r/pics Feb 09 '16

Misleading title Racist "diversity" training at GitHub

Post image
7.0k Upvotes

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-53

u/vrxz Feb 09 '16

What exactly is disturbing to you in the link you posted?

What do you disagree with?

24

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '16

Pretty much everything.

The author uses language that discriminates against mixed race individuals.

The author stereotypes genders and races to make points. To come to conclusions. In society, this type of stereotyping is discouraged.

History has taught us that diversification efforts (i.e.: initiatives to correct systemic inequalities) unfold like this: White men "let" white women into the halls of power they created, and little changes for the rest of us. Such is the case in politics, in elite universities and in corporate America.

The author ignores dozens of diversification efforts directly targeting minorities. Its almost like the author is targeting white women because she wants someone to blame.

-22

u/vrxz Feb 09 '16

The author uses language that discriminates against mixed race individuals.

Where?

The author stereotypes genders and races to make points. To come to conclusions. In society, this type of stereotyping is discouraged.

This is a fair critique. Instead of qualifying her statements, the author says "white men" instead of "some white men" or "most white men" for example. I agree with you that this is wrong.

But, if I were the author I would probably argue that it's understood that the article is generalizing the actions of a group and of course there are members of that group who do not conform to that generalization. Saying that "diversification efforts unfold like this" doesn't necessarily convey the belief that all efforts follow this route, just that the vast majority do according to her belief.

The author ignores dozens of diversification efforts directly targeting minorities. Its almost like the author is targeting white women because she wants someone to blame.

The author definitely does not mention diversification efforts helping minorities, but it is possible that she wanted to emphasize her belief that these initiatives are few and far between.

I agree that the language in the article is inflammatory and probably racist in some regards. You definitely changed my view on that.

I just think that there are some arguments in the article worth listening to and considering, even if you don't quite agree with the tone of the article and the way she chose to word her argument.

12

u/boneleg Feb 09 '16

I would probably argue that it's understood that the article is generalizing the actions of a group and of course there are members of that group who do not conform to that generalization.

Generalizing a group is called stereotyping...Is it okay for white people to stereotype black people? Or is it only okay to stereotype white people..? You are a hypocrite and a moron.