211–220 of 514 posts
Dodged a bit of a bullet, I think; they were one of my top 2 choices in my last job hunt a few months ago, and ultimately I got a better feeling about the other choice. I've been loving the job I _did_ take, and don't regret my decision (especially now).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the United States, this is not true. Please do not spread inflammatory disinformation: https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination
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…
Anyone else read the letter from the CEO where they claim that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"? That's verbatim from the actual PDF, in case anyone was curious ( https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa73... ) Page 6, under the heading "How did we decide which roles would be impacted". I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with la…
I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.
This line seems to be referenced a lot in these comments: > Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens. Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons. But so man…
“We avoided firing people who aren’t white” vs “we preferred firing people who are white.” This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent. They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll believe this was actually racially blind when Twilio releases a count of each race that was laid off, and the sum of each race for employees in the company prior to the layoff. It's very simple for everyone to verify whether there was racial targeting outside the statistically probable bounds of random selection from the parent group. I have no problem with people being woke as long as we're both working towards…
Please enumerate all the races first and the criteria to distinguish each race from the other. It will be important for your statistical analysis.
(The reality of the whole thing is so obvious that they paid some contractor to say they’re antiracist without actually changing anything they did.)
(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…
Making an assumption, so far I have only read the CNBC article. Many of the recent tech layoffs included entire departments not entirely related to the operation of the business, the core product. For example: recruiting departments. When entire diversity departments were terminated, many considered the move racist. Perhaps Twilio found themselves in this scenario?
> "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism . I wouldn't work for these people in a million years, but I really do wonder how I'd fit into their shallow models (I'm mixed race b/w).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This creates three problems. The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race. The second is that minorities who were not affected may be assumed to have been kept because of their minority status. But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off. That signals that they were really subpar, even more than the average laid off person. It seems like this policy has…
>some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race But is it actually true? Did they fire white people at a higher rate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> And of course that white person had innumerable advantages their entire life This is the problem. You don't know this, and you can't tell this just from the color of someone's skin. A white man can grow up in a trailer park with a drunk, abusive father. A black woman can grow up in a loving, upper middle class family in the suburbs. Skin color is only a fractional indication of someone's experience.
You could have used the same arguments in 1860... Not all black people were enslaved, some were quite prosperous in fact! Therefore there was no benefit to being white.