5 ms·

Anyone that remotely thinks that is an idiot. Michael is a fucking force of nature and one of the most impressive people you will ever meet. Seriously, if that

Anyone that remotely thinks that is an idiot. Michael is a fucking force of nature and one of the most impressive people you will ever meet. Seriously, if that thought ever comes up in your presence attack it head on because the person expressing it needs a big fucking gut check. Honestly, even you saying this is BS.

nisuni 6y ago
That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job. That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  BS. the passive aggressive argument used to undermine efforts to build more representative colleges, companies, and institutions is just a subtle form of racism that doesn't get applied to white people. I don't really see people make the same argument about hiring legacy applicants, college friends, or former coworkers, all of which tend to be similar people demographics. Sure maybe it isn't explicit racial bias but if the decision maker is selecting from a pool of already racially filtered candidates the effect is the same. So yes, it is about Michael because he has to deal with this crap of people "just asking the question".
casefields 6y ago
99% of the world, and 99.999% of reddit, has no clue who he is. Nor do they know anyone that has first hand knowledge of working with him. All they'll know is the the way the previous guy stepped down, and what he requested. I understand it's a terrible position to be put in.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I think only a small percent amount of reddit and a smaller percent of the world will know the way Ohanian stepped down or this guy stepped in. For most people it will be "I'm on the board of reddit." "Oh, cool." For people who think it was because of skin color, they may think less of him or of reddit, but presumably he made that choice going in and is okay with the costs and benefits. I have a rare (and not at all serious) medical condition. If reddit said they were selecting board members only with this condition I would happily apply and take the position even if everyone would say I only got it because of my condition and even if that were true. The cost is people would think I benefited from luck or circumstance and the reward is being able to meaningfully influence a major website and money. Hardly seems like a terrible trade to me.
- julianeon 6y ago
  People are acting like Seibel's about to assume the role of President of the Universe. It's just the reddit board. If it's so awesome, can you name the other people who are on it, as of today? Guaranteed that 95% of the people reading this did not know that this august institution also includes, and would not have known were it not for this comment: Sam Altman (famous, not surprising) Robert Sauerberg (probably less famous than Seibel before being named to this) Porter Gale (ditto) I'm sure these are good people, doing important work. But there's 4 of them in all, Seibel's just one, and the net effect may be less consequential than people here imagine.
  - admin1010 6y ago
    I thought Keith Rabois was on the board too.
    - julianeon 6y ago
      This led me down an interesting rabbit hole. It turns out that Rablois left and Porter was his replacement. I see that Rabois was on the board in ‘16 from a comment, but I don’t know the timeline behind this.
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>Honestly, even you saying this is BS. "I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?" You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race! If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll. This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed. If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity. I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
    Yes - in-group bias is a real thing and is prominent across all races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities etc. But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias. This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias. This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.

nisuni 6y ago

That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job. That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.

digitaltrees 6y ago
BS. the passive aggressive argument used to undermine efforts to build more representative colleges, companies, and institutions is just a subtle form of racism that doesn't get applied to white people. I don't really see people make the same argument about hiring legacy applicants, college friends, or former coworkers, all of which tend to be similar people demographics. Sure maybe it isn't explicit racial bias but if the decision maker is selecting from a pool of already racially filtered candidates the effect is the same. So yes, it is about Michael because he has to deal with this crap of people "just asking the question".

casefields 6y ago

99% of the world, and 99.999% of reddit, has no clue who he is. Nor do they know anyone that has first hand knowledge of working with him. All they'll know is the the way the previous guy stepped down, and what he requested. I understand it's a terrible position to be put in.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I think only a small percent amount of reddit and a smaller percent of the world will know the way Ohanian stepped down or this guy stepped in. For most people it will be "I'm on the board of reddit." "Oh, cool." For people who think it was because of skin color, they may think less of him or of reddit, but presumably he made that choice going in and is okay with the costs and benefits. I have a rare (and not at all serious) medical condition. If reddit said they were selecting board members only with this condition I would happily apply and take the position even if everyone would say I only got it because of my condition and even if that were true. The cost is people would think I benefited from luck or circumstance and the reward is being able to meaningfully influence a major website and money. Hardly seems like a terrible trade to me.
julianeon 6y ago
People are acting like Seibel's about to assume the role of President of the Universe. It's just the reddit board. If it's so awesome, can you name the other people who are on it, as of today? Guaranteed that 95% of the people reading this did not know that this august institution also includes, and would not have known were it not for this comment: Sam Altman (famous, not surprising) Robert Sauerberg (probably less famous than Seibel before being named to this) Porter Gale (ditto) I'm sure these are good people, doing important work. But there's 4 of them in all, Seibel's just one, and the net effect may be less consequential than people here imagine.
- admin1010 6y ago
  I thought Keith Rabois was on the board too.
  - julianeon 6y ago
    This led me down an interesting rabbit hole. It turns out that Rablois left and Porter was his replacement. I see that Rabois was on the board in ‘16 from a comment, but I don’t know the timeline behind this.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago

>Honestly, even you saying this is BS. "I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?" You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race! If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll. This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.

digitaltrees 6y ago
Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed. If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity. I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  Yes - in-group bias is a real thing and is prominent across all races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities etc. But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias. This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias. This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.