Not quite. I’m arguing that they did the best that they legally could when constrained by bad policy. These are hard ethical calls. Do you continue working for an org that you think is heading in the wrong direction, or do you try to do your best from inside?

@Justfirenews I think about this a lot. For instance, my university brought back uni students for in-person learning last fall w no surveillance testing or modified housing. I thought that was a reckless decision. But I didn’t quit my job...
@Justfirenews Partially bc the balance of the work my colleagues were doing locally, nationally, & globally was so important and I could support that in a small way. Also income and longterm professional goals that I think will help public health beyond covid.
@Justfirenews I think my position is justified. I think the work of many of my applied public health colleagues has been heroic and harm-reducing.
@Justfirenews But I recognize that there are always ethical minefields. For instance, finders. My research is mostly supported by the federal government. I think it’s ethical to use that money for my work. But what about Department of Defense? They also...
@Justfirenews ...fund a lot of important work but I know some people who don’t think it’s ok to take that money. What about private foundations that support causes I find antithetical to my values? There’s at least two times I didn’t apply for something bc of the funders.
@Justfirenews ...but I understand why someone else would. And I understand that others may feel my own partnerships with government funders are not maximally ethical. These are real questions.
@Justfirenews But my interactions with low- and mid-level federal, state, and local applied public health folks don’t fall into this camp. From what I’ve seen, these people have behaved heroically in the midst of an awful situation...
@Justfirenews like medical providers forced to do triage bc they don’t have the staff, supplies and support they need, applied public health folks have been forced into situations with tradeoffs they should not have had to make. It’s very very heavy.
@Justfirenews But they are too busy working their a**es off to be on Twitter explaining good all themselves. So I feel called up give witness to what I’ve seen of their work. It’s moving. As bad as it is, it could have been even worse. They are the best of us.
@Justfirenews So many typos. But hopefully the message comes through.

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.