‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#661

Post by CryptoPunk » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #660

CryptoPunk wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not. I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very common.

> Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not. Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what? > I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very commo…

>>Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling.

You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant.

>>I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what?

You're not providing a counter-argument. Your incredulity at my statement of fact doesn't give your absurd allegation of systemic racism any more credibility.

>you find affirmative action to be so significant that it however substantiate systemic racism in favour of black Americans?

Affirmative action is a form of systemic racism, in that it's racism that institutionized, meaning part of the formal structure of organizations, and accepted by the social contract.

>So that systemic/institutional racism does not include implicit bias?

The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them.

One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract.

In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans.

Implicit bias is not a systemic property, as it varies between individuals. There is also significant implicit bias in favor of black Americans.

This study shows police are 25 times more likely to shoot an unarmed white male than an unarmed black male:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=2674...

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#662

Post by arolihas » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 2:36 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #651

arolihas wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you’re completely ignoring the fact that they are using these employees who they hired for an actual job as props for diversity brochures. Is that really just a “diversity problem”? To use your employees as token figures? Not every racist act has to be consciously malicious. It at the very least implies it, diversity problem honestly just sounds like a euphemism.

> And you’re completely ignoring the fact that they are using these employees who they hired for an actual job as props for diversity brochures. Yeah, I am completely ignoring that. "My presence in the workplace was excessively celebrated" isn't a complaint. There is nothing there to respond to. If you want to argue that could technically be racist behaviour I agree, but typically when people talk about racism they a…

Oh well as long as you think it’s fine I guess it is. Sorry about that. I was just listening to the people who worked there and experienced it firsthand. I should have realized they were just making a big fuss over a nonexistent problem. Thanks for the insight!

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#663

Post by jahaja » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #661

jahaja wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not. Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what? > I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very commo…

>>Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant. >>I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what? You're not providing a counter…

> You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant.

> absurd allegation of systemic racism

So the contents of this article is blatantly false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased?

That you find me uncivil doesn't really bother me.

> "The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them.

One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract.

In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans."

As I thought. You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument. "But it doesn't say anything about race in this formal document!". Ignoring anything - apparently no matter how established and prevalent - that goes against your arguments is the fallacy of cherry-picking.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#664

Post by CryptoPunk » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #663

CryptoPunk wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant. >>I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what? You're not providing a counter…

> You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant. > absurd allegation of systemic racism So the contents of this article is blatantly false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism agains…

The definition at the outset of the article is accurate, and consistent with what I said:

>>Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization.

Anything "embedded as normal practice" is either part of the formal rules of the organization, or its informal social contract, just as I described.

Much of the rest of the article doesn't describe anything systemic or institutional, or it doesn't describe racism, so yes it's blatantly inaccurate. Wikipedia is articles that any one can edit, and when there is such an extreme ideological bias in the Humanities and Social Sciences, there is always the risk that the articles begin to reflect ideological conceptions of these terms, that don't match the words that the terms contain, like "institutional" and "racism".

>>I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased?

I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination.

But now we have institutional sexism and racism in favor of groups that are deemed to be disadvantaged, like women and black Americans.

>>You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument.

Accepted by who? I don't accept the socialists' definition of "slavery" or "expropriation of surplus value", to include workers earning a wage, and investors earning a profit, respectively, either.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#665

Post by Veelox » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #568

CryptoPunk wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech is incredibly diverse.. The racial representation in tech is roughly proportional to the racial representation in Computer Science. i.e. it's not racism that is keeping black Americans out of tech, and suggesting otherwise with zero evidence beyond the observed racial disparity is extremely irresponsible.

It’s not. It isn’t. And why do you think the racial diversity in Comp Sci doesn’t match that of America? Or even that of the general college population?

You can only claim tech isn't diverse if you ignore the massive overrepresentation of asians. Going off of Google's diversity report (because it's easy to find), non hispanic whites make up 43% of Google but 61% of America. For blacks it's 5% of Google and 12% of America. By those metric we should be pushing Google to hire more white and black employees.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#666

Post by Veelox » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #511

treis wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most other tech firms make a specific effort to recruit Black people, promote them, and support causes Black people support. Coinbase's position is that while they support those things they want to focus on their cryptocurrency mission. Given that, the expected outcome would be 0 Black people working at Coinbase. If you were black, you'd much rather work for the firms actively trying to recruit and promote you.

> Most other tech firms make a specific effort to recruit Black people, promote them, and support causes Black people support. Really? "Most other tech firms" do this?

I mean you have articles like these https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-24... being written.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#667

Post by jahaja » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #664

jahaja wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant. > absurd allegation of systemic racism So the contents of this article is blatantly false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism agains…

The definition at the outset of the article is accurate, and consistent with what I said: >>Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization. Anything "embedded as normal practice" is either part of the formal rules of the organization, or its informal social contract, just as I described. Much of the rest of the article doe…

Alright, so you've redefined the entire concept into something else and then went about dismissing the established concept entirely. Because that is, unlike your objective science, based on "extremely ideologically biased humanities and social sciences". Good for you.

> I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination.

This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work.

It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else - everything else is now false, no matter how established. If this is not trolling it's at least dragging the level of discussion into never ending discussion of definitions and revisionism.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#668

Post by notSupplied » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #416

thegrimmest wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see anything bad happening to me, so everyone shouldn't care either! What about: > people's rights to have consensual interactions and relationships with each other are more important than their right to be treated "fairly" whatever that actually means. The important point here is that we don't have a good working definition of "fair" that is universally agreed upon. The only ethical way to live in a societ…

As much as it's uncomfortable to define fair, I'd argue that it behooves us to strain and come to a conclusion. Every societal problem today and in history can probably be attributed to people not wanting to define a global fair, or defining it in a way (at least in retrospect) that was ostensibly below the mark. I'm sure that at some points in the US history thought it's fair to treat some people as slaves, so does…

That presumes your view of fair will ultimately end up on the right side of history, just like the eventual abolition of slavery was. However that is not yet knowable at the present.

While you are focused on how your political view is the “right one”, @thegrimmest is more focused on how people should coexist when they all hold strong-but-different ideas of what is fair, and which of those will ultimately go down in history as ”moral progress” is yet unknown.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#669

Post by wpietri » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #659

wpietri wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating endemic and systemic. I clearly said one, not the other. Although you're wrong on both. That also isn't the strongest evidence. It's just one of the easiest to understand. But given that you're going to strain at gnats and swallow camels even with the pretty basic ones, I'll leave finding the rest as an exercise to the reader.

Endemic in this context is synonomous with systemic. You ignore the evidence showing unarmed black Americans are 25 times less likely to be shot by police than unarmed white Americans in a given interaction with similar circumstances, because it doesn't fit your victimhood narrative. You've done nothing but lob ad hominem at me for not agreeing with your completely baseless and unscientific quackery/dogma.

Well since you believe you understand what I'm saying better than I do, it seems like I'm not needed in this conversation. Have fun arguing with your straw man.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#670

Post by slg » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #627

joshuamorton wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please respond to the actual comment made, not something you made up. No where did GP suggest that if every way you slice a group based on gender and race data isn't perfect they'll get in trouble. They stated that discrimination, even if done without intent, is still discrimination. Please respond to that statement.

And how do you define discrimination if intent doesn't matter? If decisions don't matter then the only way to define discrimination is via observed results: if you have no black employees, it must be discrimination, even if nobody ever actually discriminated in an objective way. Which means you'd be punished for not matching some theoretical demographics. The whole notion is ridiculous. The fact that California takes…

You seem to be acting as this is some new extreme leftist view of discrimination. This comes from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You can find all the details and definitions here[1].

[1] - https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196...