3 ms·

If "better performance, risk management, and returns" lead to diverse boards, what's the difference? > Magically attributing significant qualities to people be

If "better performance, risk management, and returns" lead to diverse boards, what's the difference? > Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Oh, please.

supercanuck 9y ago
I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal. Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. Maybe it forces people to critically think about what they are going to say before they just enter into whatever idiotic rant they read on the internet, because their might be consequences in the real world.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. No. What you described right there is authoritarianism. Is that really how you think it should work? Let me tell you: I've seen people overcoming their toxic "isms" firsthand. It's not done through authoritarianism. It's not done by telling people that they're "morons." Such facile reduction and out-grouping and denigration is precisely the toxicity you're supposedly fighting. People overcome their bigotry by bonding. (I've seen the worst backwoods homophobe become best friends with a gay activist.) You have it exactly "bass-ackwards" here: "I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal." It's the shared goal that compels people to see the basic humanity of other people. If you put the force first, then you 1) reveal something about your internal character and your respect for the self determination of others 2) risk causing counter-productive backlash. "Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein
  - supercanuck 9y ago
    > authoritarianism Is a Corporation a democracy? Shared goal in this case is maximizing profit. Did Steve Jobs carry himself like a President of a democratic nation or a benevelent dictator? Don't lose sight of the context of this article.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Is a Corporation a democracy? Corporations competing in a democratic framework are, to date, the best way of promoting human welfare by producing wealth and distributing power. While corporations themselves are, in the words of Frank Herbert, basically feudal hierarchies, they exist within a framework of (somewhat) meritocratic competition. Did Steve Jobs carry himself like a President of a democratic nation or a benevelent dictator? He succeeded through discernment, and a willingness to cannibalize existing business to find the next big thing. Sometimes the way he carried himself and conducted himself was a detriment. Don't lose sight of the context of this article. Are you still trying to cling to authoritarianism? Do you think Steve Jobs would have succeeded in an authoritarian society? He credits cultural freedom in his biography for his success. Corporations succeed where they support people's self determination. The true progress of Social Justice has largely been through the removal of undue influences of government and organizations over people due to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It's the people who would increase undue influences of government and organizations who are engaging in self serving hucksterism.
stcredzero 9y ago
> Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Oh, please. Listen and believe. I've been racially bashed, to the extent that police investigators got involved. I've literally been told that I am a less real and inferior order of human, with less real feelings. I've been in times and places where I could reliably predict what people would be saying to me in the near future, because so many of them would jump to conclusions about me due to race. I literally broke down sobbing in the shower just before I graduated high school, so convinced I was of my inner lesser-humanity -- and all of it was based on things directly said to me. Racism is reducing someone to their race. To be Liberal is to honor the value of people and to attempt to see a person for their character. This is why the recent trend of attributing racism and other guilt to people on the basis of their racial characteristics is just about the most racist thing I've ever seen. The fact that such ideas can propagate is another stark indictment of the failure of the education system to get people to actually think.
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  Your argument seems to be that racism is perpetuated by any discussion of race. Another perspective is that race is obvious, and racism is a particular view of race that is passed down through family and culture--so therefore we can only fight racism by consciously acknowledging and addressing it.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Your argument seems to be that racism is perpetuated by any discussion of race. No. What I'm actually saying is that it's acerbic groupthink that engenders more acerbic groupthink. It's blame and acrimony that engenders more blame and acrimony. It's an eye for an eye making the whole world blind, as Ben Kingsley's character said in the movie. If it happens to be about race, then it's racism. so therefore we can only fight racism by consciously acknowledging and addressing it. We can only fight toxic group-think by acknowledging it. It's hard to acknowledge and easy to fall into. The danger that the struggle against racism would itself fall to such group think is something that both MLK and Gandhi were keenly aware of; a level of self awareness which is starkly lacking today. Ascribing guilt to people on the basis of their skin color, eye shape, nose shape, or any other indelible characteristics is obnoxious and wrong. It's bigotry. People should be judged on the content of their character, not on their characteristics.
lovich 9y ago
Is that not racism? I was under the understanding that racism was treating people differently based on race. There's intersectionalist arguments about how some kinds of privelages balance out other problems when you compare two separate groups of people, but I dont know that I've seen anyone argue that treating someone differently based on their race is not racism
- BadassFractal 9y ago
  Remember that, according to those theories, it's not racism+sexism to treat white males differently from other combinations of XY chromosomes and melanin levels. They are the oppressors, and victims of oppression can never do "reverse racism" against the oppressing class. That's called bringing justice. Equity and retribution over equality. It was perfectly moral to crush and marginalize kulaks, suppress the intelligentsia. Just history repeating.
cirgue 9y ago
Eliding someone's individuality by reducing them to their skin color is absolutely racism. If you or your family is from anywhere in Asia and you live in the US, you get to deal with that nonsense all the time.

supercanuck 9y ago

I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal. Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. Maybe it forces people to critically think about what they are going to say before they just enter into whatever idiotic rant they read on the internet, because their might be consequences in the real world.

stcredzero 9y ago
Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. No. What you described right there is authoritarianism. Is that really how you think it should work? Let me tell you: I've seen people overcoming their toxic "isms" firsthand. It's not done through authoritarianism. It's not done by telling people that they're "morons." Such facile reduction and out-grouping and denigration is precisely the toxicity you're supposedly fighting. People overcome their bigotry by bonding. (I've seen the worst backwoods homophobe become best friends with a gay activist.) You have it exactly "bass-ackwards" here: "I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal." It's the shared goal that compels people to see the basic humanity of other people. If you put the force first, then you 1) reveal something about your internal character and your respect for the self determination of others 2) risk causing counter-productive backlash. "Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein
- supercanuck 9y ago
  > authoritarianism Is a Corporation a democracy? Shared goal in this case is maximizing profit. Did Steve Jobs carry himself like a President of a democratic nation or a benevelent dictator? Don't lose sight of the context of this article.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Is a Corporation a democracy? Corporations competing in a democratic framework are, to date, the best way of promoting human welfare by producing wealth and distributing power. While corporations themselves are, in the words of Frank Herbert, basically feudal hierarchies, they exist within a framework of (somewhat) meritocratic competition. Did Steve Jobs carry himself like a President of a democratic nation or a benevelent dictator? He succeeded through discernment, and a willingness to cannibalize existing business to find the next big thing. Sometimes the way he carried himself and conducted himself was a detriment. Don't lose sight of the context of this article. Are you still trying to cling to authoritarianism? Do you think Steve Jobs would have succeeded in an authoritarian society? He credits cultural freedom in his biography for his success. Corporations succeed where they support people's self determination. The true progress of Social Justice has largely been through the removal of undue influences of government and organizations over people due to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It's the people who would increase undue influences of government and organizations who are engaging in self serving hucksterism.

stcredzero 9y ago

> Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Oh, please. Listen and believe. I've been racially bashed, to the extent that police investigators got involved. I've literally been told that I am a less real and inferior order of human, with less real feelings. I've been in times and places where I could reliably predict what people would be saying to me in the near future, because so many of them would jump to conclusions about me due to race. I literally broke down sobbing in the shower just before I graduated high school, so convinced I was of my inner lesser-humanity -- and all of it was based on things directly said to me. Racism is reducing someone to their race. To be Liberal is to honor the value of people and to attempt to see a person for their character. This is why the recent trend of attributing racism and other guilt to people on the basis of their racial characteristics is just about the most racist thing I've ever seen. The fact that such ideas can propagate is another stark indictment of the failure of the education system to get people to actually think.

snowwrestler 9y ago
Your argument seems to be that racism is perpetuated by any discussion of race. Another perspective is that race is obvious, and racism is a particular view of race that is passed down through family and culture--so therefore we can only fight racism by consciously acknowledging and addressing it.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Your argument seems to be that racism is perpetuated by any discussion of race. No. What I'm actually saying is that it's acerbic groupthink that engenders more acerbic groupthink. It's blame and acrimony that engenders more blame and acrimony. It's an eye for an eye making the whole world blind, as Ben Kingsley's character said in the movie. If it happens to be about race, then it's racism. so therefore we can only fight racism by consciously acknowledging and addressing it. We can only fight toxic group-think by acknowledging it. It's hard to acknowledge and easy to fall into. The danger that the struggle against racism would itself fall to such group think is something that both MLK and Gandhi were keenly aware of; a level of self awareness which is starkly lacking today. Ascribing guilt to people on the basis of their skin color, eye shape, nose shape, or any other indelible characteristics is obnoxious and wrong. It's bigotry. People should be judged on the content of their character, not on their characteristics.

lovich 9y ago

Is that not racism? I was under the understanding that racism was treating people differently based on race. There's intersectionalist arguments about how some kinds of privelages balance out other problems when you compare two separate groups of people, but I dont know that I've seen anyone argue that treating someone differently based on their race is not racism

BadassFractal 9y ago
Remember that, according to those theories, it's not racism+sexism to treat white males differently from other combinations of XY chromosomes and melanin levels. They are the oppressors, and victims of oppression can never do "reverse racism" against the oppressing class. That's called bringing justice. Equity and retribution over equality. It was perfectly moral to crush and marginalize kulaks, suppress the intelligentsia. Just history repeating.

cirgue 9y ago

Eliding someone's individuality by reducing them to their skin color is absolutely racism. If you or your family is from anywhere in Asia and you live in the US, you get to deal with that nonsense all the time.