2 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.