'Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women' says GitHub's diversity guru - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killuah;49704638]I mean before we all get riled up[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It then suggests that instead of being advocates for affirmative action, white women [B]"have been at the forefront of lawsuits brought to challenge affirmative action.[/B][/QUOTE] Well then it means white women are actually pushing for equality. Affirmative action is unfair bullshit.

[QUOTE=Shugo;49704101]I've never been able to crack those people and understand why they think this way. It seems like such a logical rule to them, somehow. I always ask, then, if it's okay to discriminate against another group of people just because you're in the minority. It's either a "of course not, but it's still not racism" or a shocking "well yes, I think centuries of oppression has earned you the right in that case". I've seen far too many people respond with the latter, and I just don't get it.[/QUOTE] Because they're talking about the definition of institutional racism, which is about public policy and shit like that on a grand scale, it doesn't apply to smaller groups or incidents, calling your manger whitey or something behind his back is racist for sure, but it's not institutionally racist and generally doesn't have much effect, which is what some people use to justify their own prejudices and why it's inexcusable for white men to be bigots but OK or not an issue for other minorities to be.

Then why don't they use the proper word instead of trying to twist the definition of racism to fit their own? Besides, saying racism that isn't institutional doesn't have much effect is an awful and frankly baseless generalization. "Progressives" always insist that something as little as choice of words can have a substantial negative impact, but somehow when it applies to straight white males it's not an issue unless it's backed institutionally.

[QUOTE=_Axel;49704809]Then why don't they use the proper word instead of trying to twist the definition of racism to fit their own? Besides, saying racism that isn't institutional doesn't have much effect is an awful and frankly baseless generalization. "Progressives" always insist that something as little as choice of words can have a substantial negative impact, but somehow when it applies to straight white males it's not an issue unless it's backed institutionally.[/QUOTE] Because they believe they're right and look for things that support their opinions, same as most other radicals.

[QUOTE=Rents;49704730]Because they're talking about the definition of institutional racism, which is about public policy and shit like that on a grand scale, it doesn't apply to smaller groups or incidents, calling your manger whitey or something behind his back is racist for sure, but it's not institutionally racist and generally doesn't have much effect, which is what some people use to justify their own prejudices and why it's inexcusable for white men to be bigots but OK or not an issue for other minorities to be.[/QUOTE] Some people aren't talking about institutionalized racism. Also that's dumb anyway since non-white people can get into positons of power and be prejudiced.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49704873]Some people aren't talking about institutionalized racism. Also that's dumb anyway since non-white people can get into positons of power and be prejudiced.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm saying, I see a lot of people twisting definitions to support what they think.

I find it weird that in the article they use the phrase "Person of colour" throughout it. It seems actually bizarrely racist in itself. I thought calling people coloured was a 1950s thing that fell out of fashion years ago? Going by the rest of the article, is shit going in circles now?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49704890]I find it weird that in the article they use the phrase "Person of colour" throughout it. It seems actually bizarrely racist in itself. I thought calling people coloured was a 1950s thing that fell out of fashion years ago? Going by the rest of the article, is shit going in circles now?[/QUOTE] From what I've read, the reasoning behind "Coloured Person" being bad and "Person of Colour" being good is the former puts their skin colour first, while the latter puts them being a person first.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;49704930]From what I've read, the reasoning behind "Coloured Person" being bad and "Person of Colour" being good is the former puts their skin colour first, while the latter puts them being a person first.[/QUOTE] That's retarded. Depending on the language used epithets come before or after names. It's just grammar.

i love how they say that they have to stand with their Asian friends when Asians overwhelmingly suffer from the aftereffects of affirmative action

I laugh everytime I hear about these people. Yes, go on about how spoiled and privileged whities are. If I'm supposed to get everything handed to me because of my "privilege" I must ask where the fuck it is cause I haven't gotten it yet. What's more likely? That I get a 6 figure salary for nothing? Or that these "diversity guru" types are fucking retarded?

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49705474]If I'm supposed to get everything handed to me because of my "privilege"[/QUOTE] You're not, but I've noticed facts never get in the way of this particular circlejerk.

[QUOTE] institutional racism[/QUOTE] Just like fascists, this is an imaginary enemy that morons fight to feel good about themselves. Someone should tell them about how the Civil Rights movement ended 50 years ago.

[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49705702]Just like fascists, this is an imaginary enemy that morons fight to feel good about themselves. Someone should tell them about how the Civil Rights movement ended 50 years ago.[/QUOTE] It's a piety contest, nothing more. Three hundred years ago it used to be which family went to church the most, and a couple thousand years before that it was who gave the fancier sacrifices to the altar.

[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49705702]Just like fascists, this is an imaginary enemy that morons fight to feel good about themselves. Someone should tell them about how the Civil Rights movement ended 50 years ago.[/QUOTE] No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49706104]No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Incarceration rate is relatively proportional to crime rate. Statistics on a national level are somewhat sparse, but here's an [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-statistics-show-96-percent-shooting-victims-black-hispanic-minority-groups-represent-89-percent-murder-victims-article-1.1152838"]article[/URL] about statistics from the NYPD regarding crime and minority neighborhoods, which should give you an idea of the problem. This all, of course, has to do with socioeconomic position above all else. Income and education are closely tied to crime rate. The problem isn't that minorities are being discriminated against on a massive scale, it's that minority communities suffer from disproportionate crime rate due to lack of education and prosperity. And with no money to invest into education, the cycle continues forever.

[QUOTE]There's no question that the tech industry needs to do more to attract people of color.[/QUOTE] Why? Why should a particular field or industry try to attract people of a certain color or gender? Is it a problem that women and black people are underrepresented in tech? Do women and black people make better techies or suffer from not being techies? It's very much up for debate. If there is structural racism or sexism in a field you should try to combat that structural racism or sexism, not try to change the prevalence of etnicitiy or gender of people in that field because that is essentially the same thing as treating a symptom, a symptom that doesn't do any damage to anyone. It gets even worse when people try to use affirmative action like what is currently being discussed about computer related fields here in Sweden. You are being sexist/racist towards and are hurting white males when not doing anything to combat the actual problem. You are only breeding more hate.

[QUOTE=_Axel;49704991]That's retarded. Depending on the language used epithets come before or after names. It's just grammar.[/QUOTE] I bet you think the HOLOCAUST was just grammar too, HUH?

[QUOTE=GunFox;49706104]No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Yes, but the reasons behind that institutional racism are far deeper than just "the Man is racist." Minorities have historically had lower incomes, which means living in poorer neighborhoods which means lesser quality education, which of course means that those areas become crime ridden as young people with no work opportunities turn to crime to survive, and those who did actually finish their education are at a disadvantage against those with higher incomes who just had better quality education, thus starting a vicious cycle which you can't break out because you're dooming your children to that same life. When did this start? Well, we all know how America used to be like. What really surprises me is how this has been going on for so long in America, it always seem like this whole problem is ALWAYS handled poorly.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49706104]No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Insitutional racism is not required for higher conviction rates of minorities. Socio-economic class is the key factor here. If higher numbers of blacks are in a lower socio-economic class (and they are) than whites, asians or others, then you have to ask: why? The answer you're likely to receive is not: institutional racism.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49706104]No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.[/QUOTE] That's not quite what institutionalized racism is. Making black folks drink from different water fountains is institutionalized racism, because the institution is targeting them. Cops arresting more black people isn't institutional racism, just regular-old racism. Also sometimes not racism but just a result of modern black culture and the fact that a lot of black people still live in poverty because of the aftereffects of many many years of actual institutionalized racism.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;49706468] What really surprises me is how this has been going on for so long in America, it always seem like this whole problem is ALWAYS handled [B]poorly.[/B][/QUOTE] Fuck, was that supposed to be a pun or am I just seeing things?

[QUOTE=Killuah;49704638]Could it be possible that we don't know the full story? After all she also said Which is quite true. [editline]9th February 2016[/editline] I mean before we all get riled up[/QUOTE]Did you miss the part in her presentation where she specifically said [I][U]white[/U] women[/I] were barriers to progress? [QUOTE=GunFox;49706104]No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.[/QUOTE]I'd argue that's not the institution creating the problem but a festering wound in society that's never been healed. Much of the criticism leveled at "gangsta rap" is actually a criticism of the inner-city urban black subculture that sprang up around the idea of actual institutional racism keeping them down and they had no other alternatives but to turn to the thug life. These factors don't exist anymore in society, what does exist is a back-and-forth motion between that subculture and the world at large, it's basically "black people versus everyone else" and this has the effect of [I]antagonizing[/I] everyone else which has the effect of the hypothetical or nonexistent conditions of the subculture's foundation becoming truly real once more. It's basically societal gangrene, we haven't bothered to heal the wounds of the inner-city race relations and now the infection is spreading. [QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49706162]This all, of course, has to do with socioeconomic position above all else. Income and education are closely tied to crime rate. The problem isn't that minorities are being discriminated against on a massive scale, it's that minority communities suffer from disproportionate crime rate due to lack of education and prosperity. And with no money to invest into education, the cycle continues forever.[/QUOTE]Nobody wants to do anything with these neighborhoods because they're full of violent thugs, and these violent thugs exist because nobody wants to do anything with the neighborhood. This has been self-perpetuating since the 80's and it's just getting worse and worse, feeding on itself until it's gotten hot enough to start affecting other places. [QUOTE=Big Bang;49706468]What really surprises me is how this has been going on for so long in America, it always seem like this whole problem is ALWAYS handled poorly.[/QUOTE]Pretty fucking much bro, as evident with "we gotta be TOUGH on crime!" and handling everything with the heaviest possible response. It was an escalation by the local governments, so they took all these very white and very well-armed police and forcibly arrested every black dude with a rock of crack that they could catch and treated him like he was a big time drug dealer. Then everyone wonders why treating a portion of the population who [I]already had a distrust and aversion[/I] toward the powers that be resulted in a negative, clannish response. Of course black people are going to start sticking together and rallying together and defending any slight against them, I would too if there was a government specifically targeting my poor, white community and handing down harsh prison sentences as much as possible. I'd feel threatened and rightfully so. It's also the reason why police are so militarized and seem so hostile, that culture of "well we gotta stop this crime problem!" that made blacks hostile all over again also meant cops are essentially society's attack dogs. We have multiple problems in this nation and a lot of them are linked very tightly with each other.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49704890]I find it weird that in the article they use the phrase "Person of colour" throughout it. It seems actually bizarrely racist in itself. I thought calling people coloured was a 1950s thing that fell out of fashion years ago? Going by the rest of the article, is shit going in circles now?[/QUOTE] It was revived by black activists during the 60's and 70's because minority has a negative connotation (and isn't always a good description, more so today) and non-white explains what people aren't rather than what they are. Regarding the use of this shit? Yeah it seems endemic to the social justice movement currently taking place in America and parts of Europe. And it's very embarrassing watching privileged young whites throwing it around.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49708061] Regarding the use of this shit? Yeah it seems endemic to the social justice movement currently taking place in America and parts of Europe. And it's very embarrassing watching privileged young whites throwing it around.[/QUOTE] Person of color exists to create this Us vs Whites mentality. I see it as racist since it lumps all non-whites and all whites into the same categories for arbitrary reasons.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49708061]Regarding the use of this shit? Yeah it seems endemic to the social justice movement currently taking place in America and parts of Europe. And it's very embarrassing watching privileged young whites throwing it around.[/QUOTE]I think the thing that really gets my goat is how those same snotty cocksuckers will bitch and complain about all of these problems and then when you go "hey, you seem pretty concerned with other people's welfare do you wanna come down to the shelter and help out?" in a cheerful, inviting way they look like you've asked them to go storm Normandy. They'll say oh yeah, totally, or "I'm busy all week" and then when you see them fucking around in a coffee shop and you give them that hard, angry stare you're committing a terrible micro-aggression against them. No, no, that's not a [I]micro-[/I]aggression, that's just aggression stemming from total disgust and contempt for a shitty, hypocritical piece of human trash. [editline]9th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49708115]Person of color exists to create this Us vs Whites mentality. I see it as racist since it lumps all non-whites and all whites into the same categories for arbitrary reasons.[/QUOTE]You're not alone, for them it's fine to call white people "white" but call another race by the commonly accepted name? Oh no! It's white people (usually straight, white males) versus the world and damn it we have to [I]stop[/I] those mean white people! That's why everyone else needs a special place to keep those fuckers out, let's make a safe space that no white can enter. White allies are okay of course, but white normies? reeeeeeeee

[QUOTE=GunFox;49706104]No, it is quite real. Our conviction rate of minorities is drastically disproportionate. Institutional racism is very much a real thing. Don't let the social justice warriors lead you to believe that some things aren't actual problems. Some of the things they complain about are actually valid, they are just buried in a sea of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Serious question about the idea of institutional racism for anyone knowledgeable: When people talk about institutional racism are they referring to institutional systems that unfairly target certain groups or are they referring to a system that leads to results that differ for certain groups? For example, let's say that asian people go into STEM fields more often because the culture they're raised in more strongly pushes education and educational work ethic. In this case, the system doesn't target asian people to try and get them into STEM fields, but the result is that asian people are overrepresented in those fields. Would that be considered institutional racism? It's important because statistical differences aren't nearly enough to reach the burden of proof for the first definition.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49708115]Person of color exists to create this Us vs Whites mentality. I see it as racist since it lumps all non-whites and all whites into the same categories for arbitrary reasons.[/QUOTE] Insofar as other words to describe ethnic or racial demographics create an x vs x mentality. Your use of the word whites is just as divisive as the word person of color if the standard is that it arbitrarily assigns people to categories. That's the entire point of demographics. To categorize people. Its awkward and embarrassing to watch people say it today, especially people who obviously have no idea of the origins of the word (both its 18th and 19th century way to record freed slaves and Civil Rights era of using it as a better PR word than minority and non-white) but it's not really racist.

[QUOTE=Van-man;49704293]That's the old-school kind, which wanted equal opportunity instead of accusing current generations of all the actual oppression that happened through the ages. Many of those hates the current gen feminists because those focus on their own betterment or own ego instead of humanity as a whole. But the old wave are outnumbered and not as loud, as they know spewing loud shit harms you & your cause in the long run.[/QUOTE] The development of feminism hasn't been a linear journey from rationality to radicalism. Radical feminists have been have been around for about half a century and there are still plenty of rational second and third-wave feminists that aim for both equality and diversity. There's no defined radical new wave that's phasing out the old. Controversy makes headlines and not many people here are actually interested in feminism, so the egotistical crazies get attention instead.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;49708757] Controversy makes headlines and not many people here are actually interested in feminism, so the egotistical crazies get attention instead.[/QUOTE] I am not buying this anymore. It's not just random egotistical crazies when you have scientists getting harassed by a significant number of people over wearing a shirt. When you have the statement "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women" written without a hint of self awareness. There is a significant chunk of people now adays that believe that they cannot be racist/sexist because of their race or gender.