61–70 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s all about doing what you can when you can. Please take this acerbic, hyperbolic attitude somewhere else.
I hope the irony is not lost on you when you ask me to leave this platform for disagreeing with you.
Ellen K. Pao was right all along. Also if the replies in here are representative of Silicon Valley as a whole, damn. It just reminds me of the stereotypical too-smart-for-their-own-good hacker who is prone to making sweeping generalisations and extrapolations in domains that lie outside of their own experience or expertise. I know I'm prone to this and I've met a lot of arrogant smart people who fall into this catego…
Unbelievable indeed. When is HN going to come out with their anti hate policy?
And what defines "hate"? Are they going be as consistent with the content of gangsta rappers? I'd wager no. It really is sad to see how hiveminded reddit has become, particularly with the city subreddits. Any person with a dissenting viewpoint either gets banned or gets downvoted to oblivion. And not everyone shares the same viewpoint on who the "bad people" are out there. I, for one, feel that thug brutality is a bi…
> And what defines "hate"? Are they going be as consistent with the content of gangsta rappers? I'd wager no. Probably because the content from "gangsta rappers" doesn't instigate brutality that leverages a power imbalance the way cultural and systemic hatred drive police brutality. > thug brutality is a bigger problem than police brutality It's objectively not, and I won't hide the reasoning either: police brutality…
To me, it seems like a combination of childish-authoritarian beliefs that the world will change for the better once, and only once, you stop anyone from saying anything controversial at all. Once nobody is able to disagree, bad things won't exist any more.
It’s all about doing what you can when you can. Please take this acerbic, hyperbolic attitude somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your implied reverse-racism argument just doesn't hold. Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad?
It seems a bit silly to say "reverse racism" doesn't hold when race is an explicit criteria for the job. Maybe this is still net positive for all the good that could come out of it, but clearly racist to say certain races need not apply. Imagine I'm selling clothes to upper middle class people in Iowa and someone applies to be a salesman or a general manager. "Oh sorry, I'm really looking for a white person here beca…
In the situation you give, being white offers no special qualifications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? Of fucking course not. > If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad? This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism.
>This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism. The only difference between what they're doing now and what they did before is the skin color requirement is explicit instead of implicit. Only hire white guys? Meritocracy! Decide you want to hire 1 black guy? Racist!