4 ms·

> It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist Can I take a look at this Minimum Credible Commitment to Not Being Racist? Are there standard t

> It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist Can I take a look at this Minimum Credible Commitment to Not Being Racist? Are there standard terms? Are there standard reciprocal commitments? For example, I would want any counter-party to commit to not treating me worse on race-related grounds than anyone else signing the same commitment. (That excludes any kind of rank-system, by the way, apologies if that's obvious to you.) If liberal US colleges just want to filter for people who aren't so racist that they can't even be professional, then it's clear, to me at least, that there must be some other process that's frustrating their aim and making them expend a lot more resources than they would want to, to achieve a much worse result. In that case ISTM that what would be good for them is for some sort of overriding power to impose a Minimum Credible Commitment standard on them.

catapart 4y ago
It must be very hard for you to not have strict, rigorous standards that you can apply and adhere to so that everything can be either "right" or "wrong". Unfortunately, such is the case with social issues. Good luck on navigating interpersonal issues! I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.
- topynate 4y ago
  The social issues may be messy. Why does that mean the employment conditions must be messy? > I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit. My experience is that if you take that attitude into a serious negotiation you have a great chance of being fucked over by people who "tell you things from experience".
  - catapart 4y ago
    Because employment is social. There's no rule that says you can't rub your stomach. But if you consistently find woman coworkers and stand around them vigorously rubbing your stomach, there's a good case for management to put an end to that. There's no "rule" that can stop that kind of thing. People have to be reasonable and understand that it's just about "comfort". And silly people made up rules about "making people uncomfortable" and, predictably, people set about testing that rule because that's what people will always do. "Well, why is THIS creepy, but not THAT?!" Nobody can tell you, Gene. We just all fucking know it. It's pretty obvious if you're not being obtuse about it. An the other note: I'm sorry you seem to find yourself in situations where you are consistently (or with a great possibility) are getting fucked over by people. Might say something about your adherence to obtuseness, but I suppose I'll take your point here that you don't care what my experience says. Duly noted. I won't bring it up again.
    - topynate 4y ago
      If not being racist is one of those things that everyone fucking knows then that should make it easier to agree a standard commitment to not being racist. Breaches can then be dealt with in the same way that your hypothetical sexual harassment thing is dealt with, i.e. your boss (not "management", if "management" are responsible then you have bigger problems than people Stallmanning in the workplace) telling you to stop that, or firing you, or whatever, depending on what you agreed to when you were hired. If everyone really does know not to do X then being fired for doing X was a predictable consequence and you really have no-one else to blame but yourself. Moreover if you want your job then you probably will not actually do X whether you like being obtuse or not, which is the point of the whole thing. None of which resembles the rank-system self-report antiracist-in-a-particular-way bollocks that is under discussion. That is not in fact a wonderful innovation. It's actually a lot closer to tribal politics than your excellent suggestion of a "promise not to be racist". Specifically in that it's something that "everyone knows" but you nevertheless get ranked on it; which is to say, it's not something everyone knows how to do but rather something everyone important knows about you, it's about your social status, it's a popularity contest. Thank you for your concern about the situations I've found myself in! I did find myself in much better situations once I learned to treat business more seriously than high school.
      - catapart 4y ago
        Why would that make it easier? Everyone knows you shouldn't vigorously rub your stomach near your coworkers, but it's still hard to write a commitment that would satisfy all situations. What about when Gene gets a really bad itch on his stomach, and just happens to be standing by some coworkers?! You can spend forever, drowning yourself in the "what ifs" trying to appease a type of person that will always be tilting at their preferred windmills, with their only point appearing to be "look! it's not PERFECT, so it's not worth doing." Alternatively, you can understand why we - as a society - appreciate adjudication by other people (not an ironclad set of rules; the law leaves a lot of leeway for judges and juries to decide), and embrace that kind of governance even within your companies and other social structures. Rules to measure against, not rules to adhere to blindly. You can pretend it's not the case all day long, but it's an observable state of the world that some people refuse the idea of "institutional racism". Some people refuse the idea that certain actions can be "racist" or "microaggressions". Some people vehemently REFUSE to understand the things that "everybody knows" because they are contrarian. Writing rules around these people is an effort in futility. It's best to just identify those kinds of people and treat them accordingly. But! If you disagree, feel free to write any sort of policy that you'd like, and ask reddit to try to abuse it. I eagerly await seeing your ironclad policies that take everything into account such that they can be listed as commitments to achieve said policy goals. Alternatively, you could admit that not everything needs to be codified into a specific rule and that, sometimes, people are going to have to use judgement which, while not perfect, is not necessarily malicious or even harmful. And hey - glad you found better situations! Sorry you weren't able to treat things seriously, in high school, but better late than never!

catapart 4y ago

It must be very hard for you to not have strict, rigorous standards that you can apply and adhere to so that everything can be either "right" or "wrong". Unfortunately, such is the case with social issues. Good luck on navigating interpersonal issues! I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.

topynate 4y ago
The social issues may be messy. Why does that mean the employment conditions must be messy? > I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit. My experience is that if you take that attitude into a serious negotiation you have a great chance of being fucked over by people who "tell you things from experience".
- catapart 4y ago
  Because employment is social. There's no rule that says you can't rub your stomach. But if you consistently find woman coworkers and stand around them vigorously rubbing your stomach, there's a good case for management to put an end to that. There's no "rule" that can stop that kind of thing. People have to be reasonable and understand that it's just about "comfort". And silly people made up rules about "making people uncomfortable" and, predictably, people set about testing that rule because that's what people will always do. "Well, why is THIS creepy, but not THAT?!" Nobody can tell you, Gene. We just all fucking know it. It's pretty obvious if you're not being obtuse about it. An the other note: I'm sorry you seem to find yourself in situations where you are consistently (or with a great possibility) are getting fucked over by people. Might say something about your adherence to obtuseness, but I suppose I'll take your point here that you don't care what my experience says. Duly noted. I won't bring it up again.
  - topynate 4y ago
    If not being racist is one of those things that everyone fucking knows then that should make it easier to agree a standard commitment to not being racist. Breaches can then be dealt with in the same way that your hypothetical sexual harassment thing is dealt with, i.e. your boss (not "management", if "management" are responsible then you have bigger problems than people Stallmanning in the workplace) telling you to stop that, or firing you, or whatever, depending on what you agreed to when you were hired. If everyone really does know not to do X then being fired for doing X was a predictable consequence and you really have no-one else to blame but yourself. Moreover if you want your job then you probably will not actually do X whether you like being obtuse or not, which is the point of the whole thing. None of which resembles the rank-system self-report antiracist-in-a-particular-way bollocks that is under discussion. That is not in fact a wonderful innovation. It's actually a lot closer to tribal politics than your excellent suggestion of a "promise not to be racist". Specifically in that it's something that "everyone knows" but you nevertheless get ranked on it; which is to say, it's not something everyone knows how to do but rather something everyone important knows about you, it's about your social status, it's a popularity contest. Thank you for your concern about the situations I've found myself in! I did find myself in much better situations once I learned to treat business more seriously than high school.
    - catapart 4y ago
      Why would that make it easier? Everyone knows you shouldn't vigorously rub your stomach near your coworkers, but it's still hard to write a commitment that would satisfy all situations. What about when Gene gets a really bad itch on his stomach, and just happens to be standing by some coworkers?! You can spend forever, drowning yourself in the "what ifs" trying to appease a type of person that will always be tilting at their preferred windmills, with their only point appearing to be "look! it's not PERFECT, so it's not worth doing." Alternatively, you can understand why we - as a society - appreciate adjudication by other people (not an ironclad set of rules; the law leaves a lot of leeway for judges and juries to decide), and embrace that kind of governance even within your companies and other social structures. Rules to measure against, not rules to adhere to blindly. You can pretend it's not the case all day long, but it's an observable state of the world that some people refuse the idea of "institutional racism". Some people refuse the idea that certain actions can be "racist" or "microaggressions". Some people vehemently REFUSE to understand the things that "everybody knows" because they are contrarian. Writing rules around these people is an effort in futility. It's best to just identify those kinds of people and treat them accordingly. But! If you disagree, feel free to write any sort of policy that you'd like, and ask reddit to try to abuse it. I eagerly await seeing your ironclad policies that take everything into account such that they can be listed as commitments to achieve said policy goals. Alternatively, you could admit that not everything needs to be codified into a specific rule and that, sometimes, people are going to have to use judgement which, while not perfect, is not necessarily malicious or even harmful. And hey - glad you found better situations! Sorry you weren't able to treat things seriously, in high school, but better late than never!