5 ms·

I dunno if he's just angry, I guess it makes sense, but I agree that some of his comments seem off, like he has "problems" beyond the situation, these are just

I dunno if he's just angry, I guess it makes sense, but I agree that some of his comments seem off, like he has "problems" beyond the situation, these are just as racist: Also, at some point after this conversation took place, one of the women looked at my prized necklace and said “Hey, that looks like a calculator, is that a calculator?” I said “um no, it’s a necklace, it’s African, from Nairobi.” And she replies “Oh, huh…..well, it looks like a calculator.” Dumbwhite********** and then: do what white men always can’t help but do: “educate.” I get that he had a bad experience, but it seems he's descending into pointless casual racism too. edit: this too I cannot afford to take white people’s shit anymore.

guelo 14y ago
You have no clue what it's like living under constant racial abuse from white people, it might make you not like white people.
- eldude 14y ago
  You have no clue what it's like [experiencing] constant [racism] from black people, it MIGHT make you not like black people, but for me it never has.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
  It might. I'm also sure that if this were my problem, I might realize that 'doing what they do, while calling them out for doing it' might be seen as something of a double standard. Much like some of the worst extremes of feminism, where it was forgotten that the goal was "equality", not "favorable treatment for women at the expense of men as recompense".
ChuckMcM 14y ago
In my experience once people get to the point where they want to shout out their hurt/anger to the world they have gone past the 'civil' stage. This person has a pretty much slam dunk case for a hostile work environment, the lawsuit would wake up management to that fact. Now it may be true that work was just the part that took them over the top, but I am not going to dismiss his clearly painful experience because of that.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I didn't mean to imply his experience should be dismissed or considered any less "real", just that his own issues seem to extend beyond this situation. I think this post would do much better if he were to remove all his own racism, because it devalues his point. I can't relate to his experience (middle class, white, male) but what I can do is read what he wrote and what jumps out most at me is his own racism. I think that for a post like this to truly achieve anything (as in, explain the issue to those that have no way to understand or relate) it needs to be without any sort of... I guess distraction. It reflects poorly on me and everyone else that is unable to separate what is ultimately meaningless (his own racism) from the general point (kixeye has bad employees / management) and I think your point about his level of anger could be the reason why this actually has value (shows he is so angry / upset he lets himself become racist) to the post. I want to care about his problem but I can't relate so I'm stuck trying to take value from what he has said and I can't do that without being overwhelmed by his own racism. I think what tptacek said above is right though, he doesn't matter, the post isn't about him, it's about the people at kixeye. I'll leave my comment just for the sake of not destroying the conversation, but I no longer think it has value here.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    I think your comment does have value, its why I responded to it, to add context. Racism and all *ism has an interesting (as in sociological) property that like electric charge is simulates the opposite charge on the other side of the dielectric. I happen to fall into the last unprotected class on the planet (old fat white guys :-) but having worked with and at times managed a very diverse set of folks my entire life it became clear there are people who are racists by 'choice' and people who are reflexively racist. Lets postulate for the sake of example that racism had a measurable quantity, from 1.0 which is some sort of 'my race is the only one worth anything' to the 0.0 which is complete blindness to race in thought, speech, or action. The perception of racism or sexism for people whom have discussed the experience with me was that one person could exhibit say 0.5 units of bias, and they they fall into a thought process that everyone is 0.5 racist. It very much shares a sort of 'herd immunity' reflex. If 90% percent of the folks in the group are blind to race issues then the 10% who aren't will stick out. What percentage of people have to be tolerably racist before its toxic? Does it matter? Why would anyone tolerate any sort racism in the work place? So if person A is racist by choice, which is to say they have done some sort of evaluation and decided that race has an effect which transcends environment or skills, their actions and comments will create in people of that 'other' race a reflexive alter-racism (and always people are not perfect reflectors, for some it bounces off, for others it gets amplified). Now you get something like racism amplification by stimulated emission of insults [1} or something. That sort of situation is, painful, toxic to morale, and legally actionable. The critical point though is we have to see this sort of missive not as 'professional victims' (although there are such people, painting any individual into that group without first hand knowledge is probably wrong) but as a signal that you have a problem. And getting everyone to buy into the notion that we're all individuals and not everyone finds ethnic jokes or sex jokes funny, is one of the more important jobs for management. As an individual you're best off trying not to be part of the problem. [1] RASEI? The effect is remarkably similar
roc 14y ago
I agree with the general point that the author's own baggage nudges him toward an archetype I find exhausting. But the 'educate' bit is on-point. It's similar to womens complaints about "mansplaining". It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And as to the "white people's shit": that does strike me as tit-for-tat racism. But just as I wouldn't judge any of the dude-bros at that company for their failure to be perfectly enlightened beings when they hurl a given thoughtless remark, I certainly can't find the moral high-ground to judge anyone who's, daily, on the receiving end of such nonsense for lashing out in kind while venting.
- lmm 14y ago
  >It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And that makes it not racist?
  - roc 14y ago
    Yes? When something is statistically and objectively perpetrated by one group, it's not racist to note as much when someone of said group does said thing. e.g. "Mansplaining" describes a behavior perpetrated overhwelmingly by men. By not by all men. And it's not right to automatically assume a given man is going to mansplain something. But when a man starts mansplaining, it's not misandry to note that mansplaining is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men.
    - lmm 14y ago
      So does the same logic apply when e.g. a black person commits a crime?
      - roc 14y ago
        Of course it does. If crime were perpetrated, objectively and statistically overwhelmingly, by black people, or black people were objectively and statistically overwhelmingly criminals, it would be fair to talk about crime being a thing black people do. The crucial difference is the statistics do not remotely support such assertions. In fact, they flatly reject such relationships. Nor is being a criminal remotely causally linked to being black, the way being ignorant of straight white male privilege is almost (again: almost tautologically) causally linked to being a straight white man, or the way being a 'mansplainer' is almost causally linked to mansplaining. [1] [1] To state it more explicitly: you can't likely grow up mansplaining and reach maturity without having the tendency pointed out to you if you're not a man. Because our cultural baggage is that women defer to men and thus face more scrutiny/skepticism/criticism than men when they do disagree. So even if we assume that everyone starts off equally likely to be a 'mansplainer' by mere chance, the female mansplainers are overwhelmingly going to have that tendency pointed out, challenged and be made aware of it. Mansplaining adults will, thus, be almost entirely men because of said cultural baggage. Similarly, it's pretty much impossible to grow up and reach maturity ignorant of remaining straight white male privilege in the US unless you happen to be a straight white male. If we again assume that the tendency to be 'blind' to remaining racism/sexism/homophobia is randomly distributed, only those with that 'blindness' who are straight/white/males are likely to reach maturity without having encountered situations that made it impossible to remain ignorant of such remaining tensions. Applying the same considerations: if we assume the tendency to commit crimes is evenly/randomly distributed at birth, there's no evidence that non-black would-be criminals overwhelmingly receive some life experience that steers them away from crime. To the contrary we find that white would-be criminals are much more likely to have life experiences that result in the crimes they do commit being excused or ignored. So not only is there no evidence that being black makes you more likely to commit crime, there is evidence that being white makes you far less likely to be charged, prosecuted and found guilty. That is: a black person is no more likely to commit crime, refuting the assertion, and they have the deck stacked against them, meaning that asserting such a link is not only wholly unfounded by the data, but it takes a further act of white privilege to ignore the existence of the stacked deck.
FireBeyond 14y ago
He seems to have anger and martyrdom issues all over - even the start of the story. In a coffee shop on a laptop, man asks "Hey, do you play video games?", gives him a card as an IT recruiter looking for video games testers. His thoughts on this? "Is this guy for real, or an uber-creep [hitting on me]"... Which I gotta say, even from his telling of what happened, wasn't a possibility that entered my mind.

guelo 14y ago

You have no clue what it's like living under constant racial abuse from white people, it might make you not like white people.

eldude 14y ago
You have no clue what it's like [experiencing] constant [racism] from black people, it MIGHT make you not like black people, but for me it never has.
FireBeyond 14y ago
It might. I'm also sure that if this were my problem, I might realize that 'doing what they do, while calling them out for doing it' might be seen as something of a double standard. Much like some of the worst extremes of feminism, where it was forgotten that the goal was "equality", not "favorable treatment for women at the expense of men as recompense".

ChuckMcM 14y ago

In my experience once people get to the point where they want to shout out their hurt/anger to the world they have gone past the 'civil' stage. This person has a pretty much slam dunk case for a hostile work environment, the lawsuit would wake up management to that fact. Now it may be true that work was just the part that took them over the top, but I am not going to dismiss his clearly painful experience because of that.

citricsquid 14y ago
I didn't mean to imply his experience should be dismissed or considered any less "real", just that his own issues seem to extend beyond this situation. I think this post would do much better if he were to remove all his own racism, because it devalues his point. I can't relate to his experience (middle class, white, male) but what I can do is read what he wrote and what jumps out most at me is his own racism. I think that for a post like this to truly achieve anything (as in, explain the issue to those that have no way to understand or relate) it needs to be without any sort of... I guess distraction. It reflects poorly on me and everyone else that is unable to separate what is ultimately meaningless (his own racism) from the general point (kixeye has bad employees / management) and I think your point about his level of anger could be the reason why this actually has value (shows he is so angry / upset he lets himself become racist) to the post. I want to care about his problem but I can't relate so I'm stuck trying to take value from what he has said and I can't do that without being overwhelmed by his own racism. I think what tptacek said above is right though, he doesn't matter, the post isn't about him, it's about the people at kixeye. I'll leave my comment just for the sake of not destroying the conversation, but I no longer think it has value here.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I think your comment does have value, its why I responded to it, to add context. Racism and all *ism has an interesting (as in sociological) property that like electric charge is simulates the opposite charge on the other side of the dielectric. I happen to fall into the last unprotected class on the planet (old fat white guys :-) but having worked with and at times managed a very diverse set of folks my entire life it became clear there are people who are racists by 'choice' and people who are reflexively racist. Lets postulate for the sake of example that racism had a measurable quantity, from 1.0 which is some sort of 'my race is the only one worth anything' to the 0.0 which is complete blindness to race in thought, speech, or action. The perception of racism or sexism for people whom have discussed the experience with me was that one person could exhibit say 0.5 units of bias, and they they fall into a thought process that everyone is 0.5 racist. It very much shares a sort of 'herd immunity' reflex. If 90% percent of the folks in the group are blind to race issues then the 10% who aren't will stick out. What percentage of people have to be tolerably racist before its toxic? Does it matter? Why would anyone tolerate any sort racism in the work place? So if person A is racist by choice, which is to say they have done some sort of evaluation and decided that race has an effect which transcends environment or skills, their actions and comments will create in people of that 'other' race a reflexive alter-racism (and always people are not perfect reflectors, for some it bounces off, for others it gets amplified). Now you get something like racism amplification by stimulated emission of insults [1} or something. That sort of situation is, painful, toxic to morale, and legally actionable. The critical point though is we have to see this sort of missive not as 'professional victims' (although there are such people, painting any individual into that group without first hand knowledge is probably wrong) but as a signal that you have a problem. And getting everyone to buy into the notion that we're all individuals and not everyone finds ethnic jokes or sex jokes funny, is one of the more important jobs for management. As an individual you're best off trying not to be part of the problem. [1] RASEI? The effect is remarkably similar

roc 14y ago

I agree with the general point that the author's own baggage nudges him toward an archetype I find exhausting. But the 'educate' bit is on-point. It's similar to womens complaints about "mansplaining". It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And as to the "white people's shit": that does strike me as tit-for-tat racism. But just as I wouldn't judge any of the dude-bros at that company for their failure to be perfectly enlightened beings when they hurl a given thoughtless remark, I certainly can't find the moral high-ground to judge anyone who's, daily, on the receiving end of such nonsense for lashing out in kind while venting.

lmm 14y ago
>It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And that makes it not racist?
- roc 14y ago
  Yes? When something is statistically and objectively perpetrated by one group, it's not racist to note as much when someone of said group does said thing. e.g. "Mansplaining" describes a behavior perpetrated overhwelmingly by men. By not by all men. And it's not right to automatically assume a given man is going to mansplain something. But when a man starts mansplaining, it's not misandry to note that mansplaining is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men.
  - lmm 14y ago
    So does the same logic apply when e.g. a black person commits a crime?
    - roc 14y ago
      Of course it does. If crime were perpetrated, objectively and statistically overwhelmingly, by black people, or black people were objectively and statistically overwhelmingly criminals, it would be fair to talk about crime being a thing black people do. The crucial difference is the statistics do not remotely support such assertions. In fact, they flatly reject such relationships. Nor is being a criminal remotely causally linked to being black, the way being ignorant of straight white male privilege is almost (again: almost tautologically) causally linked to being a straight white man, or the way being a 'mansplainer' is almost causally linked to mansplaining. [1] [1] To state it more explicitly: you can't likely grow up mansplaining and reach maturity without having the tendency pointed out to you if you're not a man. Because our cultural baggage is that women defer to men and thus face more scrutiny/skepticism/criticism than men when they do disagree. So even if we assume that everyone starts off equally likely to be a 'mansplainer' by mere chance, the female mansplainers are overwhelmingly going to have that tendency pointed out, challenged and be made aware of it. Mansplaining adults will, thus, be almost entirely men because of said cultural baggage. Similarly, it's pretty much impossible to grow up and reach maturity ignorant of remaining straight white male privilege in the US unless you happen to be a straight white male. If we again assume that the tendency to be 'blind' to remaining racism/sexism/homophobia is randomly distributed, only those with that 'blindness' who are straight/white/males are likely to reach maturity without having encountered situations that made it impossible to remain ignorant of such remaining tensions. Applying the same considerations: if we assume the tendency to commit crimes is evenly/randomly distributed at birth, there's no evidence that non-black would-be criminals overwhelmingly receive some life experience that steers them away from crime. To the contrary we find that white would-be criminals are much more likely to have life experiences that result in the crimes they do commit being excused or ignored. So not only is there no evidence that being black makes you more likely to commit crime, there is evidence that being white makes you far less likely to be charged, prosecuted and found guilty. That is: a black person is no more likely to commit crime, refuting the assertion, and they have the deck stacked against them, meaning that asserting such a link is not only wholly unfounded by the data, but it takes a further act of white privilege to ignore the existence of the stacked deck.

FireBeyond 14y ago

He seems to have anger and martyrdom issues all over - even the start of the story. In a coffee shop on a laptop, man asks "Hey, do you play video games?", gives him a card as an IT recruiter looking for video games testers. His thoughts on this? "Is this guy for real, or an uber-creep [hitting on me]"... Which I gotta say, even from his telling of what happened, wasn't a possibility that entered my mind.