that's 30 minutes long with 5 talking heads - everyone gets *maybe* 6 minutes to make their point, and they end up shouting over one another.
I mentioned Joe Rogan, but there's a ton of others doing long-form podcasts. Some of the guests are highly competent, and the discussions can get pretty deep. Some of the discussions are also highly controversial, and there have been calls to edit and/or censor them (Joe in particular), even through the interviewer is not responsible for the opinions expressed.
So anyway, the MSM is on its way out, being quickly replaced by podcasts, from people (and format) who are more reliable.
The MSM will still do a lot of damage before it finally dies, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics, like love and art, has always been dangerous. Socrates and Galileo could attest to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, Socrates was once accused by the Oracle of Delphi of being the wisest man in the world, an accusation that caused him much personal torment and toil is his effort to disprove it.
However, if you're referring to his trail and suicide, you might want to consider the account of Xenophon. https://www.gutenberg.org/file... [gutenberg.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It became toxic when people started lashing out at people discussing it. When a subject becomes too "controversial" or "sensitive" to talk about, you MUST discuss it and damn the feelings of anyone who tries to stop you.
The idea that you shouldn't discuss politics was started purely to prevent unions. When someone tells you to not discuss a certain subject, you get into their faces and say "According to which cunt?" and no matter the response you say "And who died and made him king?" and follow up with "Wel
Re: (Score:2)
The Reagan presidency.
Even as a 6th grader (in 1980) it was evident to me that he wasn't just disliked as a president (like Carter had been by Republicans, for example) he was HATED. Viscerally. Personally. This seeped into popular tv, sitcoms, films...it was ceaseless. And I was a kid, I was interested in lots of other things ahead of something as stupid as politics.
Certainly, that was the first instance where ostensibly-neutral news networks (who were always slightly liberal-establishmentarian, never
politics or easy money? (Score:3)
Think again (Score:2)
If I was offered an opportunity for such a buyout where I work I would instantly take it up
So leading up to the election Coinbase is now the only company on earth where you know there are no strongly political employees that are going to harass you every day about the election.
That makes Coinbase the best company on Earth to work for, I would be super reluctant to leave what has to be now a really great, professional environment where you can make great strides in work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ya, I could see this. I never expressed any political views at work, but a 4-6 month buyout plan is a very sweet deal and I could easily imagine going to HR and saying "I feel my politics are being suppressed, who do I see about the free money?"
Re: (Score:2)
They have actually got a bit of a longer term problem taking that buyout. It's widely publicised, and with a fairly set timeline.
When you go to take the next job interview, you're not only up against people competing with your on-paper skillset, you're also competing them with the disadvantage that you've just flagged yourself as unable to work at a place unless you can be outspokenly and disruptively political.
Being that hard line political isn't exactly the thing most companies are looking for in an empl
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful politics, likely left for other reasons (Score:2)
Probably saved the company too on unvested stock options.
Win-win.
we will be diverse and inclusive... (Score:1)
where everyone feels that they belong....
AND THERE WILL BE NO DISSENT
Political Safe Space (Score:2)
where everyone feels that they belong .... AND THERE WILL BE NO DISSENT
How cute, you think those two fragments contradict. They don't. You are free to dissent, evangelize, protest, etc AWAY FROM WORK. At work, we're going to just work.
Or to perhaps use something more familiar to yourself. Work will be a political safe space where political ideas will not intrude on your peace.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I'm an older guy. I remember well the old days when you left politics and religion at the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm an older guy. I remember well the old days when you left politics and religion at the door.
As they should be. This is an example of when the older ideas are superior to the newer ideas.
It'll be worth every penny. (Score:2)
This is usually not a "no politics" rule (Score:1)
Next thing ... (Score:2)
But I'm sure this violates some religious freedom law somehow.
Re: (Score:1)
Getting the Next Gig could be difficult (Score:3)
Perspective employers will toss your resume because you are a known trouble maker. Why take the risk?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're going to say that instead of taking a secondary reason and writing that in, instead? I mean, seriously, if you put "options for advancement were limited" you think they're even going to blink and think you're lying? And if they ask "hey, didn't you take that buyout?" you just say "well, yeah - I wanted to leave to find a better job so why wouldn't I let them fund my job search?"
So do they have a no politics buy in offer? (Score:2)
For people with higher paid or more secure jobs who would compromise those things to simply work and not constantly identity-shamed?
If you donâ(TM)t mind doing nothing. (Score:1)
A "No politics" policy means normative not neutral (Score:2)
A "no politics" policy conveys a strong first-mover advantage in establishing their own politics as normative and pretending that normative politics are not politics. Then when someone objects to the establishment of that political position they get excluded injecting politics.
The very question of what is political speech constitutes political speech. If you are unwilling to tolerate the question you are merely allowing someone else to impose an answer.
Re: (Score:2)
...excluded on the basis of injecting politics.
damnit
Huge bonus to Coinbase (Score:2)