4 ms·

HN morning crowd apparently doesn't like the idea of slowing down and asking for reasoning and data. The point I'm making is that press releases around layoffs

HN morning crowd apparently doesn't like the idea of slowing down and asking for reasoning and data. The point I'm making is that press releases around layoffs are often rushed, and might not actually represent the whole story. Maybe we shouldnt call someone guilty before they get a chance to elaborate?

trention 4y ago
There are only 2 reasons to put this exact wording in your press release: a) you are extremely stupid b) you are super woke and are using this as a signalling opportunity Extremely stupid people sometimes run billion-dollar companies but it's the exception.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Or, and hear me out, you are trying to be conscious of the fact that layoffs have historically got marginalized communities harder, and you were in a rush to write something that acknowledged that.
  - trention 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      There's a long thread in my comment history of me being comfortable having a reasoned discussion about socialism or communism, and how folks tend to dismiss me without making any effort to understand. I'd be happy to have a discussion here with you as well, if you'd like to engage in some intellectual exchange. That said, it does seem to me you are applying the same process to both me and this press release - seeing a few words and making some sweeping assumptions about what is behind those words. Let me know if that's not the case or if I've misread you.
  - homonculus1 4y ago
    That was already listed under option b)
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Do you believe that historic inequalities don't exist? Or that paying attention to them is wrong? Or that mentioning that you've done so is wrong? You must believe one of those if you think my previous is an example of b).
      - homonculus1 4y ago
        What I believe is that historic outcomes don't need to be "paid attention to" by firing extra white people. That is in fact a blatantly woke thing to do and you're not fooling anybody that it's some kind of apolitical moral fundament that can't be labeled.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        Do you have evidence that they fired extra white people? Or is that just your interpretation of "we used an antiracist lens"? Right now I see a whole lot of assumptions and very little evidence.
        homonculus1 4y ago
        Why would they mention it otherwise? Did they fire fewer whites to be "antiracist"? You can play coy but we all know this only goes in one direction, the entire revealed purpose of this ideology is to capture and redistribute resources from whites. Anything that even incidentally benefits white people in particular will be labeled "systemic racism" instead. So my evidence is that I'm taking them at their word. The best case of your apologetics amounts to: maybe they did normal layoffs and they're just framing it in an arbitrary way so as to acknowledge woke beliefs. Which is a restatement of the virtue signalling described by the commenter above.
        4y ago

trention 4y ago

There are only 2 reasons to put this exact wording in your press release: a) you are extremely stupid b) you are super woke and are using this as a signalling opportunity Extremely stupid people sometimes run billion-dollar companies but it's the exception.

socialismisok 4y ago
Or, and hear me out, you are trying to be conscious of the fact that layoffs have historically got marginalized communities harder, and you were in a rush to write something that acknowledged that.
- trention 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    There's a long thread in my comment history of me being comfortable having a reasoned discussion about socialism or communism, and how folks tend to dismiss me without making any effort to understand. I'd be happy to have a discussion here with you as well, if you'd like to engage in some intellectual exchange. That said, it does seem to me you are applying the same process to both me and this press release - seeing a few words and making some sweeping assumptions about what is behind those words. Let me know if that's not the case or if I've misread you.
- homonculus1 4y ago
  That was already listed under option b)
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Do you believe that historic inequalities don't exist? Or that paying attention to them is wrong? Or that mentioning that you've done so is wrong? You must believe one of those if you think my previous is an example of b).
    - homonculus1 4y ago
      What I believe is that historic outcomes don't need to be "paid attention to" by firing extra white people. That is in fact a blatantly woke thing to do and you're not fooling anybody that it's some kind of apolitical moral fundament that can't be labeled.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Do you have evidence that they fired extra white people? Or is that just your interpretation of "we used an antiracist lens"? Right now I see a whole lot of assumptions and very little evidence.
        homonculus1 4y ago
        Why would they mention it otherwise? Did they fire fewer whites to be "antiracist"? You can play coy but we all know this only goes in one direction, the entire revealed purpose of this ideology is to capture and redistribute resources from whites. Anything that even incidentally benefits white people in particular will be labeled "systemic racism" instead. So my evidence is that I'm taking them at their word. The best case of your apologetics amounts to: maybe they did normal layoffs and they're just framing it in an arbitrary way so as to acknowledge woke beliefs. Which is a restatement of the virtue signalling described by the commenter above.
        4y ago