Political Correctness

[jpx7]

You can't say that you don't subscribe to identity politics when you just wrote that a white man saying something would be woefully selfish that is applauded for a black woman saying the same thing.

That just doesn't fly. Sorry.

The google employ got fired because he asked a thoughtful question - basically saying the exact same thing this woman said. How can one be applauded and one be fired for the same sentence, and that be OK?

I don't need your permission to fly, bro.

Moreover: I've never said dude should've been fired. But nice assumption.

Let's try to break it down in terms that don't cloud your judgment. If I say, I deserve x, you'd be right to be skeptical of said claim, on grounds of motivated self-interest, especially if I belonged to group y that had always received a disproportionately high share of x; you'd be rightfully less skeptical if someone who belonged to group z, a group that had always received a disproportionately low share of x, said, He deserves x as much as I deserve x; indeed, we all deserve x.

 

[sturg33]

I don't need your permission to fly, bro.

Moreover: I've never said dude should've been fired. But nice assumption.

Let's try to break it down in terms that don't cloud your judgment. If I say, I deserve x, you'd be right to be skeptical of said claim, on grounds of motivated self-interest, especially if I belonged to group y that had always received a disproportionately high share of x; you'd be rightfully less skeptical if someone who belonged to group z, a group that had always received a disproportionately low share of x, said, He deserves x as much as I deserve x; indeed, we all deserve x.

OK, bro

I don't subscribe to groups when discussing people. I subscribe to individuals and and individual rights.

To say that a white man shouldn't say the same thing as a black woman is simply racism and discrimination. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When someone says "white privilege" what they are saying is "a white man's opinion is simply less important because of no other reason than he is white."

That's racism.

 

[Jaw]

If a white guy said it, it would sound woefully self-interested and/or selfish—sort of like a white guy complaining on the internet about what he doesn't "get" to say anymore.

This is the power of promoting alterior and alternative voices: effecting a real diversity that is earnest and earned, not merely assumed or granted by historical structures of exclusion and privilege.

You can't say that you don't subscribe to identity politics when you just wrote that a white man saying something would be woefully selfish that is applauded for a black woman saying the same thing.

JP I get what you are trying to say here, but realize that when Van Jones called the election a whitelash or people wonder about the rise of white nationalism, THIS is what fuels it. A fact is true regardless of the source.

You kind of told sturg that his opinion on diversity is irrelevant unless it has been properly vetted by someone deemed to have skin in the game. That's the kind of talk that was used to justify poll taxes not too long ago.

How else could you say it to better make the point?

Her opinion on this matters more than yours because she is black.
Nope, that's racist.

Well done sturg! You came to the same conclusion as Mrs. Smith, despite being a white male.
Nope, still racist.

Her opinion carries more weight because she was able to reach this conclusion in spite of being a black woman.
Oooh, racism dripping with condescension.

Each of you have come to the correct, insightful, conclusion.
Facts are true.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court justice, at some point, if we want to stop racial discrimination, we need to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

 

[jpx7]

When someone says "white privilege" what they are saying is "a white man's opinion is simply less important because of no other reason than he is white."

False. When someone says "white privilege", what they are saying is "a white man's opinion should be relatively less important now than in previous times when white male opinions were the only ones society valued". We're not all the way there yet, but we're closer.

Combating white-male privilege is not about making white-male voices less than, but equal to; but I can see how, having always had their voices regarded as greater than, it can seem like persecution. It's not: it's the undoing of persecution.

JP I get what you are trying to say here, but realize that when Van Jones called the election a whitelash or people wonder about the rise of white nationalism, THIS is what fuels it. A fact is true regardless of the source.

You kind of told sturg that his opinion on diversity is irrelevant unless it has been properly vetted by someone deemed to have skin in the game. That's the kind of talk that was used to justify poll taxes not too long ago.

How else could you say it to better make the point?

Her opinion on this matters more than yours because she is black.
Nope, that's racist.

Well done sturg! You came to the same conclusion as Mrs. Smith, despite being a white male.
Nope, still racist.

Her opinion carries more weight because she was able to reach this conclusion in spite of being a black woman.
Oooh, racism dripping with condescension.

Each of you have come to the correct, insightful, conclusion.
Facts are true.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court justice, at some point, if we want to stop racial discrimination, we need to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

We're not talking facts, though: we're talking reception. If you're not getting that, you haven't been reading closely enough.

White men have always had the lion's-share of the pulpit in this country (and in much of the modern world). Now that they've been persuaded and/or forced to cede some of that time and space, they're also being persuaded and/or forced to be more circumspect in how they phrase things—more aware of who their phrasings might exclude and/or hurt—if they want those things to be received well. (Importantly, they're still allowed to say dumb ****—and I'll stand by and fight for their right to continue to be allowed to say dumb **** without governmental intrusion.)

 

[Jaw]

False. When someone says "white privilege", what they are saying is "a white man's opinion should be relatively less important now than in previous times when white male opinions were the only ones society valued". We're not all the way there yet, but we're closer.

Combating white-male privilege is not about making white-male voices less than, but equal to; but I can see how, having always had their voices regarded as greater than, it can seem like persecution. It's not: it's the undoing of persecution.

We're not talking facts, though: we're talking reception. If you're not getting that, you haven't been reading closely enough.

White men have always had the lion's-share of the pulpit in this country (and in much of the modern world). Now that they've been persuaded and/or forced to cede some of that time and space, they're also being persuaded and/or forced to be more circumspect in how they phrase things—more aware of who their phrasings might exclude and/or hurt—if they want those things to be received well. (Importantly, they're still allowed to say dumb ****—and I'll stand by and fight for their right to continue to be allowed to say dumb **** without governmental intrusion.)

You're getting pretty far into semantics but fine. If someone decides they don't want to be a part of the conversation because the other side discounts their contributions on the basis of race, well, it's easy to see right and wrong in that situation.

 

[sturg33]

White men have always had the lion's-share of the pulpit in this country (and in much of the modern world). Now that they've been persuaded and/or forced to cede some of that time and space)

Dude - get the **** out of here with that bull ****.

You said earlier a white guy making a very reasonable statement would be woefully selfish. Now you're trying to say that no, we just need to uplift non-white speech to be equal.

Nobody is arguing that. But that's not what you said. And that's not how you and your cohort react. We see how you react. The google guy gets fired. The black lady gets applauded.

That's not ceding space in the pulpit... that is giving preference to one group over another.

That's racism.

 

[Julio3000]

Tangentially, if you actually knew what "the left" did and thought, you'd notice that her words weren't exactly being celebrated.

 

[jpx7]

Dude - get the **** out of here with that bull ****.

You said earlier a white guy making a very reasonable statement would be woefully selfish. Now you're trying to say that no, we just need to uplift non-white speech to be equal.

Nobody is arguing that. But that's not what you said. And that's not how you and your cohort react. We see how you react. The google guy gets fired. The black lady gets applauded.

That's not ceding space in the pulpit... that is giving preference to one group over another.

That's racism.

Read, bro.

I said it would sound selfish for the white guy in the room to voice concerns about the number of white voices in the room given the entirety of history. That is, in no way, at odds with the idea of "uplift[ing] non-white speech to be equal".

And get the **** out of here talking about "my cohort". As I said: I never argued for "the google guy" to be fired, and I don't react in mass-tandem with whatever group you're happy to lump me into. Hell, you can't even keep your own dicta straight: you just said you "don't subscribe to groups when discussing people [but] subscribe to individuals", and yet you leap to attack and inveigh me through my "cohort" with a contortionist's ease.

 

[jpx7]

You're getting pretty far into semantics but fine. If someone decides they don't want to be a part of the conversation because the other side discounts their contributions on the basis of race, well, it's easy to see right and wrong in that situation.

It's not about collectively discounting white men; it's about insisting we perform a little self-accounting of our privileges before we complain about what we don't "get" to say. And—again, for the multi-dozenth time—we still get to say what we want, but now women and brown people and LGBTQ also get to be offended if it's ****ty.

 

[Julio3000]

It's not about collectively discounting white men; it's about insisting we perform a little self-accounting of our privileges before we complain about what we don't "get" to say. And—again, for the multi-dozenth time—we still get to say what we want, but now women and brown people and LGBTQ also get to be offended if it's ****ty.

This is the most concise expression of the thing that bugs me to no end about these "free speech" and political correctness discussions. Bravo.

 

[Jaw]

It's not about collectively discounting white men; it's about insisting we perform a little self-accounting of our privileges before we complain about what we don't "get" to say. And—again, for the multi-dozenth time—we still get to say what we want, but now women and brown people and LGBTQ also get to be offended if it's ****ty.

Your initial post that started thus discussion absolutely was about discounting an opinion based on who it came from.

As for your point about "we still get to say what we want", yeah thats great and I don't think I've disputed it. But discounting it based on the source, and especially based on the race and gender of the source, is no better.

 

[jpx7]

This is the most concise expression of the thing that bugs me to no end about these "free speech" and political correctness discussions. Bravo.

It's what it ultimately boils to. In these formulations, "getting" to say things isn't about "being allowed to say things, free from governmental intrusion"; it's about "being allowed to say things with impunity from the offense or objections of other (mostly heretofore marginalized) citizens". It's why sturg celebrates corporate rights up until they exercise those rights to terminate an employee who uses their freedom of speech to espouse things the corporation doesn't agree with (or doesn't think helps their bottom-line).

But I've got news for sturg: I actually do think it's somewhat ****ty when people like "that google dude" get fired for speaking their mind in a public forum, especially when those thoughts are immaterial to the work they were hired to do, and especially if their intent (in all its naïveté) is to broaden discourse and not to deepen divisions. That's why I support strong labor unions, who can act collectively to advocate against corporations on behalf of individual workers' rights (which may exceed basic governmental protections). But I'm also not going to glance back at history and then turnaround and pity the poor white upper-middle-class programmer and his "plight of silence".

 

[jpx7]

Your initial post that started thus discussion absolutely was about discounting an opinion based on who it came from.

As for your point about "we still get to say what we want", yeah thats great and I don't think I've disputed it. But discounting it based on the source, and especially based on the race and gender of the source, is no better.

It was absolutely not about "discounting an opinion", but rather about "accounting for context". It's a subtle but meaningful distinction.

If you were thethe, I'd say you were either unwilling or unable to see the difference. But since you generally seem to argue on good-faith grounds, I'll suggest we just chalk it up to a divergent interpretations of "account for context" and lay things to rest.

 

[Jaw]

On a positive note, this lady gets it:

https://qz.com/1097425/apples-first...-she-focuses-on-everyone-not-just-minorities/

Denise Young Smith is Silicon Valley’s most powerful black woman. “My name was not talked about prior to maybe 5 years ago,” she says. But that quickly changed once Apple named her as their very first vice president of diversity and inclusion, just a few months ago.

....

Young Smith, a 20-year veteran at Apple, will lead a team responsible for improving Apple’s diversity figures and ensuring the company’s hiring practices and retention is open and inclusive.

....

When asked whether she would be focusing on any group of people, such as black women, in her efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse Apple, Young Smith says, “I focus on everyone.” She added: “Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.” Her answer was met with a round of applause at the session.

Young Smith went on to add that “there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” The issue, Young Smith explains, “is representation and mix.” She is keen to work to bring all voices into the room that “can contribute to the outcome of any situation.”

Alas, the outrage brigade got to her:

[TW]918611097808195584[/TW]

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17...ogizes-to-staff-for-statements-made-at-summit

Last week, while attending a summit in Bogota, I made some comments as part of a conversation on the many factors that contribute to diversity and inclusion.

I regret the choice of words I used to make this point. I understand why some people took offense. My comments were not representative of how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it. For that, I'm sorry.

 

[thethe]

Glad someone else posted that. How sad is it that people can't speak freely without the second guessing pc nature of our society.

 

[sturg33]

egg shell society

 

[thethe]

Basically this is saying all white people are the same and the only factor that makes is different is race.

How is that not inherently racist?

 

[acesfull86]

Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Barbara Lee
@RepBarbaraLee
These comments undermine progress. Racial diversity MUST be at the forefront of Silicon Valley’s agenda. cc: @Apple

——————

Must it be?

 

[Jaw]

Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Barbara Lee
@RepBarbaraLee
These comments undermine progress. Racial diversity MUST be at the forefront of Silicon Valley’s agenda. cc: @Apple

——————

Must it be?

The alternative would be hiring people based solely on who is most well qualified.

 

[jpx7]

The alternative would be hiring people based solely on who is most well qualified.

What if the company feels that coming from a marginalized background/viewpoint and/or adding diversity to the staff is a qualification, and thus is a part of constituting who is "most well qualified"?