13 ms·

It is still a question. There could people who are clearly not performing and then are let go that just so happen to not be a part of the "protected group". Peo

It is still a question. There could people who are clearly not performing and then are let go that just so happen to not be a part of the "protected group". People are not being let go because of who they are, it's just a part of the calculus. It may not be the significant factor.

nemo44x 4y ago
> People are not being let go because of who they are This is a common tactic from progressive in that they flat out deny the reality that everyone else see. They just say "it doesn't happen" when the CEO in a letter that was filed stated they specifically did this.
- John23832 4y ago
  Dude, I don't know why you're trying to paint me as something when I'm the OP of the thread that has taken umbrage with the layoffs. First, go outside and breathe. Second, the statement clearly says that it is a part of the calculus. Nobody is fired because they are white or black or whatever. The statement is just that it is taken into consideration (which is something that I have issue with). Please (and I mean this in the most considerate way because you're on the internet just randomly labeling people) touch grass.
  - zo1 4y ago
    "Part of the calculus" is just a euphemism indicating that race was a criteria that was possibly the reason someone was layed off. Let's be honest shall we instead of trying to play mental gymnastics. Imagine if the response to the Civil rights movement was "its okay stop complaining, race is just part of the calculus we use to determine who gets to go on the front of the bus, no one is forced to sit in the back because of race, it's just part of the calculus". No one would fall for that lame excuse to cover discrimination. We're not falling for it
    - John23832 4y ago
      First, you're responding negatively to me about something that I ORIGINALLY said that I didn't like. So I'm not sure where the energy is coming from, but that's fine. Secondly, busing does not compare to at will employment? The analogy also ignores the power dynamic behind racism (and all -isms), but that's a longer discussion than I'm willing to have here. Lastly, I'm not sure who the "we" was there... but whoever the in-group that you're associate with is, I would suggest they look more at the socioeconomic conditions that we are all living through that lead us to these conversations filled with baseless accusations and labeling rather than making minorities the targets of your fears of replacement. Whoosah.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    I cannot think of another reasonable interpretation of what the CEO said than "we considered race/class/some other attribute as part of a person's performance and suitability for continued employment at the company". If two people were otherwise equal int heir performance, but one was black, and the other white, I woudl expect that to be the determining feature. I don't have any insight into what they are actually doing.
    - John23832 4y ago
      That's the point... You don't know that they were otherwise equal.
- peter422 4y ago
  They said it was a factor. Twilio I'm sure had said they've been trying to diversify their workforce for years and you didn't care (which is the same thing, just through hiring instead of firing). It is you parachuting in to be offended that is the disingenuous thing here.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    To me (someone from a former socialist country), both hiring and firing, based on race, seems very very racist. Replace all the groups with "white men", and if it seems racist then, well, it's also racist when it's any other group except "white men".
    - peter422 4y ago
      Serious question: Are you aware of the historical context of the United States as it concerns race? Without looking anything up tell me what you know about it.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Are you talking about slavery? Since i'm a slav, I'd know, considering the similarity of the words is not a coincidence. But since neither I nor any of the employees there were ever a slave, I have no idea why a histy so old has to be taken in consideration.
        John23832 4y ago
        The etymological relationship between "slav" and "slavery" (which is a contested relation at best) doesn't answer the question about your depth in American race relations? The answer also shows a lack of knowledge about anything other than the headline "slavery".
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        The US Civil Rights Movement's hard-won successes in the 1960s were essentially the beginning of something resembling equality-before-the-law for black folks in the US, and it's still well within living memory. Mind, I'm also not particularly comfortable with racist hiring practices, no matter who's being targeted. Just pointing out that widespread de jure inequality based on race, plus various extremely-racist practices that were carried out and weren't illegal (as distinct from the law calling for racial discrimination explicitly, which was also still a thing then) were major factors in the US until not that long ago, including, crucially, housing and financial discrimination that left black people behind in the post-WWII economic boom—the short version is that they were flat-out banned from many of the best up-and-coming neighborhoods, and if they could find a good neighborhood that'd let them buy a house, they'd have, all else being equal, a much harder time securing a loan than a white person. This had measurable and pronounced effects on poverty rates and general financial well-being for them and their families, decades later. And even the US Civil War wasn't that long ago. There were still a handful of former slaves alive in the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on, IIRC. The US Civil War was the early and mid 1860s, about 100 years earlier—there were no combatants left alive by the 1960s ("fun fact": a few married-later-in-life widows of soldiers were still alive and receiving Civil War pensions, though!) but there were surely at least a few born-into-slavery-in-1865 slaves still alive 95-100 years later. The war freed them from slavery but they spent basically their whole lives under regimes of legally endorsed racial discrimination, with the tide only turning as the last of them died.
caeril 4y ago
> it's just a part of the calculus The argument seems to be "a little discrimination is okay". So, I guess the question would be, what is an acceptable coefficient for the race variable, for it to be okay? "Part of the calculus" implies there is a specific point at which racial discrimination stepwise goes from bad to not-bad, and I'm curious what that weighting value is. Obviously if I institute a total no-blacks policy, that's a problem. But what if I only mark down black people, say, 20%? Are EEOC investigators going to rubber-stamp my racist employment decisions then?

nemo44x 4y ago

> People are not being let go because of who they are This is a common tactic from progressive in that they flat out deny the reality that everyone else see. They just say "it doesn't happen" when the CEO in a letter that was filed stated they specifically did this.

John23832 4y ago
Dude, I don't know why you're trying to paint me as something when I'm the OP of the thread that has taken umbrage with the layoffs. First, go outside and breathe. Second, the statement clearly says that it is a part of the calculus. Nobody is fired because they are white or black or whatever. The statement is just that it is taken into consideration (which is something that I have issue with). Please (and I mean this in the most considerate way because you're on the internet just randomly labeling people) touch grass.
- zo1 4y ago
  "Part of the calculus" is just a euphemism indicating that race was a criteria that was possibly the reason someone was layed off. Let's be honest shall we instead of trying to play mental gymnastics. Imagine if the response to the Civil rights movement was "its okay stop complaining, race is just part of the calculus we use to determine who gets to go on the front of the bus, no one is forced to sit in the back because of race, it's just part of the calculus". No one would fall for that lame excuse to cover discrimination. We're not falling for it
  - John23832 4y ago
    First, you're responding negatively to me about something that I ORIGINALLY said that I didn't like. So I'm not sure where the energy is coming from, but that's fine. Secondly, busing does not compare to at will employment? The analogy also ignores the power dynamic behind racism (and all -isms), but that's a longer discussion than I'm willing to have here. Lastly, I'm not sure who the "we" was there... but whoever the in-group that you're associate with is, I would suggest they look more at the socioeconomic conditions that we are all living through that lead us to these conversations filled with baseless accusations and labeling rather than making minorities the targets of your fears of replacement. Whoosah.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I cannot think of another reasonable interpretation of what the CEO said than "we considered race/class/some other attribute as part of a person's performance and suitability for continued employment at the company". If two people were otherwise equal int heir performance, but one was black, and the other white, I woudl expect that to be the determining feature. I don't have any insight into what they are actually doing.
  - John23832 4y ago
    That's the point... You don't know that they were otherwise equal.
peter422 4y ago
They said it was a factor. Twilio I'm sure had said they've been trying to diversify their workforce for years and you didn't care (which is the same thing, just through hiring instead of firing). It is you parachuting in to be offended that is the disingenuous thing here.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  To me (someone from a former socialist country), both hiring and firing, based on race, seems very very racist. Replace all the groups with "white men", and if it seems racist then, well, it's also racist when it's any other group except "white men".
  - peter422 4y ago
    Serious question: Are you aware of the historical context of the United States as it concerns race? Without looking anything up tell me what you know about it.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      Are you talking about slavery? Since i'm a slav, I'd know, considering the similarity of the words is not a coincidence. But since neither I nor any of the employees there were ever a slave, I have no idea why a histy so old has to be taken in consideration.
      - John23832 4y ago
        The etymological relationship between "slav" and "slavery" (which is a contested relation at best) doesn't answer the question about your depth in American race relations? The answer also shows a lack of knowledge about anything other than the headline "slavery".
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        The US Civil Rights Movement's hard-won successes in the 1960s were essentially the beginning of something resembling equality-before-the-law for black folks in the US, and it's still well within living memory. Mind, I'm also not particularly comfortable with racist hiring practices, no matter who's being targeted. Just pointing out that widespread de jure inequality based on race, plus various extremely-racist practices that were carried out and weren't illegal (as distinct from the law calling for racial discrimination explicitly, which was also still a thing then) were major factors in the US until not that long ago, including, crucially, housing and financial discrimination that left black people behind in the post-WWII economic boom—the short version is that they were flat-out banned from many of the best up-and-coming neighborhoods, and if they could find a good neighborhood that'd let them buy a house, they'd have, all else being equal, a much harder time securing a loan than a white person. This had measurable and pronounced effects on poverty rates and general financial well-being for them and their families, decades later. And even the US Civil War wasn't that long ago. There were still a handful of former slaves alive in the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on, IIRC. The US Civil War was the early and mid 1860s, about 100 years earlier—there were no combatants left alive by the 1960s ("fun fact": a few married-later-in-life widows of soldiers were still alive and receiving Civil War pensions, though!) but there were surely at least a few born-into-slavery-in-1865 slaves still alive 95-100 years later. The war freed them from slavery but they spent basically their whole lives under regimes of legally endorsed racial discrimination, with the tide only turning as the last of them died.

caeril 4y ago

> it's just a part of the calculus The argument seems to be "a little discrimination is okay". So, I guess the question would be, what is an acceptable coefficient for the race variable, for it to be okay? "Part of the calculus" implies there is a specific point at which racial discrimination stepwise goes from bad to not-bad, and I'm curious what that weighting value is. Obviously if I institute a total no-blacks policy, that's a problem. But what if I only mark down black people, say, 20%? Are EEOC investigators going to rubber-stamp my racist employment decisions then?