5 ms·

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-california-dfeh-black-female-employee-harassment-discrimination-investigation https://www.theverge.com/2021/

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-california-dfeh-black-female-employee-harassment-discrimination-investigation https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-californ... > According to a diversity report Google released earlier this year, Black women make up around 1.8 percent of its workforce and departed the company at a higher than normal rate. In the report, the company said it had “room for improvement” when it came to keeping underrepresented talent. How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here.

tablespoon 5y ago
> How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here. What are you talking about? The "actual topic at hand" is unionization, not the digression you're trying to pull it to. You also appear to be exhibiting a pretty polarized way of thinking, by assuming (falsely, I add) I take some "other side" position because I'm not hitting all your myside notes. The point is that if you use polarized shibboleths [1] in your unionization drive, you're doing the union-busting consultants' work for them (specifically, enabling a divide and conquer strategy). If you want to succeed with unionization, broadly, you have to be very, very careful not to do that, since the playing field is already tilted against you. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth, if you're unaware of the meaning, which your scare-quotes lead me to suspect.
- __float 5y ago
  I'm aware the topic at hand is unionization. You turned it into something about shibboleths and polarization - while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media - and implied I'm using scare quotes because I don't know what it means. I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further. You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I'm aware the topic at hand is unionization. You turned it into something about shibboleths and polarization Which is highly relevant to the topic of unionization. To get a union, you have to win a vote, and your chances are much better if you don't turn off voters unnecessarily. Why use a term like BIPOC in your unionization drive, which is a neologism strongly associated with progressives, when it's likely to turn off a lot of people you may be able to convince to join your side? It's stupid marketing. I mean, literally this thread started with someone who's an example of that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29908024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29908024), which you had trouble understanding and I've been patiently trying to explain to you. There are many other examples in this post. That's not to say that a union can't address issues that Black women have, but it's going to fail as a union if it can't accommodate a wider variety of people. Someone in another thread said something along the lines of "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." You're making a similar mistake, except you seem to think you can make up rules for voters to follow. Or maybe you don't think about voters at all because you're too busy sorting people into a reject bin. It's hard to say exactly. > while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media So? You know, a lot of people reject mass media culture to various degrees. You're kind of proving my point for me. > I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further. I feel the same about you. > You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right. Nope, wrong again. I'm just not so polarized that I'm repulsed by people who disagree with me and utterly reject them, so I can still think about how they think and believe some things can get done with their cooperation.

tablespoon 5y ago

> How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here. What are you talking about? The "actual topic at hand" is unionization, not the digression you're trying to pull it to. You also appear to be exhibiting a pretty polarized way of thinking, by assuming (falsely, I add) I take some "other side" position because I'm not hitting all your myside notes. The point is that if you use polarized shibboleths [1] in your unionization drive, you're doing the union-busting consultants' work for them (specifically, enabling a divide and conquer strategy). If you want to succeed with unionization, broadly, you have to be very, very careful not to do that, since the playing field is already tilted against you. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth, if you're unaware of the meaning, which your scare-quotes lead me to suspect.

__float 5y ago
I'm aware the topic at hand is unionization. You turned it into something about shibboleths and polarization - while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media - and implied I'm using scare quotes because I don't know what it means. I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further. You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I'm aware the topic at hand is unionization. You turned it into something about shibboleths and polarization Which is highly relevant to the topic of unionization. To get a union, you have to win a vote, and your chances are much better if you don't turn off voters unnecessarily. Why use a term like BIPOC in your unionization drive, which is a neologism strongly associated with progressives, when it's likely to turn off a lot of people you may be able to convince to join your side? It's stupid marketing. I mean, literally this thread started with someone who's an example of that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29908024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29908024), which you had trouble understanding and I've been patiently trying to explain to you. There are many other examples in this post. That's not to say that a union can't address issues that Black women have, but it's going to fail as a union if it can't accommodate a wider variety of people. Someone in another thread said something along the lines of "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." You're making a similar mistake, except you seem to think you can make up rules for voters to follow. Or maybe you don't think about voters at all because you're too busy sorting people into a reject bin. It's hard to say exactly. > while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media So? You know, a lot of people reject mass media culture to various degrees. You're kind of proving my point for me. > I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further. I feel the same about you. > You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right. Nope, wrong again. I'm just not so polarized that I'm repulsed by people who disagree with me and utterly reject them, so I can still think about how they think and believe some things can get done with their cooperation.