4 ms·

If the one black guy in the entire convention had his talk downgraded through back-channel means, I would suspect race had to do with it (if only obliquely, in

If the one black guy in the entire convention had his talk downgraded through back-channel means, I would suspect race had to do with it (if only obliquely, in that often black peoples actions are often received in much less good faith than other races). If it was actually just general leadership incompetence I think that would be important to highlight. It’s super weird when the only black guy gets sus behavior, but it’s less weird if leadership has been sus for a while and it just happened to drive off the one black guy.

sshine 3y ago
The problem with assuming race has something to do with it is, you don’t learn the author’s race as you read his blog and interact with him via git. So you must assume either that the decision makers knew through other channels, or that without knowing, they’re out-crowding him via subconscious selectors. If you think this is a race thing, you probably think everything is a race thing.
- Eldt 3y ago
  Humans are capable of consuming information that is not from blogs or git so I have no idea what you're trying to convey here
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  Well I mean very clearly the community knew he was black. That’s why this discussion is being had. It’s not like the guys talk was downgraded and he went “surprise!! You can’t downgrade me because I’m black!!”. No, everyone knew he was the sole black person doing a talk in the entire event and he was the sole person who was downgraded in a backchannel, opaque manner. I would think that to be sus.
  - sshine 3y ago
    Yeah, okay. I didn’t know that ThePHD was black. I think you paint “the community” as more homogenous and informed than it is. But I understand that the involved parties are aware of each other’s races. I understand, then, a need to speculate on racism. But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t?
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      > But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t I mean that’s why the original “btw this didn’t have to do with his race” statement existed. If you’re (hypothetical you) giving special, opaque treatment to the sole black person in the group, then it’s on you to clear up any speculation the opaque treatment had to do with being black, because it was only happening to the sole black person. So the leadership did an opaque thing to the sole black guy and then clarified the weird thing had nothing to do with his blackness, just their poor communication or whatever.

sshine 3y ago

The problem with assuming race has something to do with it is, you don’t learn the author’s race as you read his blog and interact with him via git. So you must assume either that the decision makers knew through other channels, or that without knowing, they’re out-crowding him via subconscious selectors. If you think this is a race thing, you probably think everything is a race thing.

Eldt 3y ago
Humans are capable of consuming information that is not from blogs or git so I have no idea what you're trying to convey here
SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
Well I mean very clearly the community knew he was black. That’s why this discussion is being had. It’s not like the guys talk was downgraded and he went “surprise!! You can’t downgrade me because I’m black!!”. No, everyone knew he was the sole black person doing a talk in the entire event and he was the sole person who was downgraded in a backchannel, opaque manner. I would think that to be sus.
- sshine 3y ago
  Yeah, okay. I didn’t know that ThePHD was black. I think you paint “the community” as more homogenous and informed than it is. But I understand that the involved parties are aware of each other’s races. I understand, then, a need to speculate on racism. But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    > But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t I mean that’s why the original “btw this didn’t have to do with his race” statement existed. If you’re (hypothetical you) giving special, opaque treatment to the sole black person in the group, then it’s on you to clear up any speculation the opaque treatment had to do with being black, because it was only happening to the sole black person. So the leadership did an opaque thing to the sole black guy and then clarified the weird thing had nothing to do with his blackness, just their poor communication or whatever.