4 ms·

Intent matters. And I'd ask you to focus on the rest (or the whole) of my comment as you've spent most of your comment discussing it as if I approve of 'divers

Intent matters. And I'd ask you to focus on the rest (or the whole) of my comment as you've spent most of your comment discussing it as if I approve of 'diversity hiring' (as it is being discussed here, i.e. quotas) when it should be obvious I neither engage in it nor approve of it.

simoncion 2y ago
Sure, intent matters. But you literally said: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. To change up the words a bit to make it more clear: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on [race] as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. "It's not racist to be racist, if it's not done from a basis of racial superiority." To be brutally frank, it is racist to be racist. The outcome of being racist _can_ be good! It absolutely can be good! But, it's critically important for the folks who are developing and implementing racist policies in order to produce genuinely good outcomes to be brutally honest with themselves about what they're doing so that they also implement deliberate, honest review into their policies so that they know when they can stop being racist. Without building in a "Okay, our mission is accomplished and we're done. Let's go back to treating everyone equally again." decision point, policies like these mutate into nothing more than getting your turn with the proverbial boot stamping on a human face forever.
- LightBug1 2y ago
  I'm genuinely not trying to be a schmuck here ... genuinely ... but can I direct you to any decent dictionary and to read up on the word 'racist'. Then read your comment again. Thanks.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    From Oxford > prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. Not giving someone a job based on their skin colour (a racial group) is discrimination, therefore meets the definition.
    - LightBug1 2y ago
      You're using the word 'discrimination' in the neutral / identifying-distinction manner of the word. To discriminate ... between red and blue, or hot and cold. In relation to racism, I only see the word 'discrimination' in the negative. Thought experiment: two candidates are completely equal, one is black one is white. If one made the decision to give the job to the black person for reasons of diversity or some other possibly positive reason, that wouldn't be a decision made in the negative sense of the word. And so it fails to meet the definition for me. However, at this point I accept we're straying into generous nuance, and this is no place for that. So, let's say I give you that. It's moot. Why? I'll repeat for the third or fourth time here. I don't, and have never, supported giving someone a job based on skin colour (or racial group) as your last sentence states, nor do I believe it is common or widespread. DEI, for me, is only about encouraging a more diverse pool of candidates and hirers, where possible. The end .... Scandalous, right? Racist? How? It's just been weaponised by the usual suspects. To them, DEI means the assumption of just automatically choosing black over white, or female over male ... and it's just ... boring at this point. For example, if I'm not mistaken, I understand that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled against quotas based on skin colour.
      - ChocolateGod 2y ago
        > If one made the decision to give the job to the black person for reasons of diversity or some other possibly positive reason, that wouldn't be a decision made in the negative sense of the word. No, preferring a candidate because of their skin colour is racism and discrimination, alas is wrong. It has no relevance to the job. In such situation, rolling a dice would even be a fairer option.
        LightBug1 2y ago
        Do you realise you're focusing on my hypothetical and ignoring the substance? Ok, while we're here, there is no 'preferring' about it. There are hypothetical 'reasons' for it that may have value. Anyway, at this point, I realise this is going absolutely nowhere. All best,
      - 2y ago

simoncion 2y ago

Sure, intent matters. But you literally said: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. To change up the words a bit to make it more clear: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on [race] as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. "It's not racist to be racist, if it's not done from a basis of racial superiority." To be brutally frank, it is racist to be racist. The outcome of being racist _can_ be good! It absolutely can be good! But, it's critically important for the folks who are developing and implementing racist policies in order to produce genuinely good outcomes to be brutally honest with themselves about what they're doing so that they also implement deliberate, honest review into their policies so that they know when they can stop being racist. Without building in a "Okay, our mission is accomplished and we're done. Let's go back to treating everyone equally again." decision point, policies like these mutate into nothing more than getting your turn with the proverbial boot stamping on a human face forever.

LightBug1 2y ago
I'm genuinely not trying to be a schmuck here ... genuinely ... but can I direct you to any decent dictionary and to read up on the word 'racist'. Then read your comment again. Thanks.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  From Oxford > prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. Not giving someone a job based on their skin colour (a racial group) is discrimination, therefore meets the definition.
  - LightBug1 2y ago
    You're using the word 'discrimination' in the neutral / identifying-distinction manner of the word. To discriminate ... between red and blue, or hot and cold. In relation to racism, I only see the word 'discrimination' in the negative. Thought experiment: two candidates are completely equal, one is black one is white. If one made the decision to give the job to the black person for reasons of diversity or some other possibly positive reason, that wouldn't be a decision made in the negative sense of the word. And so it fails to meet the definition for me. However, at this point I accept we're straying into generous nuance, and this is no place for that. So, let's say I give you that. It's moot. Why? I'll repeat for the third or fourth time here. I don't, and have never, supported giving someone a job based on skin colour (or racial group) as your last sentence states, nor do I believe it is common or widespread. DEI, for me, is only about encouraging a more diverse pool of candidates and hirers, where possible. The end .... Scandalous, right? Racist? How? It's just been weaponised by the usual suspects. To them, DEI means the assumption of just automatically choosing black over white, or female over male ... and it's just ... boring at this point. For example, if I'm not mistaken, I understand that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled against quotas based on skin colour.
    - ChocolateGod 2y ago
      > If one made the decision to give the job to the black person for reasons of diversity or some other possibly positive reason, that wouldn't be a decision made in the negative sense of the word. No, preferring a candidate because of their skin colour is racism and discrimination, alas is wrong. It has no relevance to the job. In such situation, rolling a dice would even be a fairer option.
      - LightBug1 2y ago
        Do you realise you're focusing on my hypothetical and ignoring the substance? Ok, while we're here, there is no 'preferring' about it. There are hypothetical 'reasons' for it that may have value. Anyway, at this point, I realise this is going absolutely nowhere. All best,
    - 2y ago