5 ms·

This whole post is weird. Based on the tone they seem to think they are combating racism. But really the CEO of a company just announced that they are looking f

by KKPMW 6y ago

This whole post is weird. Based on the tone they seem to think they are combating racism. But really the CEO of a company just announced that they are looking for a new candidate. Requirements? - No particular requirements, except having the right skin color.

underyx 6y ago
We cannot know what the requirements are other than the one announced here.
kitsune_ 6y ago
Your implied reverse-racism argument just doesn't hold. Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad?
- Udik 6y ago
  Maybe that choosing people based on their ethnicity or skin color is wrong, whatever they might be?
- john_alan 6y ago
  > Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? Of fucking course not. > If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad? This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism.
  - Traster 6y ago
    >This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism. The only difference between what they're doing now and what they did before is the skin color requirement is explicit instead of implicit. Only hire white guys? Meritocracy! Decide you want to hire 1 black guy? Racist!
    - manigandham 6y ago
      What is your proof of an implicit skin color requirement?
    - flippinburgers 6y ago
      This is a bit odd to me. I have have siblings who are married to high achieving blacks and having talked to them the issue is more complex than "white people are all inherently racist and don't want to hire minorities". There are cultural problems in the black community in terms of how educating oneself is viewed. To be clear: if you strive academically you are "acting like a white man". Not only do I applaud and know individuals who are able to shut out that garbage mentality but it is awesome to see them get into high paying engineering roles. They deserve it.
    - nske 6y ago
      You make it sound as if they were intentionally only hiring white guys before -factoring skin colour in any way in their hiring process. Are there reasons to think that was the case? Because if not, even if there was a statistical imbalance in the hires according to skin colour -or any other property that should be irrelevant, gender, sexual orientation etc-, do you think companies should go out of their way to try and compensate for that imbalance instead of only factoring in properties relevant to the job?
    - Veelox 6y ago
      Hey, we are in agreement! It was really bad and racist when Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians people were excluded because of the color of there skin. Hopefully we agree it's really bad and racist when Whites, Hispanics, and Asians are excluded because of the color of their skin. You do agree, right?
  - i_love_limes 6y ago
    Ah yes, who better to make decisions related to the problems of racism in Reddit than a group of white people. And intentionally including a non white person is in that discussion is actually racist. I think the "reverse racism" argument shows that you haven't read a huge amount in this topic. Which is surprising given the focus of these issues in the past couple of weeks.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      You're discounting a group of people as unfit by nothing more than their race/skin color. That's racist, by definition. None of this will ever be solved as long as race and physical characteristics continue to be of importance (regardless of what "side" you're on) over someone's actions and character.
      - i_love_limes 6y ago
        I really really implore you to read up on this stuff more. It's clear that you haven't approached the subject of racism with humility, humbleness, or even the possibility that you aren't the best person to know about the issues that other people face. You are right in a way, I am discounting a person who hasn't felt the effects of racism to fully understand racism and give a good opinion on it. Which seems like a pretty good benchmark? I think your response to this enforces that those who haven't felt it aren't good judges of it.
        manigandham 6y ago
        How is it clear? Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist? What is the basis for your assumption that I have not felt racism, which you seem to be using to say that my perspective is not as valid?
        foldr 6y ago
        >Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist? No, obviously not. Otherwise it would be, for example, inherently racist to say that black slaves in 1700 felt racism whereas white colonists did not. In fact, the statement is both obviously true and obviously not racist.
  - 8note 6y ago
    I'd say the opposite; not going out of your way to hire people with some specific skin colours is racist. It wouldn't be if all the people with different skin colours had an equal standing, but they don't, and have a history inequality. If you purposely ignore the inequality, you're perpetuating it. You're working with a faulty definition of racism.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      To do so would mean discriminating against the races you're not choosing. This is, by definition, racist. Also the mere fact that inequality exists is not evidence of racism. I find it very troubling to see that race is increasingly the primary selection criteria by people who want to progressively "eliminate" racism. It might be good-intentioned but it's ultimately incompatible and doomed to failure. The only solution is to go beyond such attributes and focus on actions and character instead.
      - 8note 6y ago
        If the inequality is along racial lines, it's tautological that racism exists. You don't need more evidence than that Sure, they should also get representation on the board from other races too. Can they do that without specifically looking for people from those races? Are they not already hiring board member without considering race? How's that gone? How do black people get consideration based on actions and character as board members, when said experience is gated by connections?
        manigandham 6y ago
        What do you mean by inequality? Employees not perfectly representing the population? At what level of geographic census does this matter? Any why did you choose racial lines? What about other factors like education which show far more significance? If a certain group indexes higher or lower in a profession, why is that a problem? Do you consider NBA and NFL teams to also have inequality? By your definition, you must.
    - j_4 6y ago
  - kitsune_ 6y ago
    No it is not. This is not the innocent, pristine untouched garden of eden before Adam and Eve ate the apple. This is a society where the ancestors of one group of people auctioned off the ancestors of another group of people like cattle. This is a society where 38 years ago, the KKK last lynched someone. This is a society, where 30% of all black males in Alabama permanently lost their right to vote. This is a society where you get a slap on the wrist if you are a rich white coke-head but get years in prison if you happen to be black, poor and are caught with a bong. The counter-example to your argument: Imagine a company with a serious sexual harrassment problem, where men abused and raped female staff. You argue that in such a situation, giving a voice to a female victim is sexism! No!
    - ehmish 6y ago
      ...in the United states, which contains roughly 5% of the world's population. Reddit isn't just used by Americans.
    - Veelox 6y ago
      john_alan asserted that hiring where having a specific skin color is required is racist hiring. Your response is black people have been treated poorly so it isn't racism. Your argument more reads like a justification for treating people different based on race rather than this specific action isn't racist. Would you be willing to give an alternative definition of racism?
  - dang 6y ago
    This sort of aggression is not acceptable on HN, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - john_alan 6y ago
      So you’re not allowed use swear words?
      - dang 6y ago
        That's not the issue.
        waheoo 6y ago
        What is the issue? I just got flagged for explaining that they're not aiming for equality but equity. I find this odd. Iagree with the move sometimes you need to do the wrong thing to get the right outcomes.
        dang 6y ago
        If you were flagged, that was most likely by regular users, not moderators. The issue with the comment above is that it was (a) a personal attack and (b) fulminating.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  It seems a bit silly to say "reverse racism" doesn't hold when race is an explicit criteria for the job. Maybe this is still net positive for all the good that could come out of it, but clearly racist to say certain races need not apply. Imagine I'm selling clothes to upper middle class people in Iowa and someone applies to be a salesman or a general manager. "Oh sorry, I'm really looking for a white person here because I feel we've mismanaged our relationship to white consumers in the past." That seems like pretty clear cut racism to me. I don't see we should apply different logic just because the races or jobs are different.
  - 8note 6y ago
    But people of all races are required to know white people culture to attend to our needs. In the situation you give, being white offers no special qualifications.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Culture is not race or skin color, nor dependent on them.
- throwaway-gf 6y ago
  Why does the current generation have any obligations with right to sins (slavery etc) committed long before they were born? I don’t believe that sins can be inherited. It’s now well over half a century since any remaining discriminatory laws where abolished in the US, and longer than that in most of Europe. Government affirmative action has existed for decades. Let everyone compete on their own merits.
- concordDance 6y ago
  The odds of the best fit for the position being an african american are quite low. Positions should be assigned to people on the basis of their ability, not their skin colour.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Thats the point. They want equity, not equality.
- flippinburgers 6y ago
  There is no such thing as "reverse racism". What a silly term.
deadalus 6y ago
This is the epitome of corporate virtue-signalling. The new candidate will surely end racism completely from Reddit.

by KKPMW 6y ago

underyx 6y ago

We cannot know what the requirements are other than the one announced here.

kitsune_ 6y ago

Your implied reverse-racism argument just doesn't hold. Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad?

Udik 6y ago
Maybe that choosing people based on their ethnicity or skin color is wrong, whatever they might be?
john_alan 6y ago
> Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? Of fucking course not. > If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad? This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism.
- Traster 6y ago
  >This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism. The only difference between what they're doing now and what they did before is the skin color requirement is explicit instead of implicit. Only hire white guys? Meritocracy! Decide you want to hire 1 black guy? Racist!
  - manigandham 6y ago
    What is your proof of an implicit skin color requirement?
  - flippinburgers 6y ago
    This is a bit odd to me. I have have siblings who are married to high achieving blacks and having talked to them the issue is more complex than "white people are all inherently racist and don't want to hire minorities". There are cultural problems in the black community in terms of how educating oneself is viewed. To be clear: if you strive academically you are "acting like a white man". Not only do I applaud and know individuals who are able to shut out that garbage mentality but it is awesome to see them get into high paying engineering roles. They deserve it.
  - nske 6y ago
    You make it sound as if they were intentionally only hiring white guys before -factoring skin colour in any way in their hiring process. Are there reasons to think that was the case? Because if not, even if there was a statistical imbalance in the hires according to skin colour -or any other property that should be irrelevant, gender, sexual orientation etc-, do you think companies should go out of their way to try and compensate for that imbalance instead of only factoring in properties relevant to the job?
  - Veelox 6y ago
    Hey, we are in agreement! It was really bad and racist when Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians people were excluded because of the color of there skin. Hopefully we agree it's really bad and racist when Whites, Hispanics, and Asians are excluded because of the color of their skin. You do agree, right?
- i_love_limes 6y ago
  Ah yes, who better to make decisions related to the problems of racism in Reddit than a group of white people. And intentionally including a non white person is in that discussion is actually racist. I think the "reverse racism" argument shows that you haven't read a huge amount in this topic. Which is surprising given the focus of these issues in the past couple of weeks.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    You're discounting a group of people as unfit by nothing more than their race/skin color. That's racist, by definition. None of this will ever be solved as long as race and physical characteristics continue to be of importance (regardless of what "side" you're on) over someone's actions and character.
    - i_love_limes 6y ago
      I really really implore you to read up on this stuff more. It's clear that you haven't approached the subject of racism with humility, humbleness, or even the possibility that you aren't the best person to know about the issues that other people face. You are right in a way, I am discounting a person who hasn't felt the effects of racism to fully understand racism and give a good opinion on it. Which seems like a pretty good benchmark? I think your response to this enforces that those who haven't felt it aren't good judges of it.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        How is it clear? Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist? What is the basis for your assumption that I have not felt racism, which you seem to be using to say that my perspective is not as valid?
        foldr 6y ago
        >Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist? No, obviously not. Otherwise it would be, for example, inherently racist to say that black slaves in 1700 felt racism whereas white colonists did not. In fact, the statement is both obviously true and obviously not racist.
- 8note 6y ago
  I'd say the opposite; not going out of your way to hire people with some specific skin colours is racist. It wouldn't be if all the people with different skin colours had an equal standing, but they don't, and have a history inequality. If you purposely ignore the inequality, you're perpetuating it. You're working with a faulty definition of racism.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    To do so would mean discriminating against the races you're not choosing. This is, by definition, racist. Also the mere fact that inequality exists is not evidence of racism. I find it very troubling to see that race is increasingly the primary selection criteria by people who want to progressively "eliminate" racism. It might be good-intentioned but it's ultimately incompatible and doomed to failure. The only solution is to go beyond such attributes and focus on actions and character instead.
    - 8note 6y ago
      If the inequality is along racial lines, it's tautological that racism exists. You don't need more evidence than that Sure, they should also get representation on the board from other races too. Can they do that without specifically looking for people from those races? Are they not already hiring board member without considering race? How's that gone? How do black people get consideration based on actions and character as board members, when said experience is gated by connections?
      - manigandham 6y ago
        What do you mean by inequality? Employees not perfectly representing the population? At what level of geographic census does this matter? Any why did you choose racial lines? What about other factors like education which show far more significance? If a certain group indexes higher or lower in a profession, why is that a problem? Do you consider NBA and NFL teams to also have inequality? By your definition, you must.
  - j_4 6y ago
- kitsune_ 6y ago
  No it is not. This is not the innocent, pristine untouched garden of eden before Adam and Eve ate the apple. This is a society where the ancestors of one group of people auctioned off the ancestors of another group of people like cattle. This is a society where 38 years ago, the KKK last lynched someone. This is a society, where 30% of all black males in Alabama permanently lost their right to vote. This is a society where you get a slap on the wrist if you are a rich white coke-head but get years in prison if you happen to be black, poor and are caught with a bong. The counter-example to your argument: Imagine a company with a serious sexual harrassment problem, where men abused and raped female staff. You argue that in such a situation, giving a voice to a female victim is sexism! No!
  - ehmish 6y ago
    ...in the United states, which contains roughly 5% of the world's population. Reddit isn't just used by Americans.
  - Veelox 6y ago
    john_alan asserted that hiring where having a specific skin color is required is racist hiring. Your response is black people have been treated poorly so it isn't racism. Your argument more reads like a justification for treating people different based on race rather than this specific action isn't racist. Would you be willing to give an alternative definition of racism?
- dang 6y ago
  This sort of aggression is not acceptable on HN, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - john_alan 6y ago
    So you’re not allowed use swear words?
    - dang 6y ago
      That's not the issue.
      - waheoo 6y ago
        What is the issue? I just got flagged for explaining that they're not aiming for equality but equity. I find this odd. Iagree with the move sometimes you need to do the wrong thing to get the right outcomes.
        dang 6y ago
        If you were flagged, that was most likely by regular users, not moderators. The issue with the comment above is that it was (a) a personal attack and (b) fulminating.
ALittleLight 6y ago
It seems a bit silly to say "reverse racism" doesn't hold when race is an explicit criteria for the job. Maybe this is still net positive for all the good that could come out of it, but clearly racist to say certain races need not apply. Imagine I'm selling clothes to upper middle class people in Iowa and someone applies to be a salesman or a general manager. "Oh sorry, I'm really looking for a white person here because I feel we've mismanaged our relationship to white consumers in the past." That seems like pretty clear cut racism to me. I don't see we should apply different logic just because the races or jobs are different.
- 8note 6y ago
  But people of all races are required to know white people culture to attend to our needs. In the situation you give, being white offers no special qualifications.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Culture is not race or skin color, nor dependent on them.
throwaway-gf 6y ago
Why does the current generation have any obligations with right to sins (slavery etc) committed long before they were born? I don’t believe that sins can be inherited. It’s now well over half a century since any remaining discriminatory laws where abolished in the US, and longer than that in most of Europe. Government affirmative action has existed for decades. Let everyone compete on their own merits.
concordDance 6y ago
The odds of the best fit for the position being an african american are quite low. Positions should be assigned to people on the basis of their ability, not their skin colour.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Thats the point. They want equity, not equality.
flippinburgers 6y ago
There is no such thing as "reverse racism". What a silly term.

deadalus 6y ago

This is the epitome of corporate virtue-signalling. The new candidate will surely end racism completely from Reddit.