> Some even venture into the possibility that a black person complaining about being passed over for promotion might just not be good enough for the job and then just blame discrimination rather than facing the truth (pure gaslighting). [emphasis mine]
Let's consider the possibility, but please don't expect us to just accept it's true. And please don't expect us not to consider other possible alternatives.
But even considering another alternative explanation to something related to discrimination gets you on the list of racists/deserving-of-cancellation/etc. There is always room for debate, especially in a case like this where information is sparse. Forcibly shutting down anyone who wants to exercise their thinking is just socially acceptable censorship.
The debate is happening. It occurs. But then someone makes a comment like above: “is all this debate really necessary?” and the response is “this is censorship”.
I would agree that some viewpoints are silenced in public contexts. But insofar as this conversation, I don’t see anyone being cancelled or shut down for an opinion. That just seems like a defensive reaction to me.
But they are. If you are skeptical of the claims in the article, then apparently you have taken a “depressing” (incorrect/intolerant) stance.
Because this conversation allows me to be anonymous. I simply don't dare expressing my thoughts with my real identity attached. Who knows whether I will get cancelled or fired.
The people working on suppression of certain viewpoints have hurt themselves in the long run. Now I am seeing candid discussions happening only in small trusted circles or on anonymous forums. That can be another reason why we saw embarrassing polling errors in 2016/2020 - openly supporting Trump can be a very risky move for someone.
Ironically, this is not dissimilar to how Zed Shaw treated you. We could either have just believed his accusation that you defamed him, or we could ask for evidence. (My interpretation is that you were making a sarcastic joke at Shaw's expense, mostly because of his extremely opinionated personality, and not making some sort of serious evaluation of his work. And, besides, literally speaking, what you said is probably true.)
If people want to argue that instances of racist behavior exist (at Coinbase, on HN or elsewhere within and outside the industry), few are going argue. The problem is that anecdotal instances do not imply systemic issues unless there is evidence of systemic issues themselves. When the most common response to "show me your evidence of systemic racism" is "you're a racist," then don't be surprised when some of us conclude that the issue is largely overhyped nonsense.
Lists that usually do exist in private tend to be ones like “Don’t work for X company/person” which have a plethora of motivations that may or may not have anything to do with discriminatory behavior. But these are circulated and composed by people at the bottom rather then the top so nobody gets fired: the biggest risk here is you lose out on talent.
There are some kinds of topics that I can immediately guess will invite certain kinds of comments on HN, and I've learned to just take a deep breath and ignore them. (If it gets really bad, I go catch up on that other Web site that does over-the-top criticism of HN, so that I don't feel like the only one.) On rare occasions, I've tried to engage some of the, but it's just draining.
However, when not enough people speak up, that can send an implicit message that some life-sucking background noise from others is OK with everyone else, when it's not.
Which is that, if you can share?
I think you have to type in that URL. If the referrer is set to this site, you get goatse'd or something.
People seem to be trying to apply a criminal prosecution level standard for proof/evidence, one that is almost never applied to other companies on non hot button issues or generally on HN. You highlighted the specific hoops people are jumping through well. I hope maybe people can examine why they are so motivated to use this hypocritical double standard to defend this company they have no direct ties with.
We have played this argument out and I'd love to get over beating this dead horse, here and all over the tech industry. Go look elsewhere in the comments. Fantastical conspiracy webs ("trying to ruin their livelihoods") require according evidence, not refutation. We have a slew of people on the record, and direct response from Coinbase. Not to mention that no one is getting "cancelled" here.
The bigger conversation to be had is that cancel culture doesn't exist as you describe even.
I'm simply tired of this.
I didn't get the memo.
> I'd love to get over beating this dead horse, here and all over the tech industry
Among the people I know closely enough, I see almost no one who has changed their minds ever since these discussions started circa 2015. And I have been in the tech industry for a long time. So keep beating that dead horse, or beat it in a different way.
> Not to mention that no one is getting "cancelled" here.
Some people are trying very hard. NYT article seems like a smear campaign as part of that overall effort.
> cancel culture doesn't exist as you describe even.
In my experience, it does. I personally know many other people for whom it does. Maybe your bubble is very thick? Maybe people are not honest and open with you because you are highly opinionated and based on this comment, not open to an open dialog?
> I'm simply tired of this.
If you keep communicating the same way as in this comment, you will keep getting tired. I don't think cancel culture, SJWs or suppression of uncomfortable viewpoints are going to stop anytime soon, nor the secret revulsion of these trends.
> Among the people I know closely enough, I see almost no one who has changed their minds ever since these discussions started circa 2015.
You've pointed this out yourself, why in the world would I keep beating the dead horse here? Do you think people haven't tried different ways? Why should I expend that effort to people who are clearly dug in to the other side permanently? I look for good-will first to engage with people who appear to be open in some way, like in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25234798
The thing you're missing here is that the purpose of this type of response is not for you or OP. It's to show that this type of response is not blindly agreed upon or grounded. When its espoused with no response or criticism, it has a meaningful negative effect on marginalized people in this industry. To quote someone else on this top level thread:
> When not enough people speak up, that can send an implicit message that some life-sucking background noise from others is OK with everyone else, when it's not.
Is the assertion that you’re tired expected to lend weight to the version (that cancel culture is a bogus notion) for which you’re evoking (but not presenting) a defense?
Here, I grabbed a link off Google for you with one perspective: https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2020/07/cancel-cul...
If you prefer less meat but a more known publishing house: https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/
If you find that worth discussing, I'd say go ahead and submit it to HN!
For example, people can disagree on the merits of e.g. affirmative action, but if former CoinBase employees are alleging that lower-qualified white employees are being promoted in favor of higher-qualified black employees, then that's a serious matter that you ought to address before pivoting the conversation to other topics. Hiring bias is institutional racism, and allegations of such bias should be thoroughly investigated. But, it's probably easier for some people to talk about affirmative action, but harder for the same people to discuss promotion practices that are biased against black employees. I hope that people who feel eager to talk about the former are also prepared to address the latter.
Also seeing some of the comments, I would like to remind some people not to make racial equality issues into black versus Asian. Both groups experience racism (often different kinds of racism), racial equality is not a zero-sum game, and surely we can find good-faith solutions that help one group without pushing down another.
It's rational to be antagonistic in such a situation.
What happens at one company is utterly irrelevant, but what happens in many places and in many countries is much more concerning and it also reflects on this situation and the comments.
Then perhaps you can find it in you to empathize with the black folks who are scared of the police, and can begin to understand BLM. You have something in common with them.
Starting several years ago I couldn't deny any more that several groups use political correctness as a weapon to hurt others. They do not deserve my help nor empathy.
For BLM I said "understand", not help or support.
Secondly, have you compared that to the damage inflicted by racists not being held accountable in society currently?
people say the same about sexual harassment accusations, once a video, or admittance comes out silence...
most of the times people want there to be videos and solid evidence to believe - but you yourself know that in 2020 we have members of the police force actively killing an meting out their own law upon black people
why is is so hard to believe that behind closed doors people can act and behave in discriminatory ways towards black people?
shall we start walking with little microphones and cameras to work? is this what black people should deal with going to work?
Two guys and a gal were fired after Donglegate. People's lives are being turned upside-down in many ways by social media, whether its discussion of justice issues or sex tapes or your dog or your toast going viral. Discriminatory behavior has long been documented in employment, housing sales and rentals, financial services, etc -- just today I was reading about the riots in Cicero in 1951, when a mob of thousands attacked an apartment building in Cicero, IL into which a black couple attempted to move -- and now some of this behavior is being caught on video, unsurprisingly.
Sure, you can be antagonistic, but as doctors have discovered with malpractice, it's actually more productive and more optimized on a financial level to be gracious. Doctors who are honest and express sympathy and empathy, with an apology [1], when things go poorly are far less likely to be sued for malpractice (more links in linked article). Similarly, when you'd done something that appears to someone else to be racist, why not simply apologize (even something like, "Sorry, that was not my intention!") and then try to do better, even ask how you can do better?
If you are committed to an ideology of white supremacy, then of course this doesn't make sense as a next move. But if you're a normal person who just does things that in retrospect do come across as thoughtless or uninformed, like asking your Asian-American colleague where they're really really from and complimenting them on their English, or telling your Black colleague that you're surprised at how articulate they are, or giving a nine-year-old female chess genius a doll when she just wants a chess set... why not just apologize and do better next time?
The world is made of imperfect people who are all gonna die anyway. Most likely no one will care about your reputation in 100 years, even your great-grandkids (I knew my great-grandparents and I only knew a bit about them). So use this time to actually do your part to make the world better -- why not? It will most likely make you feel better, feel you have more integrity, and you'll be happier.
[1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/you-had-me-i-m-sorry-im...
I could claim that you have a sexual interest in children. Good luck proving you don't. Would you just 'apologise and do better next time'?
>"You don't have sufficient evidence, so we are going to go with whatever non-race based reason I can find as the cause"
Seeking evidence about an event is a worthy activity, but becomes a fools errand when the audience is sympathetic if not outright supportive of the wrongdoers.
That's not honest and that's not why I asked for proof.
It all feels of gaslighting and has a shit ton of people buying into it.
At the end of the day, the best thing for Coinbase employees to do is to jump ship to a competitor (I for one, am happy to give a referral to any Coinbase employee who is leaving due to all this) - but absolutely vile that they would try to buy-out all POC in the company.
What makes you think POC are equivalent with woke activists? That seems a bit like stereotyping to me. It also seems to contradict actual data.[1] While most black Americans agree that racial issues are still serious problems, they tend not to endorse the extreme progressive interpretations and policy recommendations.
If I were to guess, tech workers are much more likely to be progressive activists than workers in most other industries. This includes the (shamefully small) number of black tech workers as well. But at the same time, almost all of the activists are white.
[1] see appendix 1.1.1 https://hiddentribes.us/pdf/hidden_tribes_report.pdf
It's actually the opposite of the truth; "woke" activists/SJWs/whatever you want to call them are disproportionately white.
It's intended to mollify any concerns of well-meaning whites that POC might actually really be upset with racial discrimination, and actually want significant change beyond superficial proposals.
First, you have no idea of my intent, because I didn't tell you. Second, what you allege to be my intent is not my intent. Third, conceding for the sake of argument that you were right about my intent, why is it that the measured facts totally contradict your narrative, i.e. those who want radical change appear to be overwhelmingly white and particularly non-black?
Are you one of those who think logic and data are tools of the white oppressor?
https://morningconsult.com/2020/06/17/defund-the-police-comm...
If you ask people whether they want the police presence in their communities to stay the same or increase, large majorities agree. Only 19% of black Americans want police presence to decrease.[3]
And yet none of this is inconsistent. If the problems in predominantly non-white urban areas are at least in part crime problems that the police aren't solving, it makes sense for those citizens to want to take money from the police, whom they perceive to not be doing their jobs. At the same time, these same people probably would prefer the police to just do their jobs in the first place.
[1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/64-americans-oppose-defund-p...
[2]https://news.gallup.com/poll/315962/americans-say-policing-n...
[3]https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...
One example, from the first Gallup poll:
> Which of the following best describes your view about changes that may or may not need to be made to policing in the United States?
> Major changes needed:
> Black Americans: 88%
> White Americans: 51%
We can quibble about the definition of "radical" vs "major" but it seems pretty clear based on most polling that Black americans are far more dissatisfied as a demographic group with policing, than white americans, and are far more open to a variety of reforms ranging from minor to "radical".
As you said, there's no contradiction between wanting to reallocate money from police, who may be seen as doing a poor job, to social services, and wanting the police to actually show up and do the job they're supposed to be doing.
My original claim was that black people make up very few of the "woke" activists who e.g. demand white people to apologize for so-called systemic racism or white supremacy. That is undeniably true based on the data. I'm not sure how we got into this rabbit hole of police brutality and racial disparities therein, but it's not at all obvious that opinions in favor of curbing police abuses are predictors of "woke"/intersectional/SJW/progressive/whatever you want to call it activism.
> We can quibble about the definition of "radical" vs "major" but it seems pretty clear based on most polling that Black americans are far more dissatisfied as a demographic group with policing, than white americans, and are far more open to a variety of reforms ranging from minor to "radical".
It's not a quibble, it's hugely important. "Major change" is about as vague as is possible. Severely restricting qualified immunity, restricting police unions from bargaining about anything beyond pay and health/safety conditions, forbidding police from using military weapons and vehicles except in extreme circumstances (with political oversight and approval), and having strict escalation-of-force procedures all seem like pretty major changes to me. They're also all policies I'd support, and I'm about as far from a woke activist as possible. (This Twitter thread has some excellent recommendations, most of which I'd endorse in a heartbeat.[1] Most woke activists have seemed uninterested, though.)
"Defund the police" sounds radical on its face, until some of its proponents reply that, actually, it doesn't mean abolish the police, but just to redirect funding to "social programs." You know, the standard left-liberal Democrat proposal for the past 50 years. The police have the honor of joining the military, NASA and foreign aid (among others) as programs that need to be raided in order to pay for an ever-increasing welfare state. It's not a policy I agree with, but it's hardly "radical." Yet others interpret "defund the police" to mean something different.
In short, these are just equivocations and word games. When black people were asked about concrete proposals, they tended to respond more like a left-liberal (as one would expect). For instance, when asked about actually reducing police presence, they opposed it by overwhelming margins; in fact, more wanted an increase than a decrease.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/samswey/status/118065570127173222...
Hence the baseless personal attacks.
And, they are in denial, since if it wasn't a problem for them they would not question the story.
Sharing stories does help. Racism is rooted in lack of exposure to diversity. It may never be eradicated but working to end it among every new generation is worthwhile IMO.
Uh, have a talk with South African whites sometimes.
And isn't American Deep South, with its 30-50 per cent black population, considered stereotypically racist, while you have a lot of anti-racist movements in mostly white places like Oregon and New England?
It does not work in Europe either. For example, the far-right Rassemblement National has most support on the French Riviera and Corsica, places where the Arab and African populations are very numerous. It struggles to gain support in Bretagne, where there is little immigration.
Israel is very diverse and the level of ethnic and religious violence there is massive.
I am Slavic myself; traveling around former Yugoslavia, I heard things that would absolutely stun American readers. There are people absolutely ready to slit throats of the villagers two kilometers away, just because of a different religion.
From your comments, I hear the conviction that upon meeting people from a different culture, everyone will rejoice and cherish the changes. You do not take into account a possibility that two cultures may, upon contact, develop a serious conflict, perhaps even ending in war.
Diverse places like Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, former USSR, the Caucasus, Lebanon, Iraq or lately Western European metropoles seem to be a hotbed of conflicts.
Look at Trump, from NYC. Spent all his time at private clubs.
The biggest racists that I know grew up in an environment with the most diversity (talking about EU here, not US). It also shows in political results, where extreme right is most voted on in diverse environments.
For example, there is a reason why gay people don't like to walk around in muslim environments, and it has nothing to do with how their parents raised them.
So like I said, your theory is that when you are exposed to diversity, you have less racism. But the numbers (such as political preference) show completely the opposite.
Both empirically (it's the most multicultural tech scene I ever witnessed), and in principles (one of the core tenets of crypto is precisely eliminating discrimination), crypto would be among the most counter productive fields for a racist to spend their time on.
Of course I'm not discounting the fact that humans are often irrational and incoherent, so it seems fair to give the benefit of the doubt to both parties until we have more information.
> it's the most multicultural tech scene I ever witnessed
Coinbase's own (unrefuted) numbers show they are far worse than other tech companies. Where is your conception based off of?
> one of the core tenets of crypto is precisely eliminating discrimination
As this thread as made clear if you go to the bottom of the comments, stated principles and actual beliefs/actions often don't match in tech. Closeted republicans in tech compared to the leaning of corporate action is a great example of that. In some ways, Coinbase said the quiet part out loud with their apolitical stance. When that happened, tons of people flocked to applaud them, both on HN and in the VC industry. All of this perfectly aligns with finding racism within said company, and the tech industry as a whole.
They are (were?) at 3% vs 6% average, on small absolute numbers. Not great but certainly within margin of forgiveness.
My conception is based on the scene as a whole, which is extremely international. Look at the public personalities in crypto vs. the wider VC tech scene. It's possible Coinbase is a pocket of prejudice, but it would be an exception.
> stated principles and actual beliefs/actions often don't match in tech.
I agree, but this isn't just a principle here, the mechanics of crypto themselves prevent racial, gender, socioeconomic bias. You can't say one thing and do the other when the code is open source and is the main UI. That's the difference with things like big-tech's empty "privacy pledges" for instance, here the bad thing is made actually structurally inconvenient.
Racism against Africans can be found internationally, but in this case we are talking specifically African-Americans. Being international does not mean diverse in this specific way, it just means diverse in terms of nationality. For a good example, as the article and many have highlighted, asian representation is not an issue at Coinbase. Racism isn't generalized but specific to races and cultures. A person can be prejudice to just one category or many categories.
> the mechanics of crypto themselves prevent racial, gender, socioeconomic bias
mechanics and community are not one in the same, and crypto is still plenty susceptible to discrimination for any transactions that begin off-network (most all, humans are social creatures). While the mechanics help a small edge case or two, I don't really see any meaningful difference. What's the real material racism that crypto stops that other forms of payment or speculative trading fall victim to?
> What's the real material racism that crypto stops that other forms of payment or speculative trading fall victim to?
Access to financial services like loans for instance. No human or even AI model to judge you based on external factors.
I'm still not sure why that would be the case. FWIW I don't suspect it is either, but I don't see any reason it would be more or less than the tech community at large. In this case, Coinbase is reflective not of the subcateogry but of leadership.
> Access to financial services like loans for instance
https://blockfi.com/apply-for-crypto-loan
> Along with our proven KYC/AML process, we review an applicant’s credit history and other information to assess for risk.
This still has all the normal hurdles for a loan. Just because the asset is on a ledger doesn't remove the human factor. Not to mention that a direct collateral backed loan is already very unlikely to get rejected at a traditional financial institution. I didn't find any actual crypto loan options that weren't collateral backed from a quick search. Am I missing other options?
I don't understanding why you're stopping at the tech industry when it's a problem in every other industry too. I'd go so far as to say it's a problem that permeates every industry in the entire world.
Systemic racism is insidious, for so many reasons, and one of them is that it is not always overt. I believe the aggrieved commenters reacting to SJW boogeymen are not ‘racists’, in the sense that they are not consciously discriminating against people different from themselves. But voicing racism is only the tip of the iceberg! Systemic racism is baked into the system, that’s what makes it systemic!
Some of the important questions we (white // male // straight // what have you, fill in your own) need to ask ourselves are like:
How many Black friends do I have? (Nowhere near as many as White friends. That makes intuitive sense: almost everyone in my building is White, same for my job, most of my friends’ friends are White too... But what choices do I make on a daily basis that reinforce that? What different choices could I make to actually expand the range of people I have a chance to interact with?)
How can we better address inequality? (I have a doctorate and I’ll admit it, I’m a bit of a snob, and I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished. My strong preference is to hire based on merit: I’ve worked with incompetent people, unfortunately; and I would be pissed if I wasn’t rewarded for my own merit. But there’s a lot of backstory that got me here: private schools, SAT prep classes, I wasn’t bullied, my own computer, not having to have a job to support my family, not being sick, my native English language skills, I’m handsome and charming and tall and well educated and know lots of lingo and have shared experiences with most hiring managers I’ve met—all of these things helped me a lot to get to where I am now. Systemic racism comes into the picture because there are real social structures that have prevented Black and other minority communities from having access to these same resources. Just a few off the cuff examples: Jim Crow, urban food deserts, underfunded public schools, shitty computers at the public library. Merit hiring seems to me a lot less fair when I consider friends of mine who don’t have that ‘merit’ because of factors that were determined far out of their control.)
What would it be like for me to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome or unappreciated at my job? (Technical customer calls are always a boys club, and I’m good at banter w Midwestern ag tech b2b customers. But shit, I sure notice when they mispronounce a coworker’s name, or start a call w our group of men and women as ‘well, gentlemen’, or crack a dick pun. And it makes me sad to imagine what it would feel like to be the odd one out.)
Systemic racism isn’t going away, or easy to fix. We all ought to start giving some real thought to the unconscious choices we make that contribute to tech feeling like a blanket unwelcome industry for a whole lot of people. Smart, kind, creative, strong people, passionate people, worthwhile people.
———
Edit to add that there were supposed to be emojis sprinkled throughout there, which made clear when I was joking...so you should assume the best in me throughout ;D
Let's assume that I am 100% certain of all the accusations. How many types of comments do you expect to see about this? Condemn the company, point out systemic racism doesn't just affect Coinbase but everything, offer condolences and sympathy, support efforts to reduce racism. All of these comments exist in the thread.
What if I don't believe all the accusations are true? There are multitudes of reasons why that could be the case, which reflects in the number of possibilities being commented on. By your own contention, racism is a problem in America, so you would expect at least some of the comments to be racist, or at least controversial. You seem to have focused only on the worst ones, ignoring the discussions that followed them, whether positive or negative. You've ignored all the nuanced positions or straw-manned them. You're dismissive of people's comments or concerns while simultaneously asking people to not be dismissive of your concerns. I really don't get it.
* They suggest that Black people are in general SJWs
* They attempt to litigate affirmative action rather than the claims in the article
* They argue that Black employees passed over for promotion were underqualified.
* They dismiss the entire article on the basis of it having appeared in the New York Times.
Take issues with any of these specific complaints if you want, but don't pretend that the comment simply said "there aren't enough anti-Coinbase comments here", because they didn't say that at at all.
I don't think the parent poster was pretending anything the parent-parent poster didn't share.
Again, where was that said? Disbelief is expressed nowhere in the post.
Even if that was the message, what in the world is the reply adding here?
The post is basically:
- points out the poster is emotionally invested in being discriminated against
- "well racism exists in 2020 idk what to tell you"
- You shouldn't expect people have any sort of productive discussion about the article
All of that is then followed by then saying they misrepresented everything. I'm not even directly tied to this in any way, and that made my blood boil a bit. The first line really sets the tone by leading with an apology, yet posting still. It ends in confusion while contributing nothing and basically saying "well the world is shit, expect it" but also trying to argue that all of this isn't shitty at the same time, tacitly adding to the racism. It's just incredibly unempathetic and doesn't really serve a purpose.
And yet, we have people now commenting in detail on the linguistic interpretation of the post to try and eke out some case for the response. What is this even for?
The comments section on HN do not leave me feeling like racism is being given enough consideration within the community.
Like it or not, there's an instinctive urge to deny that there are problems, and make it look like the victim is at fault for complaining. Nobody sits down and actually listens to what they have to say. Really disappointed by the HN community on this - and a bunch of big VCs - Jason Calacanis, Paul Graham, Balaji Srinivasan - who flocked to the defence of Coinbase after the memo pre-empting the story, but then were conveniently silent once the report actually came out.
I think this is a broader silicon valley problem - that oh, our companies are perfect! We can do no wrong. This applies to sexism, racism, any kind of -isms. It might also be illuminating reading to take a look at what HN commenters were saying about for example Susan Fowler's blog post (questioning her credentials, speculating that she was making false allegations) or even the Google protests about Andy Rubin's payout.
Shorter: We can't be racist! All we care about is money.
Why not do something useful instead of just waste minutes and photons?
The majority of the protests were mostly peaceful.
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...
Police brutality is real https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z
This is a question I have struggled with, so I'm curious what your take is, and that of the rest of the community here.
In the platonic ideal, of course, the protesters would be peaceful and affable people. On the other hand, in a platonic ideal, nobody would need to be protesting in the first place.
Similarly, in the platonic ideal, police would be kind and friendly, but of course, then they wouldn't be defending the state from these individuals in the first place.
So, where does that leave us?
tl;dr: Does the situation change if we frame the protestors as "mostly poor, powerless and disenfranchised" and the police as "mostly powerful, backed by the largesse of the state and largely militarized" in this specific time and place?
[edit] In a way, I would argue that the police are entrusted with using violence - in the right time and place - and are rarely held accountable for failing to do so. It's not the police' use of violence people are protesting in general (after all this is the monopoly they have been granted), but rather their lack of accountability for failing to do their jobs in the instances that they do.
What scares me is when wealthy, powerful, and enfranchised people fan the flames. There was a period of a week or so when mobs were going around breaking things, buildings in every major city were being boarded up - and many politicians and news outlets explicitly endorsed the mobs! There was a famous video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1mxJMIIMuE) where an MSNBC reporter said the protests were "not generally speaking unruly" while standing in front of a building burning to the ground.
Because, if you'd read it, it's much more nuanced than you're making it out to be. I felt an exploration might be interesting. You clearly disagree.
> Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it.
Yes, it is. If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period. I doubt even a pacifist monk would disagree.
Where things get more interesting is what if an oppressive system comes at you, and isn't interested in your feedback or reforms?
> The job is in fact risky, which is why the profession is so highly regarded.
Police work doesn't even break the top ten most dangerous careers in the US. Landscaping workers are more likely to die on the job than police officers.[0]
Police work is just not that dangerous.
[0] https://www.workandmoney.com/s/most-dangerous-jobs-29090b32c...
Exactly. Only there is no 'oppressive system', but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon who's about to attack.
> Only there is no 'oppressive system'.
I think this is open to debate, and it's not fair to simply state it as fact given the evidence.
> ... but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon and who's about to attack.
Indeed, but that's also overly simplistic. A violent response is justified but isn't necessarily preferred, and degree matters. Proper training in de-escalation, hand-to-hand combat, safety equipment, non-lethal, less-lethal and eventually if necessary lethal weapons are all available to officers.
How you pick is a systemic question. How much training and what kind is a systemic question. And the results are measurable. Indeed Canada's per capita police shooting rate is 1/10th that of the US -- and Canada's pretty high as far as rich countries go! New Zealand police killed 2 or 3 people since 2015.
It's overwhelmingly not a kill-or-be-killed situation, and further, the job of an officer is not to eliminate 100% of harm potential for themselves at all costs -- but instead to resolve the situation with the optimal outcome for all involved. The job is in fact risky, which is why the profession is so highly regarded.
I maintain the issue is one of accountability, between police not being held accountable for gross negligence, the unequivocal support from the police unions and of course, qualified immunity. I suspect people just want to feel like they're being treated fairly. If you don't hold anyone accountable it creates a negative feedback loop breaking trust and making the job more dangerous for everyone.
Figure I’ll add a story about being black and driving a nice car. One day I had a flat tire and pulled into a gas station after hours to change the tire. I didn’t have a lug wrench and the kid working in the store didn’t have one either. So I called triple A. With an obvious , and I mean my rim was sitting on the ground, flat tire. Mr big bad cop comes up and questions me about why I’m here. I explain the AAA situation. He asks for my license, I ask why, because there were robberies here and I’m a suspect because I’m parked here. I make a dramatic turn to the flat tire on my car. And ask him where I’m going to drive off to. He puts his hand on his holster and asks if there is a problem.
This is what happens more often than we realize and is the reason why my cars are no longer registered to me from a personal capacity, and why I have a dark tint on my windows. But more importantly it’s why people of color have an unfounded anxiety from simply driving a car. It’s a sad state of affairs but I am blessed that I can look back and laugh at the absurdity of the situation.
After he took my license guess who showed up? He quickly got out of his cruiser, walked over, gave me my license and peeled out. I said “you’re not even going to say good bye?” as he was waking away. The AAA driver, also a white man, had some choice words for the police and we bonded on that during the ride back to my house.
In my case, my car is registered to a business. No one knows who is actually driving and it makes fishing for drivers much harder from the police perspective. Combine with a dark tint and you have some sense of privacy (even if it’s a false sense of security because cops can pull you over for something they thought happened)
I have stopping thinking of it as driving as a black man, but driving as someone who wants privacy (when I tinted my wife’s car first I felt like a celebrity because no one could tell who was in the car nor who I was :D )
The majority of police are mostly peaceful.
Violence at BLM protests is real."
See how we can continue talking past each other?
And it's not "my one black friend was a victim of racism this one time." It's just generally harder to get a job. It's just generally harder to get promoted. It's just generally harder to be taken seriously relative to your white peers.
And that's why these responses from Coinbase are unsatisfying. Every company and every hiring process has elements of racism in it. We haven't escaped the biases that permeate our culture. There are companies that are aware of these biases and work hard to minimize their impact, and there are companies that stick their heads in the sand and say 'nope, no racism here! Find me actual proof!'.
There's probably a whole lot of shit like this that we just don't know, as a group, about.
Then why would a white man ever feel threatened by an angry black man expressing his opinion?
And anyways, what white person in 2020 complains to HR about an angry black man? And if they do, who listens? Get real.
A white man might be threatened by a black man expressing their opinion for two reasons. First, the audacity of someone "inferior" daring to express their opinion assertively. That could be seen as threatening. Secondly (and probably more likely) the social conditioning that black people, but especially men, acting with anger are naturally dangerous. That is, someone may feel vastly more physically intimidated by a black man expressing the same opinion, with the same words, at the same volume level than a white woman.
Would a person complain to HR about that? Absolutely. Would HR respond? Depends on the company and the people.
I've attended my share of diversity trainings but none of them taught me this. Maybe you just had shitty trainers?
As a personal example, I have immigrated into US from the country with almost no black population, so I'd say that "several centuries of deeply ingrained racism" do not apply to me.
Within the first year of arriving into US, I've had been verbally attacked while I was riding the bus and reading the book. A bunch of teenagers started to say things like "he looks too smart" and "let's take his book away". For a high-schooler who had no exposure to violence before this was pretty scary. Since then, I tried hard to avoid riding the busses through that area. Can you guess which race were those teenagers?
(Note that I have arrived with some pretty weird believes, like the one that everyone with shaved head is a gang member and had to be avoided. That one did not last very long, because there was one person with shaved head in my math class and he was pretty great. Unfortunately, there were no similar experience to persuade me that I should not avoid groups of black people.)
Do you come on Hackernews every 2 years to write racist things? Your last comment is from 2018 and has the same white supremacist talking point.
I have had little exposure to black people in my life. The few that I have encountered in school or professionally have not demonstrated any aggressive nature. I have no first-hand experience of aggression by any black man. My parents did not teach me that black men are aggressive. I did not learn this in school or from my friends. The only way I can think of that I might have gotten this impression is from movies, television, music, and media. These are the same people who are now professing and demonstrating how woke and concerned they are, rather than apologizing for their roles as the primary perpetuators of a stereotype.
Therefore when I see media or entertainment figures (I include politicians here) on the anti-racist soapbox, it all falls rather flat for me. They are the ones fanning the flames on one side, and demanding attonement from everybody else on the other side.
Obviously, my neighbor should not be called on to answer whatever sins you think the culture has incurred.
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/r...
for more information.
If it’s hard to believe because you haven’t lived it, then is listening to the multitudes of people also not enough?
Edit: so apparently the blacks I know, and who would agree with a lot of the comments here, don't exist...
I’m sure racism exists but that type of overt racism that this article suggests, in the middle of SF especially in tech, is hard to believe.
So I take the accounts of some sort of systemic racism within Coinbase with a lot of skepticism. Especially the account of the support people who were forced to move to Portland. It sounds like all except one person was forced to move to Portland and both white and black people were asked. There’s a lot missing in that accusation which makes me think they are twisting things out of proportion.
I would love a more detailed account or talking with others. Could there be racists working in Coinbase? Sure. But this article doesn’t cover enough for me to not be skeptical without getting both sides of the story.
Many of the comments question whether the accusations are even true or collusive attack because of an unfounded accusation that black people tend to be SJWs (stereotyping). Others blame affirmative-action, bad schools, etc. (classic misdirection). Some even venture into the possibility that a black person complaining about being passed over for promotion might just not be good enough for the job and then just blame discrimination rather than facing the truth (pure gaslighting). Others just go on to attack the New York Times (attacking the messenger). I am waiting for the data science guru to synthesize statistics about how everything is just fine!
I am not going to pretend to be the arbiter of truth here, but can we just take a moment to imagine the possibility that racism (specifically against black Americans) is a problem in America in 2020? Is it such a stretch of the imagination? I mean if we can unquestioningly believe that cryptocurrency is viable currency, we can certainly give the benefit of the doubt to the black workers who have abandoned the company.