691–700 of 717 posts
> [Brian Armstrong] attributed [bad stuff] to being “on the spectrum,” according to a recording of the event. Ah, the ol’ James Damore defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being timid is strongly connected to your upbringing, your upbringing is strongly connected to culture and culture is strongly connected to race. Sure, saying "X are too timid" is a stereotype, but pointing out at a diversity seminar that you should be extra observant around X because they tend to not speak up for themselves is just good advice. Many cultures value being quiet and doing your job a lot more than other…
> culture is strongly connected to race. In another context this statement would be seen as overtly racist.
So what am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a private company, they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the law. And if there is a legal case against them the accuser has the burden of proof and due process. All I see from this article is a bunch of hearsay & rumors. It looks like a smear campaign to get some quick 'reparations' by riding a popular trend. We have this thing in the US called presumption of innocence, but apparently in c…
Let’s not forget that Coinbase took that no-politics stance while NYT is a company thriving on politics drama. Also, legacy media companies have an axe to grind with the high tech industry which lately is their direct competitor for ad money. Bottom line, New York Times is heavily biased and has zero credibility when it comes to their coverage of the high tech industry. This is a hit piece.
I’m not a fan of cancel culture, but I’ve seen enough to know that I want to move my Bitcoin trading elsewhere. Their prebuttal seemed odd, and now this article confirms the worst of my suspicions. I’m not saying they’re racist, but they’re clearly not anti-racist.
Being "not racist" - AKA the unfairly-maligned philosophy of "color blindness" - is a perfectly reasonable aspiration. I shouldn't be any more concerned with skin color than hair color or eye color. I find the "anti-racist" philosophy of Kendi et al. to be misguided at best and divisive and racist at worst.
That's pretty much what it is, and it cannot be realized in our lifetimes to say the least.
>I shouldn't be any more concerned with skin color than hair color or eye color.
And yet, there are others who will never get to hold those aspirations.
>divisive and racist at worst
Sad, yet unsurprising.
Reading through the comments as black person is depressing. Many of the comments question whether the accusations are even true or collusive attack because of an unfounded accusation that black people tend to be SJWs (stereotyping). Others blame affirmative-action, bad schools, etc. (classic misdirection). Some even venture into the possibility that a black person complaining about being passed over for promotion mig…
I'm black too, and let's be honest here. The burden of proof that is being posed by folks on HN isn't because they are actually seeking proof, it's so that they can say >"You don't have sufficient evidence, so we are going to go with whatever non-race based reason I can find as the cause" Seeking evidence about an event is a worthy activity, but becomes a fools errand when the audience is sympathetic if not outright…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was dying from an OD, brutishly helped along by a poorly applied restraint move, held too long, because filming onlookers challenged the authority of the cop, and the cop was afraid to have to fight Big Floyd, before the ambulance arrived.
Anything to avoid admitting that a cop killed a black man in cold blood by kneeling on his neck for eight minutes, even after he said "I can't breathe" repeatedly. > because filming onlookers challenged the authority of the cop, and the cop was afraid to have to fight Big Floyd. Are you suggesting that cops are such snowflakes that they can't do their jobs if a civilian criticizes them? I'm struggling to think of any…
This shows how you view me. You judged me as a racism denialist, for having an opposing interpretation. It is like I won't accept the Truth of your rendition of that scene, but maybe evil enough to be aware of it.
It would be absolutely horrible if a cop killed a civilian by maliciously kneeling on his neck arteries! That the cop did it, mainly because the civilian was Black and he was white! You sound like you want that horrible reality to be the truth! You already spray-painted his face on a banner with political talking points! Maybe you even got your company Twitter to pay their respects to Floyd.
> even after he said "I can't breathe" repeatedly
He was saying that when he got out of the car. He was under enormous stress from the arrest and prospect of possible jail, with a drug that already increases heart rate. The single cop had to restrain, because ambulance (not arrest car) was called, after it was clear from the "I can't breathe" that he needed medical attention for OD. The other cops did crowd control, because the frantic yelling of Floyd attracted attention. "Hey, man, let him go, he is just saying he can't breathe". Like Philando Castile, that single video footage then went viral, and the cop acquitted on ALL charges, after companies such as Google send out PR condemning police brutality and systemic racism, because capitalism is a tool which employees can play as well (ideally, aligned with -- not damaging -- the company mission!), and now we are here, with you suggesting I think cops are snowflakes.
Give me a court case, a light symbolic punishment to avoid a second protest/riot, while allowing for the possibility that racism exists, and did not play even a minor role in the case of the death of Floyd. That cop looked like a nonchalant fool enough to mess this up. Not foolish enough to kill a black man out of racist motives, while your Asian and Hispanic colleagues are keeping Social Media away from reality.
> Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees I hate this kind of sloppy writing. who added that, the colleague or the manager? EDIT: Downvoted. I guess clarity in the NYT isn't allowed to be questioned..
It reads fine to me, it’s obviously the employee mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph “Still another”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Racism is endemic in the US. It was founded with the notion that black people were basically livestock. The existence of slavery in the past isn’t driving the current race issues in the US so much as fallout from much more recent segregation policies. Nobody alive today was a (or was born to) a slave and the majority of the states that make up the United States were not even part of the country during the civil war…
But how, in a democracy founded on the notion of equality, did segregation become a policy? How did the people who passed those laws get it into their heads that it would be a useful thing to do?
You are forced to hire a certain percent of POC. Doesn't matter if they are a poor fit for the company. Doesn't matter if they are not even a good fit for the job. Doesn't matter if they are not even capable of doing the job. You can't wait to hire a POC that is a good fit or capable, or you are violating the law.
It is also difficult to fire the forced hires once you are forced to hire them. Instead of just saying "they sucked at their job" you have to play all kinds of games to fire someone that is a POC hire. All companies face this issue and until its addressed (By removing affirmative action) there will always be this dysfunctional divide.
This also causes a harmful feedback loop to POC that are simply not up to the task and always think they are being targeted (because they are) rather than upping their skill set or working on their professionalism.
And here come the downvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Framing in these types of polls is incredibly important (indeed, I found two others from around the same time as yours, and all were fairly different from one another in their conclusions[1][2]). If you ask people whether they want the police presence in their communities to stay the same or increase, large majorities agree. Only 19% of black Americans want police presence to decrease.[3] And yet none of this is inco…
None of what you posted here supports the original claim made that "the overwhelmingly majority of people who want radical change are white and aren't black"; these polls all contradict that. One example, from the first Gallup poll: > Which of the following best describes your view about changes that may or may not need to be made to policing in the United States? > Major changes needed: > Black Americans: 88% > Whit…
My original claim was that black people make up very few of the "woke" activists who e.g. demand white people to apologize for so-called systemic racism or white supremacy. That is undeniably true based on the data. I'm not sure how we got into this rabbit hole of police brutality and racial disparities therein, but it's not at all obvious that opinions in favor of curbing police abuses are predictors of "woke"/intersectional/SJW/progressive/whatever you want to call it activism.
> We can quibble about the definition of "radical" vs "major" but it seems pretty clear based on most polling that Black americans are far more dissatisfied as a demographic group with policing, than white americans, and are far more open to a variety of reforms ranging from minor to "radical".
It's not a quibble, it's hugely important. "Major change" is about as vague as is possible. Severely restricting qualified immunity, restricting police unions from bargaining about anything beyond pay and health/safety conditions, forbidding police from using military weapons and vehicles except in extreme circumstances (with political oversight and approval), and having strict escalation-of-force procedures all seem like pretty major changes to me. They're also all policies I'd support, and I'm about as far from a woke activist as possible. (This Twitter thread has some excellent recommendations, most of which I'd endorse in a heartbeat.[1] Most woke activists have seemed uninterested, though.)
"Defund the police" sounds radical on its face, until some of its proponents reply that, actually, it doesn't mean abolish the police, but just to redirect funding to "social programs." You know, the standard left-liberal Democrat proposal for the past 50 years. The police have the honor of joining the military, NASA and foreign aid (among others) as programs that need to be raided in order to pay for an ever-increasing welfare state. It's not a policy I agree with, but it's hardly "radical." Yet others interpret "defund the police" to mean something different.
In short, these are just equivocations and word games. When black people were asked about concrete proposals, they tended to respond more like a left-liberal (as one would expect). For instance, when asked about actually reducing police presence, they opposed it by overwhelming margins; in fact, more wanted an increase than a decrease.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/samswey/status/118065570127173222...