3 ms·

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

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.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        When I do annual reviews at my company we have someone be an unbiasing champion. They are looking for things like recency bias, familiarity bias, affinity bias and other cases where a speaker might be appealing to something that isn't demonstrated by data. That person's job is to call people out and say, "you just said you really like that engineers personality, but can you frame that against one of the annual review criteria?" Remove the gut check, focus on the days You might say that we therefore looking at reviews through an unbiasing lens. Using an antiracist lens could mean they had one person in the room whose responsibility was to tie the conversation back to data about employee performance rather than, "well, I have a hard time understanding person x, let's fire them." It's not just black and white, there are many ways this could be an innocent policy by Twilio. It could be what you describe, it could just be "we nominated someone to speak up in the meeting, but didn't really listen to them much". My point is that we don't know. You've made up your mind, but it's not that simple.

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.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        When I do annual reviews at my company we have someone be an unbiasing champion. They are looking for things like recency bias, familiarity bias, affinity bias and other cases where a speaker might be appealing to something that isn't demonstrated by data. That person's job is to call people out and say, "you just said you really like that engineers personality, but can you frame that against one of the annual review criteria?" Remove the gut check, focus on the days You might say that we therefore looking at reviews through an unbiasing lens. Using an antiracist lens could mean they had one person in the room whose responsibility was to tie the conversation back to data about employee performance rather than, "well, I have a hard time understanding person x, let's fire them." It's not just black and white, there are many ways this could be an innocent policy by Twilio. It could be what you describe, it could just be "we nominated someone to speak up in the meeting, but didn't really listen to them much". My point is that we don't know. You've made up your mind, but it's not that simple.