As a black engineering manager I can tell you that many people in silicon valley truly believe in concepts of racial or gender superiority, and feel threatened or attacked when told their path to engineering was easier than that of a woman or a minority. They don't think we have a diversity problem, they think that women and minorities just aren't good enough.
Then, they like to point at folks like myself and either say:
"see you made it with no help of a quota or affirmative action why can't more people do it instead of making excuses"
"You're only here filling a quota you're not truly capable"
In other words, many of the ones trolling are the ones unwilling to even acknowledge disparities in access to the prerequisites for an engineering or tech career - and want to mock and belittle those who try to fix them.
It’s anti diversity quotas. Not anti diversity. It’s equality of opportunity, not outcome.
These are basic ideas I really would expect liberals to be able to think through and understand the differences therein on their own. But, they are forever conflated by liberals so liberals can shout “racist” without having to put in any effort for proper discourse.
Even classic liberals, along with conservatives, think you guys are the racist ones. I think this speaks to a large divide where real communication is impossible.
Most interactions with police are traffic stops. A smaller percentage of these result in a searches which in the past few decades have been given the legal precedent to be performed via pretext at the officer’s discretion (i.e. I thought I saw something that made me suspicious). Searches are done more often on black drivers.
Sentencing is statistically tougher on poor people than rich (when convicted of the same crime) and tougher on blacks or native Americans or Latinos (depending on the area) than on whites.
Crack sentences were tougher than coke when really the main difference is one is used by poor people and one by wealthier people.
Whites-backs and rich-poor do drugs at the same rate but poor people with drug convictions fill our prisons-disproportionately black people.
But here’s why this isn’t a “tribal” issue. Racism is also ideologically employed by politicians to cut welfare (“black welfare queens”) and education. The largest number of people kicked off welfare were white. Poor whites also get shot by police who have been given a go-ahead to be “tough on crime” based on political ideas such as in Hilary Clinton’s “super predator” comment evoking the mythical “black criminal” who is not human enough to reason with.
Racism is deep and systemic in the US. It’s not Republican vs Democrat — it’s both parties (just the Republicans tend to employ it more to consolidate their base whereas Democrats try to hide their support for things with racist results behind technocratic arguments and downplay or verbally oppose individual racism/bigotry to their base). It’s not that “all white people” materially gain from racism - many (poor) whites are also hurt, if not as directly, from the systems that help maintain modern systemic racism.
That’s not racism, it’s a human trait that can be described as the orienting reflux to novelty. People instinctively group others as one of them or an ‘other’. If they look like you do, you perceive them differently. Hell, it’s even observed in chimps! (Members of a tribe will often go scouting for any individual in their territory that’s not part of their tribe and when they’re found, tear them apart viciously). It’s across all races and ethnic groups (yes even among blacks - read up on the massacres in Rwanda) and is one of the fundamental psychological traits that are observed even after correcting for culture or geography.
So, no, it’s no t systemic racism. It’s simply the same instinct that makes you favor your child vs others children when you go to watch them play sports. It’s not a white vs black bias, it’s a majority culture bias. It’s not oppression. Learn about it.
^Nope, not upheld by history. Racial concepts have only existed for a few hundred years. If, say, slavery was the result of the biological drive you describe, why did colonists import “others” to bring them to the Americas? Why’d it take hundreds of years after the start of modern slave-trade for people to define race and begin to create laws around it.
Why’d many native tribes welcome the first settlers and only become hostile after bad interactions with settlers?
Why’d classical societies group people by tribe rather than skin color? Why’d feudal societies rank people by caste and religion rather than by race?
Dumbass, even Native American tribes had slaves captured from other tribes. They beheaded the men and raped women and took children as slaves. Same with the Hittites in Europe. Conquest and subjugation has been part of human history since it’s beginning, which is why I point out chimps. There’s no white vs natives or whites vs blacks conspiracy going on. Don’t be thick witted about it. It’s a dumb theory and it’s wrong. Read up and educate yourself about it before considering yourself worthy of your vote, otherwise we’ll have a political mess representing the idiosyncratic incompetence of the ignorant brainwashed folks.
Groups warred, yes. But not because of modern concepts of race. These are historically constructed as the way, in US or Latin American countries, the social order worked.
To say it’s biology in the way you claim, is painting with a way too broad brush. Ok, say we take your view for granted: why is race specifically the way people are “othered” now in certain societies when othering was done on a different basis in past or different kinds of societies?
If some biological xenophobia was the root, why did laws need to be passed to gradually reduce the status of blacks in Virginia between 1640-1660? You don’t really need to legally assert that the value of certain lives is less if that’s a biologically given assumption. The ability to trace the history of these laws and similar British laws in Ireland that gradually reduced the status of Irish Catholics, leans heavily toward the conclusion that the specific forms of social divisions such as racism are socially constructed through official structures such as courts rather than like some biological or genetic original sin.
Everyone here likes the idea of diversity, but about half of us only like the idea because it fosters diversity of ideas/culture through a basic assumption that different races are likely to have different characteristics or viewpoints. The other half likes the idea of racial diversity (which is racist, read: modern liberals).
Diversity systems that negatively impact native whites is xenophobic towards whites. It’s excluding a race. It’s racist. How is this hard to understand.
When one party is much more likely to start life at the 100 meter mark without much impediment and another is more likely to start life at the 400 meter mark with hurdles it makes sense imo. The fact that the runner at the 400 meter mark with hurdles can get within distance of the 100 meter runner is astounding in and of itself and is likely a stronger long term hire even if theyre not as "equipped" as the other runner. Situations are unlikely to play out this black and white in all scenarios but raw stats dont lie.
Actually it really hasn’t ‘always been like this’ on Blind. I’d argue there are crazies and have been crazies on both sides of the aisle the last few years here on Blind - but it is getting worse the more and more folks join.
Middle class conservative individuals have no real control of the economy, but have been ideological bootlickers for the super-rich for so long that they’re not going to blame the people and institutions with actual power... instead they tend to “punch down” and blame people with less power to try and gain a fleeting illusion that they have some control and power in society.
In extreme forms, this becomes fascism where people don’t just victim-blame, they organize vigilante groups to help reinforce social divisions that they believe are the result of “natural” hierarchy and attack “the left” because it tries to disrupt “nature” in fighting racial and economic inequality.
Diversity is an obstacle to unity. That's why politics and the country are so fucked up these days. You have everyone fighting for their individual group. There are no shared values anymore because of world views that are not compatible with each other.
Google why are you separating Americans down identity lines? I thought all men are created equal in this country. Do you see the country as a place of white vs non-white thought? Sounds a bit racist to me.
I’m pro diversity but anti quota. I think when we have an opportunity to pick diversity, we should as a tie breaker (Don’t bore me on gotcha questions on how to judge candidates equally). And diversity quota doesn’t mean merit bar is lowered. This is what causes so many sphincters to picker up. This fear and loathing that we are somehow lowering the bar if we decide to pick diversity.
But yeah. I’ve seen a lot of nasty attitudes about this lately.
Depends on exactly where is the bias happening? Recruiter consideration, recruiter selection, phone screen, onsite, or hiring decision?
In my experience, it’s not happening at the phone screen levels through onsite. Maybe recruiters are pushing diversity picks up the stack? I don’t know.
My point is you only apply diversity consideration at the hiring decision after all feedback is in. If you have two deserving candidates and only one position, give it to the diversity candidate, because they met the rest of the qualifications. That’s the only place where it makes sense.
@tuolumne Though this is a much more honorable and well intentioned approach than what is currently implemented in many companies, I don’t think it is at all practical. How would it be possible quantify when two candidates are equivalent? It is not possible.
And even if it were possible, it is illegal to pick one or other systematically (I.e. by policy) based on race.
And finally, even if somehow it is possible to objectively and accurately say two candidates are of equal strength, it is not practical or realistic to fall back to racial bias as a tie breaker. In reality racial bias will seep into other areas of the hiring process, inadvertently. We are talking about humans here. It will not be possible to say “be racist but only under these strict circumstances”, and expect this to actually work well.
As I said I’m my OP, I’m really not interested in debating the feasibility of comparing exact equality of two people. This is impossible. We are human. We give feedback based on (mostly) merit. It gets turned into some kind of a score and then it boils down to do I like this person or that person. What is their background? What is their experience? Blah blah. You will be guaranteed to drill down far enough to find something not equivalent between 2 people other than their race.
Here’s the thing. We do this already. All the time. And we do it for far more superficial and shallow reasons than gender or race. And that reflects in peoples feedback. People who are jock sniffing Stanford grads will likely rate a mediocre candidate from Stanford higher than someone else who did better from podunk U. People have this bias already. I agree with the Facebook guy on this. I’m just saying it’s already baked in to our current judgements.
So I definitely see your point. I just think it’s such a smaller signal than what is already influencing our decisions and our judgements.
When the margins shrink to negligible values, we should promote the minority candidate. I know easy to say in theory.
I've noticed it too. Chief diveristy officer here. I attribute it to ignorance of basic vocabulary. For example, folks misunderstand U.S. history and what diveristy, affirmative action, racism, equity, and equality mean. Without understanding these baseline concepts, folks can't grasp the design of corrective policies. In case folks want to speak ingelligently on the topic and be taken seriously, here are some resources:
Seeing White Podcast, YWomen, Racial Equity Alliance, Tim Wise SpeakOut Podcast, UC Berkely's Research on the impacts of anti-immigrant prejudice, Out and Equal (LGBTQ+ Equaility in the Workplace), EEOC site (for workplace rights, including for people with diasbilities) and Workplaces Respond (for Workplace sexual harassment interventions and training resources)