The grandparent might be specifically talking about the sound clips from the article. They don't sound melodic, let alone musical (at least to my human ears).
134 karma · joined November 8, 2015
Quora lets you sign up using a Google account. Normally, this means you won't need to create a new password. However, Quora immediately asks you to provide one.
With that in mind, what's the point of linking your Google account? Well, according to this recent thread, Quora tries to access your contacts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/3ax27p/tried_to_re...
So, I read the their code of conduct, and nothing struck me as wrong (well, aside from that link back to the Contributor Covenant homepage, which is wrong, breathlessly hyperbolic, and politically charged).
Then I had a couple of realizations:
1. A sign on all public trash cans and dumpsters saying "MOTHERS, DO NOT THROW AWAY YOUR BABIES. YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED" would be correct, but it would be insulting because it implies the sign is necessary.
2. The existence of the code of conduct could be a dog-whistle. It could signal to the Caroline Adas of the world "We'll do whatever you want." Or even "Pease, please, please leave us alone. We'll do whatever you want". Both would be bad.
It should be very easy to understand why people are upset about this.
> Do people think that the quote, "...it is very hard to even interview people who are 'white'..." is about the difficulty this person finds in sitting in a room across from a white person, chatting with him? I understood it to be a perception on this person's part that the efforts to increase diversity have created a condition where such a significant portion of their new hires need to be non-white or non-white-male that it's difficult to get on the interview schedule if you are. And my speculation is that this was an expression due to personal experience - perhaps this person tried to refer a friend and felt he was getting nowhere.
I believe most people here are correctly assuming the second interpretation. And both interpretations are indicative of a terribly toxic culture.
> THEY ARE BULLET POINTS PEOPLE...
Yes.
If there existed a slide half as hostile toward blacks as this slide is toward whites, would you not use the opportunity to sternly lecture us?
'Cause I've seen frenzies occur with out-of-context words before. And those were were far milder. And taken much further our of context.
Each time, the tech press produced weeks of articles lecturing us that the words alone are irreparably hurtful and damaging.
> - "This is not work for white folks to lead"
> --- We're all familiar with congressional committees composed of a group of old white men discussing the legal policy issues related to healthcare access for women. It's a sorry sight. Let's put it up there front and center, that has not and will not constitute and acceptable effort, so it can't happen in this case. Does this mean that white people can't be a party to diversity efforts? no. but really, what's a bigger risk/likelihood, no white people/men on a committee or all white people/men on a committee? yeah.
"This is extremely important work—that's why we have a department at our company devoted to it. We are constantly trying to expand this breadth and scope of this work, hence this presentation at your company.
"We want more talks and more exposure. We need more paid positions at more companies. And in this expanding sector, if you are white, you are not welcome to lead. You must help us, but in doing so, you must subordinate to us. And we'll feign shock if you suddenly seem uneasy or defensive."
> - "This is not about socio-economic class, mostly."
> --- I'm guessing this has something to do with the culture of distorted libertarian ideals held by many in the tech space, and how easy it is to discount racial bias and claim racial indifference while laying the blame for lack of diversity on childhood access to tech and the statistical differences in access based on purely socio-economic demographics. So this is a point to avoid the argument that diversity isn't a tech problem, and that if society fixed schools and whatnot, tech would naturally become more diverse.
"I don't care that poor white people don't have access to technology. I don't care that they are left out, too. I don't care that our policies would specifically hurt them further. This isn't about helping poor whites."
> - "Why we refer our friends and family (or don't) are where a lot of the answers can be found."
> --- If you're a white employee and all your friends are white and you work for a company that is highly dependent on employee network referrals for hiring, you're going to just get more white people. --- "Even my conditioning has been conditioned" ... https://a.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm1glnnHKg1qbce9oo1.mp3 American (global) society is centuries deep in conditioning to value white people more highly than others, irrespective of the opinion-holder's racial identity.
“It’s morally wrong to prefer one ethnicity over another. That’s why we specifically exclude whites from leadership. It’s morally wrong to believe the voices of one ethnicity are more trustworthy. That’s why we explicitly disregard everything whites say on account of white privilege.
> - "we need solidarity with our Asian friends and colleagues"
--- Asians are a minority. Asians have a singularly unique experience in tech-employment (although that's probably specific to Asian males). Let's not get bogged down in intra-minority finger-pointing. I suspect there are plenty of tech companies that point to their Asian-identifying employees when confronted (at least internally) with diversity questions, which probably doesn't satisfy non-Asian minorities.
"Whites are slightly overrepresented in tech. We consider this to be an enormous problem. Asians are far, far more overrepresented in tech, but don't you dare be diverted by that. Our enemy is white people, not the overrepresentation of an ethnicity."
http://modula-2.info/m2r10/pmwiki.php/Examples/ObjectOriente...
It's unclear whether "breaking the law" includes speeding.
It's also unclear whether (former) prisoners must avoid breaking the law until their proper release date, or whether they must avoid breaking the law until the state discovers its mistake.
If it's the latter, it would be in the interest of an incorrectly released prisoner to inform the state of its mistake the morning after their proper release date. Of course, in this particular situation, the prisoners likely had no idea they were incorrectly released.