8 ms·

That's stereotyping, not racism. People make inferences. Like, if there's two folks, one dressed in a suit, the other in baggy clothes with thick glasses, most

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Pfhreak 6y ago
  Stereotyping and racism are not mutually exclusive. In this case, people are making inferences that the BIPOC is not the CEO. Racism doesn't imply intent either. It absolutely can be the case that someone unknowingly makes a racist inference even with the best of intentions.
  • Thorentis 6y ago
    Racism absolutely does imply intent. The attempt by progressives to recharacterise racism as something that it is not, is the reason why they are making less progress in their objectives than they would like. It is not racist to assume that the person in the room most like the other CEOs you have met, is also the CEO. If I was in a foreign country, I would assume the CEO is the person most like the other people in that country. I never made any assumption about competence. Half the time I think the least competent person in the room is the CEO. Sadly that's how business works. There would be nothing racist - intentional, or unintentional - about my assumption.
    • neonate 6y ago
      I don't see anything here that contradicts the idea that people are systematically discriminated against because of their race. That's the problem people are worried about.
      • thisiszilff 6y ago
        I suspect it is the difference between the VC realizing they made a mistake and moving on (for a reason related to race) vs speaking to the white guy because they are racist and they would refuse to deal with a black CEO (ie, 'we don't serve your kind here'). The latter is very much intent, the former is rooted in biases from living in a world where there are few black CEOs. The question is to what degree do the biases in the former hold those people back (in the form of expectations, etc.).
    • Pfhreak 6y ago
      > Racism absolutely does imply intent. I'm sorry, but your opinion here does not match with either practical, common, or academic definitions for racism. People have internal biases all the time that cause them to be averse to particular racial groups -- particularly disadvantaged racial groups. They may not even realize they are doing it, but that doesn't mean that it's not racist. (For example, resumes with White names are more likely to receive callbacks than those with Black names. There may be no intent by the resume reviewer.) Another example, asking to touch a Black stranger's hair is othering, which is a type of racist behavior. The person asking usually isn't intending to be racist, and is 'just' trying to satisfy their own curiosity. There's no ill intent, but that doesn't mean it's OK.
      • the_omegist 6y ago
        Racism originally was based on intent. That modern US "academics" decided to turn every people into racists doesn't change it. In your study about hair : was it also done between chinese and indians, indians & eskimos and eskimos and swedish people? Because what those US academics brilliantly "discovered" is that people are more at ease with people that look like them. If you want to call it racist, at least have the honesty to attribute it to all human beings.
    • newacct583 6y ago
      > Racism absolutely does imply intent. The attempt by progressives to recharacterise racism as something that it is not Sorry, what? "Racism" is not a word with a clear definition over time. It didn't exist at all in popular usage until the past few decades. I think what you're trying to say is that "racism" is supposed to connote direct discrimination, like support for segregation, slavery, stuff like that. And sure, lots of people use the word that way. Most of those people are the same people who want to argue that "racism is a solved problem", so it's easy to see why this definition is attractive to mostly-male, mostly-white, mostly-conservative people. But it's not the way a lot of other people use the word, where it connotes broader injustice in society and not just individual opinions. Basically: you're making a senseless semantic argument. Even if you win the dictionary war about what "racism" means, you're still not responding to the actual concerns being expressed.
• crazygringo 6y ago
  Some inferences are perfectly fine. If someone shows up in your office wearing the outfit of a cleaning company, you're fine in assuming they're a cleaning person. In some circumstances, it's not harmful to assume the person wearing a suit is the CEO, though you might not always be right. The person in the suit might also be head of sales, while baggy clothes is CEO. Generally, it's better not to assume at all unless you're forced to. Just ask. But inferring that someone isn't the CEO because they're black? I'm sorry, but that's racism pure and simple. Stereotyping is one form of racism (not the only one). You have no reason to make the inference, and it's highly insulting if you make a mistake. And to assume that feelings wouldn't be hurt is... tremendously naive and blind to the reality of racism.
  • golemiprague 6y ago
    Why? It is just classification by obvious statistics of how many CEOs are black. People do it naturally all the time regarding any subject, just because in this case it is race doesn't make it less reasonable to infer. Racism is not giving this CEO a fair go because he is black, not assuming logical assumptions which can be corrected.
    • triceratops 6y ago
      > Why? Because of the reason given in the article. It starts the meeting off on a bad note by making the VC aware of their bias and embarrassing them. Often they just want to get the hell out ASAP to save face, which means the black CEO doesn't get a "fair go".
      • golemiprague 6y ago
        Why would they run away? They should just treat him as the CEO now that they know who he is and move on. It is not that complicated. You are all so sensitive in the US for everything you can't function as normal human being anymore.
  • johnisgood 6y ago
    > But inferring that someone isn't the CEO because they're black? I'm sorry, but that's racism pure and simple. If I were to meet/know/whatever 100 CEOs and 99% of them were not black and for example wore an expensive suit in a specific setting/environment, then is it racist to assume (based on my past experiences) that a particular black person wearing an expensive suit in this particular setting/environment is not the CEO? I honestly fail to see how making assumptions based on personal experiences and whatnot is racist. This is not equivalent to claiming that someone who is black cannot be the CEO, there is the possibility, most definitely. Denying this possibility based on race or skin color is what I would rather have a problem with.
• screye 6y ago
  It makes me think about how we as a people decide to communicate discrimination. If a certain type of discrimination of perception arises due to stereotypes, but by and large affects certain racial groups, then is it racism ? It also affects women as it does those who do not abide by personality traits of the valley's cargo cult or the Ivy MBA. > just accept the correction and move on Yeah. I think in such cases a sincere apology is at the minimum warranted.
• ceejayoz 6y ago
  > That's stereotyping, not racism. It can be both. "Women drive badly" is a sexist stereotype, but not racism. "Black people drive badly" would be both a stereotype and racism.
  • tomp 6y ago
    Well, it's still sexist. Same thing. Also, wrong. A better example would be, "women aren't passionate about driving". That's a stereotype, likely a correct one (i.e. substantiated by statistics... I mean, I'm not certain, but that would be my prior, but I'm very open to changing it), and most importantly: not harmful. It's just a stereotype. I'm not denying that things could be harmful (racism, sexist, ...). But not all stereotypes are. Like guessing that "Alex" is probably a guy.
    • remote_phone 6y ago
      Saying it’s not harmful is your privilege showing. Imagine you’re a 6 year old girl and you love cars but you never are encouraged because “women aren’t passionate about driving”. How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people, be it white, black, male, female, trans, etc?
      • tomp 6y ago
        > Saying it’s not harmful is your privilege showing. No, it's my experience showing. I grew up being basically ostracized (and also bullied) for being a geek. Little did I know it would turn out to be an extremely lucrative career. Simply, while other boys were out playing sports, or indoors playing computer games, I was programming. Because I was interested. Having said that, I think it's also the case that some people are discouraged from doing what they want, because parents/society. I don't think I'm doing that though. If anything, I'd be more curious about someone doing something unusual (not even in an anti-stereotypical way, but like, generally - such as archery, or spear fishing, or (until recently) bread-making). > How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people I definitely support people doing pretty much whatever. But experience shows that it's often better to e.g. lead conversations into interesting topics, rather than play a questions & answers game to find a common interest. The more you're able to do that, based on quick inferences, the better conversationalist you are (on average).
• pdonis 6y ago
  > If you make a wrong inference, just accept the correction and move on, no hurt feelings. If you're a VC coming to a first meeting with a startup CEO and their team, none of whom you have met in person before, making an inference at all is simply unprofessional. You should be asking. The fact that the VC's inference was that the white person must be the CEO just adds the further insult of racist stereotyping to the insult of unprofessional behavior in this context. My main takeaway from the article was not "lots of people in the startup world are racist" but "lots of people in the startup world are unprofessional assholes". I think the latter problem is what needs to be fixed.
  • jacobush 6y ago
    Oh yeah, the Unprofessional Assholes out of Venture Capital Matters Movement. It's taking the world by storm.
• refurb 6y ago
  This is what my concern with the focus on race is. You may commit an act that appears racist, when in fact it wasn't at all. An example: - I run into a white friend and call him Dave (another white guy I know), when his name is Mark. It happens, I apologize as I'm terrible with names. - I run into a black friend and call him Dave (another black guy I know), when his name is Mark. It happens, I apologize as I'm terrible with names. In the 2nd instance, you can guarantee someone will accuse me of bring racist. Basically, people make mistakes and say rude things all the time. But throw race in there and suddenly everything is viewed in the worst possible light.
  • wolco 6y ago
    The person calling you racist is racist. They are making a judgement based on Mark's race. They need to be educated.
    • NonEUCitizen 6y ago
      Nobody called the paranoid amnesiac racist. He made up someone accusing him of racism, and you're now accusing the imaginary accuser of racism. (The paranoid amnesiac is also a made-up figure) Everyone just hang out more with people "different" from you and recognize we're all part of the human race.
  • TeaDrunk 6y ago
    In the second instance I’d only find it racist if Dave and Mark were the only black people you knew, and also if this mistake isn’t extended to everyone but only the black people in your life.
    • anticonformist 6y ago
      So what if they're the only two black people he knows? And so what if he only gets confused by black people? There is nothing racist about it in any case. Person A has illiberal views on race but is very good at recognizing black people's faces. Person B has liberal views on race but is very bad at recognizing black people's faces. From your point of view: Person A is not apparently racist and person B is a confirmed racist! This is a good example of how mistaken the illiberal left has become on these issues.
• triceratops 6y ago
  It's moronic to make any inferences about who is who when walking into a room where you don't know anyone. When I walk into a conference room to interview a job candidate whose name I know in advance (from their resume), I always open with "John?" instead of "Hi John". Even though they're the only person in the room. In the situations described in the article (VC pitch, sales pitch), just make introductions like a normal human being. "Hi, I'm triceratops nice to meet you <hold out hand, other person states their name in turn>" If there are multiple people in the room, follow a fixed, consistent order. Options include nearest-to-farthest or left-to-right or starting from the head of the table.
• javanscala 6y ago
  Stereotyping is a distinction without much of a difference. I don't think anyone who has ever been slighted ever felt relieved to realize the person wasn't actually racist, or sexist, or ageist, but just "stereotyping." A few years ago, I had arrived for the final round of interviews and was mistaken for a security guard by one of the interviewers. I received an offer for that position but I declined. The company subsequently contacted me about another position, but I declined that as well. Prior to that incident, I was very excited about working there. It could've been an honest mistake, without any racist intent, but I couldn't shake my doubts about that company. Work already has the potential to create enough stressful situations without any added complications, so why gamble when you don't have to?
• robbrown451 6y ago
  It's obviously racist stereotyping. If you internally take a guess which is the CEO based on race, it may or may not be racist but it generally isn't harmful. If you make it clear that you guessed that? (as opposed to keeping your guess to yourself) That's harmful as well as just stupid.
• IkmoIkmo 6y ago
  Acting on racial stereotypes (e.g. by treating someone as the superior or subordinate because of racially based assumptions) is indeed racist. It means your behaviour is informed by racial profiling of an individual. It means that you're not treating someone as an individual, but rather based on membership of a racial group he happens to be born in, which has statistical characteristics (e.g. lower chance of being a CEO) that do not necessarily have any bearing on the individual at all. We define treating people distinctly like that because of their racial membership, as racist. That's really just the definition. You can have a discussion about whether you think racism is justified or not, and make your own value judgement. You could say that even if membership of a group does not necessarily say something, odds are that it can be a good way to infer things. And that's true, group-membership (e.g. your ethnicity) has many useful correlations from which to infer things. But to say it's not racist simply isn't factual, it is racist according to how we define it. What's left open for discussion is whether racism is okay or not. Of course as a society we have indeed had that discussion and fortunately decided that racism isn't justified, not okay, and should be prevented as much as possible. I'm happy about that. Because even if group membership (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion etc) has correlations with all kinds of outcomes we may wish to approximate, as a society we agree that it is only fair to judge people on their individual merits, and not on the group that they belong to.
  • tomp 6y ago
    Your reply is conflating a few things. 1. We make judgements on “group membership” all the time, and to the extent they’re correlated to the outcome (i.e. true) that’s not wrong or -ist. Example would be, do you avoid stepping in front of a car because you infer that the car might run you over, or do you just take your chances and hope that this individual car will stop. Ok, contrived example. How about this: people generally accept that men are more dangerous than women (e.g. when it comes to rape, stranger danger, domestic violence, courts, jails, ...) even though the vast majority of men aren’t violent at all! Is this sexist? Yes, to some extent, in particular when the state does that (e.g. always arresting men in case of domestic violence call). But at the same time, that kind of “prejudice” might just save your life; how wrong can that be? 2. Even if there’s no correlation to the outcome, not every inference is -ist. Example I mentioned downthread is, assuming that “Alex” is a man. Is that really wrong? 3. Which brings me to, you write that “treating people distinctly” is -ist. But what is treating? Again, people make inferences (that’s literally what intelligence is, short-term prediction engine). Sometimes that’s even embedded in the language (e.g. in Slovenian, you have to assume gender, unlike in English). But as long as we remain open to change, that’s fine! If the woman tells me that actually she’s “Alex”, the only actually sexists way would be if I refused to call her by her (masculine-ish) name. TL;DR: if everything is racist, then racism cannot be immoral.