2 ms·

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

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.
    - homonculus1 4y ago
      You keep using more and more words to describe the same thing. Again, "antiracism" is oriented monotonically against whites. You won't contest that because if whites ever benefited from it then it would defeat your purpose. Whether their policy was directly effective toward that end or just another layer of obtuse bureaucratic process like you describe, Twilio is signalling that they applied antiwhite ideology to their employment decisions.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        The idea that anti racism means anti white is demonstrably false and trivially disproven. There are actions you can take that do not have anything to do with whiteness. If you tell a racist joke or use a racist slur, and I tell you not to do that, I am acting in an anti racist manner. It cost white folks nothing. All antiracist means is "actively against racism", meaning when you observe racism you take action.
        homonculus1 4y ago
        Would antiracism interrupt black people from making a racist remark?
        socialismisok 4y ago
        Yes? Why wouldn't it?

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.
  - homonculus1 4y ago
    You keep using more and more words to describe the same thing. Again, "antiracism" is oriented monotonically against whites. You won't contest that because if whites ever benefited from it then it would defeat your purpose. Whether their policy was directly effective toward that end or just another layer of obtuse bureaucratic process like you describe, Twilio is signalling that they applied antiwhite ideology to their employment decisions.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      The idea that anti racism means anti white is demonstrably false and trivially disproven. There are actions you can take that do not have anything to do with whiteness. If you tell a racist joke or use a racist slur, and I tell you not to do that, I am acting in an anti racist manner. It cost white folks nothing. All antiracist means is "actively against racism", meaning when you observe racism you take action.
      - homonculus1 4y ago
        Would antiracism interrupt black people from making a racist remark?
        socialismisok 4y ago
        Yes? Why wouldn't it?