People who are assholes tend to be extra-assholey to out-groups (which often is minorities). If members of minority groups don't want to work somewhere it usually means that the people who work there are assholes.
Your effortless translation of "90% white" to "assholes" is a bit of a tell. For instance, you're white, and used to thinking this kind of trashing a group of people is ok because of your socially dominant position. Because these whites resemble you physically right? But of course you mean the bad whites; you're one of the good whites!
It isn't ok, and let me remind you, you have no basis whatsoever to believe that teams which are 90% white are made up of assholes. It's something you made up and it's racially obnoxious behavior which you should stop immediately.
Since racial heterogeneity is a more easily observable situation than, say, diversity of opinion, it's a healthy sign of a tolerant culture. That doesn't mean that a workplace lacking racial heterogeneity is bad. It simply lacks the canary. (If I'm interpreting GP properly.)
Do you mean, like, ethnic crime gangs? Those come in white flavors too.
You, and GP, are just making stuff up that confirms your prejudices. You have no evidence of what you're saying whatsoever! All you're doing is stringing sentences together. What if I find one team of ten whites who are great to work with (say you're, I dunno Tongan?) and a team with every Benneton stripe who suck?
The kind of thinking you two are promoting here just throws that information right out the window, in favor of, what? Bad heuristics?
What should we call that? Stereotyping, right?
This is people's livelihood you're messing with here.
Note the "I think the point was," and also the "If I'm interpreting GP properly."
Let me make it clearer for you:
"If the canary is alive, there's oxygen."
That was the GP argument. It's not the same logical proposition as,
"If there's no canary, there's no oxygen."
Please drop the flagrant language. You're way off base.
I, too, interpreted your original comment as "agreeing with" the original poster.
Your line about "If I'm interpreting GP properly." Came at the very end - after I (incorrectly) assumed you were aligned with GP
My conclusion is that this format isn't very good at difficult conversations
I can agree with that.
In this thread I think almost all of the non-fact-based commentary came from Sam, lol. I guess he feels strongly about the topic, but I think bawolff's argument isn't so easily disposable as Sam asserts. And telling someone that their experience is not valid is kind of strange on the internet because there's no easy way to know what bawolff's set of work experiences includes.
It's, wait for it, just like the realization that you can't know "black people", only some finite number of them.
You're showing motivated reasoning, because you're smart enough to follow that argument and chose not to. Not my problem, I'll never see your name on this site again.
You're not following my argument and you're expecting me to defend a straw man that you're trying to project onto me.
Regarding the latter, I feel that people in tech or finance who design their work personality to carry a sociopolitical banner are allocating brainpower away from the core business. At the very least, that can be annoying to colleagues who have to pick up the slack.
But to be circumspect about ethics in general...it's nice to work with good people, and good people often find it difficult to divorce their ethics from their actions because the alignment between the two things is part of what makes them good.
In a democracy, women (the majority) are the definition of power. In addition, they’re a big majority of college graduates and have more earning power/potential than men (on average) before they choose to have kids.
Is it to explain away shortcomings? Seek reparations? The feeling of being part of a group? Or simply attention seeking?
Referring to marginalized groups is recognizing the very clear fact that certain groups of people have been historically, and still are, treated less well than those considered the "default" in-group due to aspects of themselves that are outside of their control.
The purpose is to become mindful of the biases that has introduced to our society, both conscious and subconscious, and do our best to consciously take those into account to counteract them.
...So let me ask you: What explains this obsession with engaging in mental gymnastics just to avoid calling people "marginalized"?
Is it to avoid having to change the way one thinks? Hold onto a perceived position of high status? The feeling of being part of a superior group? Or simply attention seeking?
Because I feel no need to bring nonsense labels and politics into an environment that should be a straight up meritocracy.
This is more often than not just an excuse for someone to prove “what a great guy” he is. Nothing more.
There is almost no value to the discussion except for self satisfaction gained by the “white knights”/“white saviors”.
I expect people to go to work to work, not to try to gain cool points for being so woke.
I have direct reports that are culturally, racially, blah blah blah very different from me. That comes up in our organization exactly never because it doesn’t matter. We hire people that demonstrate they will be successful and fire people that aren’t.
Expect special treatment because of some real or imagined injustice in the past? Please go somewhere else that is happy to make virtual signaling part of their PR strategy.
As a result, calling someone “racist” has pretty much lost all meaning.
It's just not a given that reducing out-groups makes a company culture better. It can make it worse to include those groups sometimes. It's just hard to know before.
But it's morally right to not exclude people so I'm of course supporting that. Just saying it may not be a sign of a good culture even though we may think it is.
I've been working professionally for decades and I don't think I've seen this 'template' at all.
And to be honest I'm wondering if this is a case of the 'same behavior is perceived as ruder in women than in men' effect.
It has gotten to the point that we now have "strong wimen" insulting men everywhere but if the tables are turned, men cannot be rude to wimen because that's completely unacceptable.
I'm a white cisgendered able-bodied conservative male and I think you're probably an unhappy person..
You are likely sexist with prejudice about normative gender roles.
Would you call a man doing the same thing a 'strong man?' Or are you referring to the southpark version of strong woman?