| ▲ | palmotea a day ago | |
> This was at a company that professed to be supportive of neurodivergence. It's easy to mouth slogans, and modern companies employ teams of specialists in that department. You can't trust their words, which should be assumed to be lies, only their actions (especially their actions when they're under some pressure). Here's an absurdly clear example: I recently listened to these podcasts about Saudi Arabia's Neom project. It is hyper-dysfunctional and was run by a guy who literally bragged about treating his subordinates as slaves trying to work them to death. But all the responses from the project are pitch-perfect corporate "we value our employees," "we follow best practices," etc. https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/neom-pt-1-skiing-in... https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/neom-pt-2-the-emper... | ||
| ▲ | sfink a day ago | parent [-] | |
If a company professes to be supportive of neurodivergence, it means either (1) they're supportive of neurodivergence; or (2) they are hostile to neurodivergence and have gotten into trouble for it, so have strong motivation to claim that they are supportive. There will probably be written policies and strongly-worded emails that are supportive of neurodivergence, which enable them to continue being hostile to neurodivergence. I would guess there's far more of (2) going around than (1). This is an overly polarized view -- what does "supportive" even mean? What forms are actually deemed permissible? -- but it's probably more right than wrong. It's like the schools with posters everywhere declaring "Zero tolerance for bullying" or "Bully free zone". Except that there is no (1) at those places. Those signs mean they have a problem with bullying and haven't come up with any solutions. | ||