5 ms·

I can't imagine that you are arguing that non-white, non-cis, and non-hetro people haven't been prejudiced against by whitecishetromales. That's where the "turn

I can't imagine that you are arguing that non-white, non-cis, and non-hetro people haven't been prejudiced against by whitecishetromales. That's where the "turnabout" comes into play. If you are pointing out that the "turnabout" is also prejudicial, then I obviously agree. The point I was making is that when it is misapplied, it's potentially helpful (in creating additional awareness in those who are on some spectrum of "allied") and when it is accurately applied, it's detrimental (as it is likely to lead to "defensiveness and entrenchment"). In this way, it may also serve as a way to measure our own position. Also, I don't think anyone knows whether "many" is accurate. The same point is made by saying "some."

majormajor 5y ago
Labeling, as used in this article, is hardly even turnabout. The dominant group may not explicitly create a term to label themselves, but the act of exclusion requires separating out the "other," and so labeling the non-other isn't so much an act of "turnabout" as just putting a word to an already-created group. The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group. People will go a very long rhetorical way to try to refute the idea that if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected white racists. That problem won't magically fix itself because the people who desire racism to continue actively pursue it. We can't even get rid of the confederate flag, for goodness sake.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected [] racists. Yes, exactly. And assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together helps said racists, as might be expected from their being the ones who originally did so.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    That lumping is, again, descriptive. And it's an often-useful description/category in large part because of that historical racism. Getting worked up over that is a huge waste of time, to the point that I now wonder if it's a sideshow. If we waste our time arguing about if this "the diverse hires left and the new hires after them were white" description is bad, we've been successfully distracted. The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd - could you imagine how such people would feel if they were part of one of the out-groups instead and didn't just get lumped together but also had been attacked by the centuries of racism in the US? This is the paragraph in question, once again: > For example, I once worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: they made an inclusion skills rubric, placed ads in “diverse” tech spaces, et cetera. Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cishet white guys. If you don't let yourself look at the demographics, you blind yourself to any ability to evaluate effectiveness in terms of fighting the historical and present effects of white supremacy in the US. Note that the "diverse people" are similarly lumped together because it's non-judgmentally discussing the effects of a policy, nothing more. I don't see any way someone takes offense at that paragraph, but I see lots of ways someone would pretend to in order to make reactionary/distracting claims about if we even need to try to fight that historical racism.
    - crazy_horse 5y ago
      > The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd It surprises me that you don't see that language like this is the same language used against marginalized groups. Nobody but the person that is offended gets to decide how they feel. We as people of lots of overlapping concerns have to be empathetic or we'll get more factionalism instead of unity and inclusion.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        I don't see it as at all the same thing. People get offended at slurs and insults, and I don't see why I should interpret this usage as either. Do you think the "diverse people" referred to in that paragraph should also be offended? Someone here is upset about the author "assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together" - I fail to see how they're lumping those people in this story together any more than they are the other group. Someone here is upset about the author "being prejudiced against a group full of unique people" - I fail to see the prejudice in the quoted paragraph. Someone here is upset about "cishet white male shaming" - I fail to see the shaming. I don't see marginalized minority groups getting offended at, e.g. academic studies of the Mexican experience in the US for that same sort of grouping. That the term wasn't invented ourselves[0] seems to be the only real case being made here, but its an abbreviation of two technical terms, not an obvious slur. We could make an analogy to someone getting upset someone using one of one of "African American" vs "Black" vs another such term, but then we're getting pretty well into niche territory versus talking about something obviously offensive to everyone the term describes. [0] as far as I know, anyway, though I suppose it could've been.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  > The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group. Isn't that exactly what the author is doing by using the term "cishet white guys" though?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smolder 5y ago
> If you are pointing out that the "turnabout" is also prejudicial, then I obviously agree. Yes. It's never really "turnabout" to employ prejudice, because by nature you're not targeting the people who targeted you, you're targeting a broader group and repeating the error.

majormajor 5y ago

Labeling, as used in this article, is hardly even turnabout. The dominant group may not explicitly create a term to label themselves, but the act of exclusion requires separating out the "other," and so labeling the non-other isn't so much an act of "turnabout" as just putting a word to an already-created group. The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group. People will go a very long rhetorical way to try to refute the idea that if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected white racists. That problem won't magically fix itself because the people who desire racism to continue actively pursue it. We can't even get rid of the confederate flag, for goodness sake.

a1369209993 5y ago
> if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected [] racists. Yes, exactly. And assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together helps said racists, as might be expected from their being the ones who originally did so.
- majormajor 5y ago
  That lumping is, again, descriptive. And it's an often-useful description/category in large part because of that historical racism. Getting worked up over that is a huge waste of time, to the point that I now wonder if it's a sideshow. If we waste our time arguing about if this "the diverse hires left and the new hires after them were white" description is bad, we've been successfully distracted. The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd - could you imagine how such people would feel if they were part of one of the out-groups instead and didn't just get lumped together but also had been attacked by the centuries of racism in the US? This is the paragraph in question, once again: > For example, I once worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: they made an inclusion skills rubric, placed ads in “diverse” tech spaces, et cetera. Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cishet white guys. If you don't let yourself look at the demographics, you blind yourself to any ability to evaluate effectiveness in terms of fighting the historical and present effects of white supremacy in the US. Note that the "diverse people" are similarly lumped together because it's non-judgmentally discussing the effects of a policy, nothing more. I don't see any way someone takes offense at that paragraph, but I see lots of ways someone would pretend to in order to make reactionary/distracting claims about if we even need to try to fight that historical racism.
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    > The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd It surprises me that you don't see that language like this is the same language used against marginalized groups. Nobody but the person that is offended gets to decide how they feel. We as people of lots of overlapping concerns have to be empathetic or we'll get more factionalism instead of unity and inclusion.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      I don't see it as at all the same thing. People get offended at slurs and insults, and I don't see why I should interpret this usage as either. Do you think the "diverse people" referred to in that paragraph should also be offended? Someone here is upset about the author "assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together" - I fail to see how they're lumping those people in this story together any more than they are the other group. Someone here is upset about the author "being prejudiced against a group full of unique people" - I fail to see the prejudice in the quoted paragraph. Someone here is upset about "cishet white male shaming" - I fail to see the shaming. I don't see marginalized minority groups getting offended at, e.g. academic studies of the Mexican experience in the US for that same sort of grouping. That the term wasn't invented ourselves[0] seems to be the only real case being made here, but its an abbreviation of two technical terms, not an obvious slur. We could make an analogy to someone getting upset someone using one of one of "African American" vs "Black" vs another such term, but then we're getting pretty well into niche territory versus talking about something obviously offensive to everyone the term describes. [0] as far as I know, anyway, though I suppose it could've been.
snovv_crash 5y ago
> The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group. Isn't that exactly what the author is doing by using the term "cishet white guys" though?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smolder 5y ago

> If you are pointing out that the "turnabout" is also prejudicial, then I obviously agree. Yes. It's never really "turnabout" to employ prejudice, because by nature you're not targeting the people who targeted you, you're targeting a broader group and repeating the error.