3 ms·

1. Equal treatment would be correct in a counterfactual society that is not racist. Acting as though society is not racist, when it fact it is, will just preser

by gizmo 10y ago

1. Equal treatment would be correct in a counterfactual society that is not racist. Acting as though society is not racist, when it fact it is, will just preserve the status quo. Racism needs to be actively counteracted for society to get better. 2. No, just stating that "2 out of a 100 black senators is too many" is racist by itself. To get proportional representation for all minorities the number of white people in congress would -- necessarily -- have to go down. So saying "fewer white people in congress" is not racist because that's just how arithmetic works. 3. I don't know where you got the idea that diversity efforts are about hiring one group of people, but you're mistaken. Diversity efforts are about becoming more inclusive towards different races/ethnicities, religions, LGBTQ folks and so on. White men comprise only 31% of society and business and government should reflect that. I think you're just confused about the purpose of diversity efforts.

cyphar 10y ago
Points 1 and 2 I'm not _entirely_ sure if I agree with them (I agree there is a problem with racism, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions about what is and is not racist as a result), but point 3 is the only one I feel I need to respond to. > 3. I don't know where you got the idea that diversity efforts are about hiring one group of people, but you're mistaken. This thread is about hiring managers that have publicly stated they only hire minorities, and GitHub having internal presentations where they say that "white middle managers have no empathy". I agree that diversity requires hiring a diverse group of people you hire (by definition). But that's not what the GitHub hiring managers appear to think (and that was the whole point of this thread).
- gizmo 10y ago
  "Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. Github already employs tons of white guys, so focusing future recruitment on women/minorities is perfectly sensible. The diversity professionals at Github aren't the ones confused about what is and what isn't racist. Even if github did discriminate against white guys (they don't; it's still a company owned and directed by white men) that wouldn't be a societal problem. There are thousands of companies out there where people of color and women face harsh discrimination, so counterbalancing that with companies that favor them would just help balance the scales. White men (in aggregate) face the least discrimination of ANY demographic, so panic about discrimination against white men is totally unjustified.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > "Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. So would be "everyone except Asians" but that would be considered racist. But "everyone except white people" is clearly not racist because you can't be prejudiced against someone who happens to be white. /s > here are thousands of companies out there where people of color and women face harsh discrimination, so counterbalancing that with companies that favor them would just help balance the scales. Why is the solution not more accountability? More policies in place to make complaints about discrimination more vocal? Discrimination against workers was outlawed decades ago. Why aren't we prosecuting it like the crime it is, instead of trying to discriminate against another group of people as though that'll fix the problem.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      Yes, "no Asians" as a hiring policy is absolutely racist. It is of course possible to be prejudiced against white people (and that's bad) but on a societal level white people don't suffer from prejudice so there can be no comparison to the racism people of color face. > Why is the solution not more accountability? More policies in place to make complaints about discrimination more vocal? That also needs to be part of the solution. Racism is such a pernicious problem that it can only be tackled with an "all of the above" strategy. You also have to realize that any empowerment of women and people of color necessarily comes at the expense of white men, because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game. There is no difference between saying "more minorities in the senate" and "fewer white men in the senate". This is discrimination against white men in the technical sense, but this isn't a situation where everybody can gain at nobody's expense. If minorities are to be represented in politics and in business then white men will have to step aside to make room.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        > on a societal level white people don't suffer from prejudice so there can be no comparison to the racism people of color face You can only argue that this is true in "white" countries (I'm not even sure if I would agree that it's a country-wide thing either). In Asia, this statement is _far_ from true -- white people are very much stigmatised (especially in Japan). The world is much bigger than California. > because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game. Employment, especially in the tech industry, is far from a zero-sum game. There are more job openings than university graduates. "Societal influence" is such a hazy term that I'm not sure I can make any meaningful comment on it.

by gizmo 10y ago

cyphar 10y ago

Points 1 and 2 I'm not _entirely_ sure if I agree with them (I agree there is a problem with racism, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions about what is and is not racist as a result), but point 3 is the only one I feel I need to respond to. > 3. I don't know where you got the idea that diversity efforts are about hiring one group of people, but you're mistaken. This thread is about hiring managers that have publicly stated they only hire minorities, and GitHub having internal presentations where they say that "white middle managers have no empathy". I agree that diversity requires hiring a diverse group of people you hire (by definition). But that's not what the GitHub hiring managers appear to think (and that was the whole point of this thread).

gizmo 10y ago
"Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. Github already employs tons of white guys, so focusing future recruitment on women/minorities is perfectly sensible. The diversity professionals at Github aren't the ones confused about what is and what isn't racist. Even if github did discriminate against white guys (they don't; it's still a company owned and directed by white men) that wouldn't be a societal problem. There are thousands of companies out there where people of color and women face harsh discrimination, so counterbalancing that with companies that favor them would just help balance the scales. White men (in aggregate) face the least discrimination of ANY demographic, so panic about discrimination against white men is totally unjustified.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > "Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. So would be "everyone except Asians" but that would be considered racist. But "everyone except white people" is clearly not racist because you can't be prejudiced against someone who happens to be white. /s > here are thousands of companies out there where people of color and women face harsh discrimination, so counterbalancing that with companies that favor them would just help balance the scales. Why is the solution not more accountability? More policies in place to make complaints about discrimination more vocal? Discrimination against workers was outlawed decades ago. Why aren't we prosecuting it like the crime it is, instead of trying to discriminate against another group of people as though that'll fix the problem.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Yes, "no Asians" as a hiring policy is absolutely racist. It is of course possible to be prejudiced against white people (and that's bad) but on a societal level white people don't suffer from prejudice so there can be no comparison to the racism people of color face. > Why is the solution not more accountability? More policies in place to make complaints about discrimination more vocal? That also needs to be part of the solution. Racism is such a pernicious problem that it can only be tackled with an "all of the above" strategy. You also have to realize that any empowerment of women and people of color necessarily comes at the expense of white men, because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game. There is no difference between saying "more minorities in the senate" and "fewer white men in the senate". This is discrimination against white men in the technical sense, but this isn't a situation where everybody can gain at nobody's expense. If minorities are to be represented in politics and in business then white men will have to step aside to make room.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      > on a societal level white people don't suffer from prejudice so there can be no comparison to the racism people of color face You can only argue that this is true in "white" countries (I'm not even sure if I would agree that it's a country-wide thing either). In Asia, this statement is _far_ from true -- white people are very much stigmatised (especially in Japan). The world is much bigger than California. > because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game. Employment, especially in the tech industry, is far from a zero-sum game. There are more job openings than university graduates. "Societal influence" is such a hazy term that I'm not sure I can make any meaningful comment on it.