6 ms·

I don't understand how this is not considered blatant racism.

sgillen 6y ago
The reason it’s on the front page of HN and making noise on Twitter is because many people do consider it blatant racism.
coldtea 6y ago
Because some media pundits, intellectuals, and persons on the lecture circuits (mostly white themselves, and non representative of either minority groups or society at large) consider something blatant racism only if it's linked to historical white-on-black racism.
- rsclient 6y ago
  You must use the pareto principle when you program, right? So if you get reports that your program is crashing, and 80% of the crash reports point to a specific module, that's the one you naturally fix first? Racism is like that. White-on-black racism is the absolute leader in terms of causing real human misery in America. When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first? Sure, why don't we act as "real engineers"? If we did, we'd see that inequality and class issues are the "absolute leaders in terms of causing real human misery in America". Those pareto-results however are swept under the carpet for more fashionable and inconsequential causes (because changing those would entail changing it for everybody, black, latino, white, asian, muslim, etc.), and it would also mean many changes to capitalism and how it operates (in the corporate space, education, health, legal, etc). Whereas now it's just enough that e.g. a big business creates some diversity initiative, sponsors some apps with token multiracial people posing, and continue business as usual. Not to mention that even if one wanted to tackle racism, telling people to "be less white" would be the very last thing they should do. If anything, the "pareto pricinple" that some racism is OK, since "our 20% shit doesn't stink, only the 80% of shit does" would only help increase actual bad blood against blacks.
    - bingbong70 6y ago
      "Coca cola confirms training employees to be less white supremacist" fixed it. I notice msm and journalists like leaving off the last word (supremacist) for the sake of outrage. This is a 500+ year problem that negatively affected most of the planet, we can't decontextualize.
  - jimmygrapes 6y ago
    Sure, if we look only at select historical data regarding overall suffering, this almost makes sense. Should we also use this method to address modern times? Should we apply it to, say, crime rates, (irrespective of the theories behind underlying causes)? You and I both know that this only leads to accusations of "white supremacist" talking points.
  - spirolateral 6y ago
    Wow. This analogy makes zero sense.
  - ginstain 6y ago
    This reasoning is flawed. The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And the biggest issue that the federal government/ American citizens face is not systemic racism. You cannot absolve groups of individuals of their poor decision making. You can try to manipulate outcomes, but it doesn't end well if individuals continue to make poor decisions. The analogy is flawed because race doesn't account for 80% of the problems in the US, and I don't think it breaks 5%.
Simulacra 6y ago
Well, it depends on who you ask. There are many who say that only white people can be racist, and that racism only comes from white people, therefore if you are anything but white, you are by definition not-racist. A better observation would be, what if the presentation said "How to act less gay." Prior to the Supreme Court decision last year, "being gay" was not a protected class. Coca Cola could have provided training to its employees to be "less gay" and that would have been legal, although certainly many would say that is discriminatory.
spirolateral 6y ago
It is. It's funny how some neolibs don't see it that way, but the vast majority of people see it.

The reason it’s on the front page of HN and making noise on Twitter is because many people do consider it blatant racism.

coldtea 6y ago

Because some media pundits, intellectuals, and persons on the lecture circuits (mostly white themselves, and non representative of either minority groups or society at large) consider something blatant racism only if it's linked to historical white-on-black racism.

rsclient 6y ago
You must use the pareto principle when you program, right? So if you get reports that your program is crashing, and 80% of the crash reports point to a specific module, that's the one you naturally fix first? Racism is like that. White-on-black racism is the absolute leader in terms of causing real human misery in America. When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first?
- coldtea 6y ago
  >When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first? Sure, why don't we act as "real engineers"? If we did, we'd see that inequality and class issues are the "absolute leaders in terms of causing real human misery in America". Those pareto-results however are swept under the carpet for more fashionable and inconsequential causes (because changing those would entail changing it for everybody, black, latino, white, asian, muslim, etc.), and it would also mean many changes to capitalism and how it operates (in the corporate space, education, health, legal, etc). Whereas now it's just enough that e.g. a big business creates some diversity initiative, sponsors some apps with token multiracial people posing, and continue business as usual. Not to mention that even if one wanted to tackle racism, telling people to "be less white" would be the very last thing they should do. If anything, the "pareto pricinple" that some racism is OK, since "our 20% shit doesn't stink, only the 80% of shit does" would only help increase actual bad blood against blacks.
  - bingbong70 6y ago
    "Coca cola confirms training employees to be less white supremacist" fixed it. I notice msm and journalists like leaving off the last word (supremacist) for the sake of outrage. This is a 500+ year problem that negatively affected most of the planet, we can't decontextualize.
- jimmygrapes 6y ago
  Sure, if we look only at select historical data regarding overall suffering, this almost makes sense. Should we also use this method to address modern times? Should we apply it to, say, crime rates, (irrespective of the theories behind underlying causes)? You and I both know that this only leads to accusations of "white supremacist" talking points.
- spirolateral 6y ago
  Wow. This analogy makes zero sense.
- ginstain 6y ago
  This reasoning is flawed. The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And the biggest issue that the federal government/ American citizens face is not systemic racism. You cannot absolve groups of individuals of their poor decision making. You can try to manipulate outcomes, but it doesn't end well if individuals continue to make poor decisions. The analogy is flawed because race doesn't account for 80% of the problems in the US, and I don't think it breaks 5%.

Simulacra 6y ago

Well, it depends on who you ask. There are many who say that only white people can be racist, and that racism only comes from white people, therefore if you are anything but white, you are by definition not-racist. A better observation would be, what if the presentation said "How to act less gay." Prior to the Supreme Court decision last year, "being gay" was not a protected class. Coca Cola could have provided training to its employees to be "less gay" and that would have been legal, although certainly many would say that is discriminatory.

spirolateral 6y ago

It is. It's funny how some neolibs don't see it that way, but the vast majority of people see it.