3 ms·

That's unbelievably obtuse. There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hir

by tootie 4y ago

That's unbelievably obtuse. There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male.

kergonath 4y ago
> That's unbelievably obtuse. How so? A policy that gives better or worse treatment to someone because of a perceived “race” (which is itself non-sense all in the case of homo sapiens) IS racist. Are you disagreeing with that? We can argue about whether we like it the way it is, whether it is punching up or down, or whether it is a good kind of racism, but there is no way around the fact that this is racism. > There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. So you are in fact saying that this is a good kind of racism, justified by History and the current socio-economical situation. > In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. Not at all. The story is about oppressed turning oppressors in the name of some form of ostensibly egalitarian ideology. As has happened countless times through History. It is a warning about what happens when you start using your enemy’s weapons: you become the enemy and betray your ideals. We cannot fight racism with racism, or else we just end up another shade of racists. > The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male. That is very much a problem. You are not going to solve it by firing white people. This will just give more ammunition to populists.
- tootie 4y ago
  > That is very much a problem. You are not going to solve it by firing white people. This will just give more ammunition to populists. Yeah, well that's exactly my point. If firing white people isn't going to solve racism, then this isn't exactly the "last straw" before we end up in an upside society. We're still ice skating uphill. And really the populists don't need a lot of ammunition since they're always willing to invent grievances when they can't find a real one. I mean, you're doing it right now. I don't think we should be setting policy based on what the worst people in our society are going to be offended by. > So you are in fact saying that this is a good kind of racism, justified by History and the current socio-economical situation. Yeah, basically. You can debate semantics if you want but it's beside the point. The term "racism" generally implies not just racial bias, but bias born of animus. This isn't animus. There's no hatred directed towards white people. There's an implicit assumption at work that laid off white workers will have a much easier time getting hired somewhere else and data says that's true. Especially a place like Twilio that probably employs loads of college graduates with technical savvy.
hackerlight 4y ago
Stop with the racism. We don't want to make the gap smaller. That's equality of outcome which is illiberal and anti-individualist. You are punishing White people because of their skin color, which is textbook racism. We want to level the playing field and create equality of opportunity. Invest in poor communities. Build housing. Open the borders. Elect Democrats. Recruit from community colleges instead of informal networks.
- tootie 4y ago
  The entire point is anti-racism. Not anti-poverty. We have oodles of well-funded anti-poverty programs. Money can't cure people's bias. It's not a great solution what the hell else can be done to undo bad attitudes?
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    It's not good to try to fix racism by perpetrating racism, even if it's a different kind of racism. Racism is immoral. Not to mention the unintended consequences of causing fascism by giving justification to the right-wing victim narrative. If you look at Fox News, Daily Wire, and so on, it's mostly victim narrative around anti-White discrimination. You're literally helping to elect Republicans with this stuff and bringing an end to democracy in the US. Anti-poverty is less performative than "anti-racism", but it achieves more with less negative side effects. The funding goes to Black communities in a higher proportion than it goes to any other community, because they tend to be poorer. So you get your asymmetric boost without having to explicitly perpetrate any racism and without giving Fox News ammunition. Also, decriminalize drugs, especially marijuana.
    - tootie 4y ago
      Right-wing media and politicians spent ten years accusing Barack Obama of being of a secret foreigner just because he wasn't white. They will latch on to anything real or imagined to fuel their racism. They still haven't forgiven the left for the Civil Rights Act or winning the Civil War. I have zero interest in appeasing their mania and think the only plausible option is, in fact, to shove this kind of thing down their throats. That's how reconstruction worked. That's how the Voting Rights Act worked. And in this case what Twilio did was of their own volition. It wasn't mandated by any statute. You're arguing they should be legally prevented from voluntarily enacting anti-racist policy? Do you another word for anti-anti-racism?

by tootie 4y ago

kergonath 4y ago

> That's unbelievably obtuse. How so? A policy that gives better or worse treatment to someone because of a perceived “race” (which is itself non-sense all in the case of homo sapiens) IS racist. Are you disagreeing with that? We can argue about whether we like it the way it is, whether it is punching up or down, or whether it is a good kind of racism, but there is no way around the fact that this is racism. > There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. So you are in fact saying that this is a good kind of racism, justified by History and the current socio-economical situation. > In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. Not at all. The story is about oppressed turning oppressors in the name of some form of ostensibly egalitarian ideology. As has happened countless times through History. It is a warning about what happens when you start using your enemy’s weapons: you become the enemy and betray your ideals. We cannot fight racism with racism, or else we just end up another shade of racists. > The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male. That is very much a problem. You are not going to solve it by firing white people. This will just give more ammunition to populists.

tootie 4y ago
> That is very much a problem. You are not going to solve it by firing white people. This will just give more ammunition to populists. Yeah, well that's exactly my point. If firing white people isn't going to solve racism, then this isn't exactly the "last straw" before we end up in an upside society. We're still ice skating uphill. And really the populists don't need a lot of ammunition since they're always willing to invent grievances when they can't find a real one. I mean, you're doing it right now. I don't think we should be setting policy based on what the worst people in our society are going to be offended by. > So you are in fact saying that this is a good kind of racism, justified by History and the current socio-economical situation. Yeah, basically. You can debate semantics if you want but it's beside the point. The term "racism" generally implies not just racial bias, but bias born of animus. This isn't animus. There's no hatred directed towards white people. There's an implicit assumption at work that laid off white workers will have a much easier time getting hired somewhere else and data says that's true. Especially a place like Twilio that probably employs loads of college graduates with technical savvy.

hackerlight 4y ago

Stop with the racism. We don't want to make the gap smaller. That's equality of outcome which is illiberal and anti-individualist. You are punishing White people because of their skin color, which is textbook racism. We want to level the playing field and create equality of opportunity. Invest in poor communities. Build housing. Open the borders. Elect Democrats. Recruit from community colleges instead of informal networks.

tootie 4y ago
The entire point is anti-racism. Not anti-poverty. We have oodles of well-funded anti-poverty programs. Money can't cure people's bias. It's not a great solution what the hell else can be done to undo bad attitudes?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  It's not good to try to fix racism by perpetrating racism, even if it's a different kind of racism. Racism is immoral. Not to mention the unintended consequences of causing fascism by giving justification to the right-wing victim narrative. If you look at Fox News, Daily Wire, and so on, it's mostly victim narrative around anti-White discrimination. You're literally helping to elect Republicans with this stuff and bringing an end to democracy in the US. Anti-poverty is less performative than "anti-racism", but it achieves more with less negative side effects. The funding goes to Black communities in a higher proportion than it goes to any other community, because they tend to be poorer. So you get your asymmetric boost without having to explicitly perpetrate any racism and without giving Fox News ammunition. Also, decriminalize drugs, especially marijuana.
  - tootie 4y ago
    Right-wing media and politicians spent ten years accusing Barack Obama of being of a secret foreigner just because he wasn't white. They will latch on to anything real or imagined to fuel their racism. They still haven't forgiven the left for the Civil Rights Act or winning the Civil War. I have zero interest in appeasing their mania and think the only plausible option is, in fact, to shove this kind of thing down their throats. That's how reconstruction worked. That's how the Voting Rights Act worked. And in this case what Twilio did was of their own volition. It wasn't mandated by any statute. You're arguing they should be legally prevented from voluntarily enacting anti-racist policy? Do you another word for anti-anti-racism?