14 ms·
> When minorities are made "ambassadors" as though they suddenly speak for EVERYONE in their minority, it is awful, and wrong. I've seen this described as "pri
by CodeMage 6y ago
> When minorities are made "ambassadors" as though they suddenly speak for EVERYONE in their minority, it is awful, and wrong.
I've seen this described as "privilege of individuality", a privilege accorded to the majority and denied to the minority: https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1352785720822394885 https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/135278572082239488...
- lovegoblin 6y agoThere's always a relevant xkcd, right? https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
- curryst 6y agoI think part of that is the "nobody got fired for buying IBM/Cisco/etc". You're somewhat more insulated from accusations of cringe or racism because you can't accuse someone of those things for how they view their own culture. It's a touchy area, nobody wants to be in the news because their recruiting event turned racist. Reactions are harsh, I don't think "We did research and tried to put on a tastefully themed event, but failed to consider this particular viewpoint" is going to get you out of the news. I also always took the "ambassador" to be an external facing thing. They speak for their culture at that company; the places I've seen it I was never given the impression that they were meant to be an ambassador for their entire culture. Maybe I was misreading it, though.