5 ms·

I'm not sure exactly what they mean by "reverse racism". The obvious opposite of discriminating based on race is treating people equally without regard for the

I'm not sure exactly what they mean by "reverse racism". The obvious opposite of discriminating based on race is treating people equally without regard for their race. If by "reverse racism" they mean "discriminating against members of racial groups which are usually not the victims of racism"... well, I really hope they've talked to their lawyers about that. In Canada a company which announced that they would protect or not protect their customers from racism based on their race would be up against the human rights commission in an instant.

ante_annum 11y ago
protect or not protect their customers ... based on their race literal racism.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  No, that's not what racism means. Racism is the practice of including race in the construction and maintenance of social hierarchies defined by legally and culturally enforced norms of dominance and submission. In other words, racism isn't simply about race, per se. It's about power, and specifically power with long-standing support in the customs, laws, and economies of the racist society. Taking steps to reject that power and the systems that maintain it inevitably means treating people of one race in a way that's different from the way they've been treated to date. A policy that says "we're not going to respect your privilege" is obviously not going to treat everybody equally since not everybody had privilege to begin with. However, it does tend towards a point where, in the absence of engrained racial privilege, a more egalitarian society can emerge. If you're a decent human being who has privilege but doesn't rely on it, that's a positive development. But if you do count on it - or worse, take enjoyment from abusing it - then this shift will not be as welcome.
  - spacehome 11y ago
    I respectfully disagree. Racism is taking race into account in making decisions. If I get turned down for a job because I'm X race, that's racist. Full Stop.
    - alexqgb 11y ago
      Full stop? Sorry, but there are millions of people who strongly disagree with your perspective, and the points they have to make are very fair ones indeed. You may not like them, and you may not agree with them. But saying the matter isn't even open for discussion? In a free country, censoring speech and debate in that fashion simply isn't you prerogative. You say race signifies nothing meaningful and that all races should be treated the equally? Fine. Others say race is deeply connected to power, and because power has been distributed so unequally - and so unjustly - then any position that carefully (or furiously) evades this basic truth is a part of the problem, not the solution. That seems - at the very least - like a reasonable topic for discussion. Of course, if we were working from a place where race was as irrelevant as eye color, and we were talking about introducing a class system based on race, then your "base no judgements on race" position would be an admirable defense of egalitarian values. But applied to a society where huge racial inequalities are the norm, the opposite is true. Given this reality, there's nothing admirable about policies that act as if those inequalities don't exist. Indeed, suddenly becoming "color blind" is one of the surest ways to ensure that injustice remains firmly entrenched. To give you an ides of how ridiculous it sounds when people ignore such obvious inequalities, consider the absurdity and cruelty encapsulated in the remark that "The law, in all its majesty, prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."
      - foxhill 11y ago
        your narrative of what defines racism is, whilst sort of poetic, entirely without merit. wether someone discriminates on race/sex, no matter what way for (e.g anti-white/male, etc.), you are being racist. that is all racism is. to incorporate the term racist with something like "anti-black", is to incorporate black racism into the word racism, and, by extension, almost deny that other sorts of racism exist. co-incidentally (and perhaps unsurprisingly), your justifications sound alarmingly similar to new-wave feminism movements, that, in general, seem to be themselves horrendously sexist. i didn't invent the last 10,000 years of human culture, and there are plenty of things that i dislike about it. i believe someone's racial/sexual identity should not be a discriminating factor in their lives. for someone else to deny me of input on either side of the discussion about how to implement those ideals, because of my "privilege" is idiocy.
  - cperciva 11y ago
    No, that's not what racism means. This is rapidly descending into a rabbit-hole of semantics; but my dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races", without regard for historical social status.
    - ante_annum 11y ago
      According to wikipedia: Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges, rights or goods among different racial groups. If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour", great. If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour" with the caveat that race is taken into account when considering a complaint, not so great.
    - alexqgb 11y ago
      Why the caveat about disregarding historical status? Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate reason can there be for ignoring its source?
      - cperciva 11y ago
        Why the caveat about disregarding historical status? Let me rephrase that: My dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races". It does not say anything about historical social status in its definition of "racism". Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate can there be for ignoring its source? Trying to correct the continuing effects of past racism can be a justification for discriminating on the basis of race. But the fact that it is a justifiable form of racism doesn't mean that it is not a form of racism.
        alexqgb 11y ago
        Sorry, actual racism is rooted in the belief that one race is morally and intrinsically superior to another, and that this supposed difference should be reflected in law, the economy, and pretty much every other imaginable facet of society society. Obviously it's possible to take race into account when making efforts to reverse the ill effects of they historically racist nation without subscribing to the anti-egalitarian beliefs that originally defined it
  - defen 11y ago
    > However, it does tend towards a point where, in the absence of engrained racial privilege, a more egalitarian society can emerge. This is the handwavey part of the "Social Justice Warrior" position that I've never understood. Do you have any evidence that this will happen?
onewaystreet 11y ago
The policies on "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" are mostly to stop arguments that many consider to be trolling. Some people make the argument that initiatives like http://www.blackgirlscode.com http://www.blackgirlscode.com and http://www.pyladies.com http://www.pyladies.com are racist and sexist because they exclude whites/men. GitHub is not interested in having that debate.
- cperciva 11y ago
  Thanks for the background. In Canada the laws against discrimination exempt "programs designed to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups", so initiatives like those you mention would be perfectly acceptable; but discrimination in other contexts (say, out of simple bigotry, without having an ameliorative intent) is still covered.
- tzs 11y ago
  I have doubts about that explanation. If someone tried to argue that blackgirlscode was practicing reverse racism and reverse sexism, they would not be bringing it up as a code of conduct violation. The code of conduct covers how members of the community behave, not how the organization behaves. BTW, pyladies' code of conduct does not have language like that in it, and I cannot find a blackgirlscode code of conduct at all. Of the six sources they cite as inspiration, the only one that has that kind of language in its code of conduct is Geek Feminism, which states that the reason for the policy is that "these things don’t exist". It's pretty clear it was from Geek Feminism that they have identical language, including the lead in, except that they omitted the "don't exist" language. Of the five entities listed in their FAQ as having adopted this, only GitHub left that in. The others all took it out. Also...why is that under "Definitions"? It should be under "Reporting Issues".

ante_annum 11y ago

protect or not protect their customers ... based on their race literal racism.

alexqgb 11y ago
No, that's not what racism means. Racism is the practice of including race in the construction and maintenance of social hierarchies defined by legally and culturally enforced norms of dominance and submission. In other words, racism isn't simply about race, per se. It's about power, and specifically power with long-standing support in the customs, laws, and economies of the racist society. Taking steps to reject that power and the systems that maintain it inevitably means treating people of one race in a way that's different from the way they've been treated to date. A policy that says "we're not going to respect your privilege" is obviously not going to treat everybody equally since not everybody had privilege to begin with. However, it does tend towards a point where, in the absence of engrained racial privilege, a more egalitarian society can emerge. If you're a decent human being who has privilege but doesn't rely on it, that's a positive development. But if you do count on it - or worse, take enjoyment from abusing it - then this shift will not be as welcome.
- spacehome 11y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Racism is taking race into account in making decisions. If I get turned down for a job because I'm X race, that's racist. Full Stop.
  - alexqgb 11y ago
    Full stop? Sorry, but there are millions of people who strongly disagree with your perspective, and the points they have to make are very fair ones indeed. You may not like them, and you may not agree with them. But saying the matter isn't even open for discussion? In a free country, censoring speech and debate in that fashion simply isn't you prerogative. You say race signifies nothing meaningful and that all races should be treated the equally? Fine. Others say race is deeply connected to power, and because power has been distributed so unequally - and so unjustly - then any position that carefully (or furiously) evades this basic truth is a part of the problem, not the solution. That seems - at the very least - like a reasonable topic for discussion. Of course, if we were working from a place where race was as irrelevant as eye color, and we were talking about introducing a class system based on race, then your "base no judgements on race" position would be an admirable defense of egalitarian values. But applied to a society where huge racial inequalities are the norm, the opposite is true. Given this reality, there's nothing admirable about policies that act as if those inequalities don't exist. Indeed, suddenly becoming "color blind" is one of the surest ways to ensure that injustice remains firmly entrenched. To give you an ides of how ridiculous it sounds when people ignore such obvious inequalities, consider the absurdity and cruelty encapsulated in the remark that "The law, in all its majesty, prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."
    - foxhill 11y ago
      your narrative of what defines racism is, whilst sort of poetic, entirely without merit. wether someone discriminates on race/sex, no matter what way for (e.g anti-white/male, etc.), you are being racist. that is all racism is. to incorporate the term racist with something like "anti-black", is to incorporate black racism into the word racism, and, by extension, almost deny that other sorts of racism exist. co-incidentally (and perhaps unsurprisingly), your justifications sound alarmingly similar to new-wave feminism movements, that, in general, seem to be themselves horrendously sexist. i didn't invent the last 10,000 years of human culture, and there are plenty of things that i dislike about it. i believe someone's racial/sexual identity should not be a discriminating factor in their lives. for someone else to deny me of input on either side of the discussion about how to implement those ideals, because of my "privilege" is idiocy.
- cperciva 11y ago
  No, that's not what racism means. This is rapidly descending into a rabbit-hole of semantics; but my dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races", without regard for historical social status.
  - ante_annum 11y ago
    According to wikipedia: Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges, rights or goods among different racial groups. If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour", great. If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour" with the caveat that race is taken into account when considering a complaint, not so great.
  - alexqgb 11y ago
    Why the caveat about disregarding historical status? Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate reason can there be for ignoring its source?
    - cperciva 11y ago
      Why the caveat about disregarding historical status? Let me rephrase that: My dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races". It does not say anything about historical social status in its definition of "racism". Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate can there be for ignoring its source? Trying to correct the continuing effects of past racism can be a justification for discriminating on the basis of race. But the fact that it is a justifiable form of racism doesn't mean that it is not a form of racism.
      - alexqgb 11y ago
        Sorry, actual racism is rooted in the belief that one race is morally and intrinsically superior to another, and that this supposed difference should be reflected in law, the economy, and pretty much every other imaginable facet of society society. Obviously it's possible to take race into account when making efforts to reverse the ill effects of they historically racist nation without subscribing to the anti-egalitarian beliefs that originally defined it
- defen 11y ago
  > However, it does tend towards a point where, in the absence of engrained racial privilege, a more egalitarian society can emerge. This is the handwavey part of the "Social Justice Warrior" position that I've never understood. Do you have any evidence that this will happen?

onewaystreet 11y ago

The policies on "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" are mostly to stop arguments that many consider to be trolling. Some people make the argument that initiatives like http://www.blackgirlscode.com http://www.blackgirlscode.com and http://www.pyladies.com http://www.pyladies.com are racist and sexist because they exclude whites/men. GitHub is not interested in having that debate.

cperciva 11y ago
Thanks for the background. In Canada the laws against discrimination exempt "programs designed to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups", so initiatives like those you mention would be perfectly acceptable; but discrimination in other contexts (say, out of simple bigotry, without having an ameliorative intent) is still covered.
tzs 11y ago
I have doubts about that explanation. If someone tried to argue that blackgirlscode was practicing reverse racism and reverse sexism, they would not be bringing it up as a code of conduct violation. The code of conduct covers how members of the community behave, not how the organization behaves. BTW, pyladies' code of conduct does not have language like that in it, and I cannot find a blackgirlscode code of conduct at all. Of the six sources they cite as inspiration, the only one that has that kind of language in its code of conduct is Geek Feminism, which states that the reason for the policy is that "these things don’t exist". It's pretty clear it was from Geek Feminism that they have identical language, including the lead in, except that they omitted the "don't exist" language. Of the five entities listed in their FAQ as having adopted this, only GitHub left that in. The others all took it out. Also...why is that under "Definitions"? It should be under "Reporting Issues".