7 ms·

> I'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against. Never said that you were. > I am noticin

> I'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against. Never said that you were. > I am noticing an implication on your part that animus against white people, or animus against men, is acceptable and welcome in the workplace. Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there. Perhaps you ought to read a bit more carefully.

philwelch 8y ago
> Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there. So why specify minorities and women?
- methodover 8y ago
  Oh, I see. You think that when I said that companies need to say openly and explicitly that they're cool with minorities, that this was a complete description of everything the company should do and say about the issue of unjust discrimination. Of course, I didn't say that. You read that in. It wasn't a complete description, just something I thought companies should also be doing. But that's fine, let me be clear now: In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender. There. All better?
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender. And my contention is that “no one should be discriminated against for their race and gender” is both necessary and sufficient. No need to give special treatment or attention to supposed “minorities” (note that women are in fact a majority).
    - methodover 8y ago
      I'm rolling my eyes at your "supposed minorities" comment. Women are a minority in tech, as I'm sure you know, and this is a forum that mostly targets tech. The rest of the groups that we're talking about are also minorities in the population as a whole. As to your contention, I'm still not getting it. Why don't we play a game? I list off a few things that I've known companies to do in the past as a way of reaching out to or accommodating minorities, and you tell me which ones are objectionable to you and why. Here goes: 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers 2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference 3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week 4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot)
      - belorn 8y ago
        Let me jump in in the discussion and answer why those are objectionable and how to fix them so the same objective can be achieved while not be discriminative. > 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers Services and gifts are from a practical point of view just different forms of bonuses given to employees. A extra room cost money to rent, and if employees are given free time in there then that also cost the company money. The solution is to calculate how much the prayer room cost, divide it per employee that wish to use it, and give each employee that money to do as they wish. The Muslim employees can pool their bonus for the room, and the rest can either pool it together for something else or increase their individual pay check. This way the company do not discriminate and a person who believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same benefit and support at the company as a Muslim. > 2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference If you have to ask attendees or speakers if they identify as a woman, then what you are doing is explicit discrimination. This is objectionable so simply don't. Organize event instead so that you reaching out to intended minorities by looking at what works and interests those groups. > 3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week Same as #1. If a company spend money on one group, then that is an indirect bonus to those employees who belong to that group. If its not possible to provide every employee the same benefit, at least make the selection process transparent and as fair as possible so both a GLBT mixer as well as a nudist mixer can be created if both exist as groups at the company. > 4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot) Very similar to the above one. Who decide which group deserve the special feature? I would suggest something similar to Wikipedia's featured articles, where any topic can be suggested and a fair process decide which one get selected. The more transparent the better.

philwelch 8y ago

> Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there. So why specify minorities and women?

methodover 8y ago
Oh, I see. You think that when I said that companies need to say openly and explicitly that they're cool with minorities, that this was a complete description of everything the company should do and say about the issue of unjust discrimination. Of course, I didn't say that. You read that in. It wasn't a complete description, just something I thought companies should also be doing. But that's fine, let me be clear now: In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender. There. All better?
- philwelch 8y ago
  > In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender. And my contention is that “no one should be discriminated against for their race and gender” is both necessary and sufficient. No need to give special treatment or attention to supposed “minorities” (note that women are in fact a majority).
  - methodover 8y ago
    I'm rolling my eyes at your "supposed minorities" comment. Women are a minority in tech, as I'm sure you know, and this is a forum that mostly targets tech. The rest of the groups that we're talking about are also minorities in the population as a whole. As to your contention, I'm still not getting it. Why don't we play a game? I list off a few things that I've known companies to do in the past as a way of reaching out to or accommodating minorities, and you tell me which ones are objectionable to you and why. Here goes: 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers 2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference 3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week 4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot)
    - belorn 8y ago
      Let me jump in in the discussion and answer why those are objectionable and how to fix them so the same objective can be achieved while not be discriminative. > 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers Services and gifts are from a practical point of view just different forms of bonuses given to employees. A extra room cost money to rent, and if employees are given free time in there then that also cost the company money. The solution is to calculate how much the prayer room cost, divide it per employee that wish to use it, and give each employee that money to do as they wish. The Muslim employees can pool their bonus for the room, and the rest can either pool it together for something else or increase their individual pay check. This way the company do not discriminate and a person who believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same benefit and support at the company as a Muslim. > 2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference If you have to ask attendees or speakers if they identify as a woman, then what you are doing is explicit discrimination. This is objectionable so simply don't. Organize event instead so that you reaching out to intended minorities by looking at what works and interests those groups. > 3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week Same as #1. If a company spend money on one group, then that is an indirect bonus to those employees who belong to that group. If its not possible to provide every employee the same benefit, at least make the selection process transparent and as fair as possible so both a GLBT mixer as well as a nudist mixer can be created if both exist as groups at the company. > 4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot) Very similar to the above one. Who decide which group deserve the special feature? I would suggest something similar to Wikipedia's featured articles, where any topic can be suggested and a fair process decide which one get selected. The more transparent the better.