Although my immediate reaction to the Pyramid of Hate [1] was a similar jump to, “is this saying jokes will lead to genocide?!”, ultimately I don’t think that was the intent. People seemed to have interpreted it in different ways, specifically “You’re telling me I support genocide if I think someone’s name is funny?”
I think the people who brought the pyramid into the equation were pointing out how individual behaviors, in aggregate, lead to greater possibilities of increased oppression. I think it’s a simplification to say that they lead to genocide, because those sorts of results are dependent on many other factors (ie economic problems, political instability, etc). When combined, these factors result in greater oppression.
More apropos to the conversation regarding workplaces, I would consider them evolving into institutions where certain cultural norms are upheld. The more institutions within which a certain cultural norm is respected by individuals, the more other people/institutions in power have leeway to move in certain directions.
> I think the people who brought the pyramid into the equation were pointing out how individual behaviors, in aggregate, lead to greater possibilities of increased oppression.
I don’t think I accept this theory. But if I did, it’s not relevant because the list wasn’t making fun of “others” and seemed to have no correlation to any particular vulnerable population.
So it’s both an issue of an arguable diagram in the first place (even if the ADL created it) introduced in a place that was not relevant since there were very few Asian names on the list yet the discussion seemed to really get into racial issues that didn’t apply to the situation.
Of course, had employees been mocking or belittling people because of their race or the list was 94% Asian (instead of the 94% euro) then it’s a different story and the discussion would be very different. But that’s not “woke” that’s just enforcing ethical codes in employees to not discriminate based on race.
My perspective on this is you don't lob any sort of infographic about genocide at somebody without meaning to tarnish them. That's escalating the seriousness of a conversation drastically. Making fun of people named Dickinson is not remotely cool, but bringing genocide into the resulting conversation seems way over the line.
Is genocide not the most serious subject that infographic brings up? It's not some minor footnote in the infographic; it's right at the very top in the most prominent position. I'd say that infographic is more about genocide than anything else.
The graphic is about how each level is supported by the level beneath it.
Minor footnote is a straw man and false dichotomy. The graphic is about all the things like I said. It wouldn't be less about genocide if it was an escalating list. It isn't less about biased attitudes because it's a pyramid.
The infographic being substantially about genocide, albeit not exclusively about genocide, does not change how I feel about it's use in that conversation: a blatantly hostile escalation. When you send somebody this infographic to scold them, you are insinuating that their actions might lay a foundation for genocide. That message comes across loud and clear, and in the Basecamp context, was plainly over the line.
How is that pyramid not classic slippery slope fallacy?
You could make a pyramid where you have violent movies and playing violent video games leads to a person becoming a serial killer arguing that violent movies and video games desensitize you to murder.
It's only a slippery slope fallacy if the progression is hypothetical and unjustified - otherwise, it's an actual slippery slope. The progression from normalization of racial animosity to genocide - on a societal level, not the strawman that any individual will make an off-color joke today and build the gas chambers tomorrow - is something that has demonstrably happened multiple times in the past couple of centuries, unlike the link between violent media and actual violence.
Indeed, it’s worth discussing because it was used as a blueprint by some of the despots of the twentieth century; it’s not just something that was figured out after the fact.
These despots were even very open about their plans and methodologies. Hitler specifically cited as inspirations the United States’ systematic oppression and genocide of indigenous peoples, and the Ottomans’ oppression and genocide of Armenians.
This stuff has never happened in a vacuum. Anyone who insists on always arguing from first principles is—most charitably—being a useful idiot for those who know exactly what they’re trying to do.
I think the people who brought the pyramid into the equation were pointing out how individual behaviors, in aggregate, lead to greater possibilities of increased oppression. I think it’s a simplification to say that they lead to genocide, because those sorts of results are dependent on many other factors (ie economic problems, political instability, etc). When combined, these factors result in greater oppression.
More apropos to the conversation regarding workplaces, I would consider them evolving into institutions where certain cultural norms are upheld. The more institutions within which a certain cultural norm is respected by individuals, the more other people/institutions in power have leeway to move in certain directions.
[1] https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/pyramid-of...