331–340 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite of anti-racist isn't racist. You are assuming the decision makers have subconscious racist biases. And you are assuming those biases favor white people, men, etc. In the world I live in there is a good chance that each of these is false. The fact that they made this statement indicates as much.
There are actual studies showing 95-99% of us have subconscious racist biases. And so what which races they favour? I'd call it a massive fail for any "anti-racist lens" if, say, only whites were fired. (You also mention "men" - subconscious sexist biases are just as universal. For highly skilled roles unfortunately they very much typically favour men.)
Also, there has never been a linkage drawn between scores on subconscious bias tests and real world actions. Are racists probably "subconsciously biased"? Sure. But the reverse has never been shown.
(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…
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…
Yeah, but the minorities who kept their jobs even it out to 1 point for whites and 1 point for minorities.
Cause that's who this shit works, as a zero-sum game.
(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…
"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." How do they know who is what race though? If I am 50% latino / 50% asian what does that mean? Do you get to pick? Or do they test my skin color? Do they have forms to fill out what race you are? Do they do genetic testing? Depressing racism i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How the **CK are these companies training and onboarding and managing all these new hires in such short a time frames?
Really dehumanizing hiring practices. I recently interviewed with Twilio and they wanted me to do an online coding challenge before I even got to speak to a hiring manager to know if I wanted the job. Same thing Amazon does. Companies that do this are waving a big red parachute in your face.
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…
Quoted post unavailable.
just so funny
ha ha ha ha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What did the white child do to deserve this? Ah, the fallacy that everything you receive from your ancestors is undeserved. Will we be doing race-based asset appropriation tomorrow, comrade? I think I'm not interested in discussing this with someone holding such a position which I consider completely deluded.
> the fallacy that everything you receive from your ancestors is undeserved Is there an intelligent argument that some infants are more deserving than others?
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.
such as being overtly and illegally dispreferred for college admissions, scholarships, hiring, promotion, and preferred for being fired
such privilege much wow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies care about diversity numbers when they have a lot of cheap funding. When funding is tough, pure capitalism takes over woke values and it is up to whether your monetary value to the company>your monetary cost to the company.
There are lots of studies claiming that diversity makes companies more successful. But all that I've seen are correlational studies. And those are equally explained by the idea you mentioned. When companies are flush, they spend money on affirmative action. Therefore companies that have heavy affirmative action tend to be more successful.
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…
> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. 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. Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked. The civil rights act of 1964…