361–370 of 514 posts
These virtue signaling needs to stop.
Maybe they’re just trying to get more people to walk out voluntarily
(I am a black man) I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping. If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are. That then makes it harder for the minorities you claim to be "helping" to stay in the room anywhere else because of…
It reminds me a bit of the “asbestos free” xkcd comic. Like, I’m sure there are some companies still who would try to first fire the black folk or the Indian folk or whatever. But… is there really a big tech firm where that’s a possibility? I kinda doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The field of subconscious biases suffers from several fatal defects. The scores people get on subconscious bias tests vary wildly over time, even short periods of time. This is a fundamental flaw and should be the end of the inquiry. If we can't measure the thing, we can't draw any conclusions about it. Also, there has never been a linkage drawn between scores on subconscious bias tests and real world actions. Are ra…
Actually we can and do measure it and such linkages have been demonstrated. There are probably more succinct references, but here was one of the first I found: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20...
(I am a black man) I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping. If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are. That then makes it harder for the minorities you claim to be "helping" to stay in the room anywhere else because of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have no idea what it means and you can rationalize it all you like. Quota or not they likely fired a white person instead of a another person because of their skin color. Or it’s just cheap talk and means nothing, those are the only two options.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And thus the exact problem. It's okay to observe that a whole class of people enjoy a privilege. Where it goes off the rails is when you use that knowledge to discriminate against individuals in an attempt to correct the historical injustice.
And thus we perpetuate the injustice indefinitely! Your essential argument seems to be that once an injustice is over one generation old, it is as if it never happened, no matter if the after effects continue to cascade into modern day. You cannot just magically pretend an individual is not part of a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your link: > The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. This makes it sound like affirmative action is illegal. But it is currently allowed and many companies brag about doing it. What Twilio is doing is basically the same. It's like affirmat…
Affirmative action in hiring for jobs in the US is illegal. University admissions are different, but it is straightforwardly illegal to say, "I'm hiring a software engineer, I have two candidates, I prefer the one who is black because of his race."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> better, more fair Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
> it's not better, it's not fair It's also probably not true in the first place. Which is the point of my post.
You sue for being let go due to racism, show the document, where they say exactly that, and they have to prove that they didn't take race in consideration after saying (in their own document) that they did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they hit minorities harder? What does race have to do with that?
This is not always the case. Didn't some company just shutter their German office? Probably that hit whites harder. But it's plausible that layoffs would hit certain groups harder right now. If your company had a big affirmative action push after the summer of 2020, you might have a bunch of junior minority employees. Perhaps they would be let go sooner than more senior employees or employees who not hired via an aff…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not under American Federal law.
Why is diversity hiring fine then? Can't see the difference