Head of Design at Dropbox descriminates in her hiring based on skin color(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Head of Design at Dropbox descriminates in her hiring based on skin color
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1524080238333898752
68 comments
This is probably going to open a can of worms I don't really care to deal with, but to be fair Friedl is an obviously Jewish name.
Jewish people very often do not consider themselves White -- so from her perspective, she is almost certainly not included in the 'less White people' statement.
Jewish people very often do not consider themselves White -- so from her perspective, she is almost certainly not included in the 'less White people' statement.
I've found people like this tend to think of others as Pokemon to collect and not to have real relationships with.
They're desperate to brag to their friends about the rare ethnicities on their friends list
They're desperate to brag to their friends about the rare ethnicities on their friends list
Exactly. What actually makes it more difficult for "BIPOC" and other acronym people is the trivialization they get subjected to by acronymizing their identity and grouping it in a "catchy" word by mainly white people who want to grab the lowest hanging fruit to make sure everyone knows that they're "not those other bad white people".
[deleted]
What if you're not wanting less white people in your life because they are white, but because white people in general are more likely to be Republicans?
Race is a protected class but currently it's not illegal to discriminate against political opinions and 'race' is a proxy for those.
> DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
If it's a good enough excuse for Texas republicans to prevent minorities voting, then surely it's a good enough excuse to want to exclude white people from your life?
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-court...
Race is a protected class but currently it's not illegal to discriminate against political opinions and 'race' is a proxy for those.
> DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
If it's a good enough excuse for Texas republicans to prevent minorities voting, then surely it's a good enough excuse to want to exclude white people from your life?
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-court...
> 'race' is a proxy for those "political thoughts"
That's such a weird thing to say or think. Makes me cringe.
That's such a weird thing to say or think. Makes me cringe.
Note that in California, political affiliation is a protected class.
username checks out?
Using race as a proxy to avoid those with political perspectives one disagrees with is even more asinine and asocial than simple racism, in my opinion.
It’s an ultimate version of make-assumptions-about-individuals-based-on-external-signals.
It’s an ultimate version of make-assumptions-about-individuals-based-on-external-signals.
What if you're not wanting less black people in your life because they are black, but because black people in general are more likely to be Democrats?
[deleted]
Saying you don't want white people because they are most likely Republicans is like saying you don't want black people because they will steal.
It's a racist stereotype that has no place in this world.
The truth is the majority of Trump supporters are not white men.
It's a racist stereotype that has no place in this world.
The truth is the majority of Trump supporters are not white men.
At which point in time did we normalize saying "I hate/don't want to be near white people"? It's blatantly racist.
Why are not these people kicked out from the platforms? Why aren't corporates rightfully censoring them?
Who do you think staffs those companies?
It's profitable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bRhMLhc8wQ
[deleted]
No financial incentive to do so. Nobody is organizing to boycott over bigotry towards majority groups, and news media won't cover it. There's very little upside for corporations to censor them. On the flip side bigotry towards minority groups will get tons of media coverage and potentially some significant boycotts if they do nothing about it.
Because wokeness in tech is super high and they actually applaud all this in the name of DEI.
When we stood and watched BLM burn cities to the ground, murder innocent bystanders, and loot as a form of reparations and called it peaceful protests.
Are you posting this with a straight face? Won't someone think of the poor shop windows that got defaced :(
Seems like wayyyy too many people on this thread are confusing "racism" and "prejudice." https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
You can't just redefine words and assume everyone is going to accept you new definition.
Especially when it is this self serving.
Especially when it is this self serving.
Do a little research before attempting to flame someone. I'm not redefining anything.
Trotsky's definition is the original one. The idea of "racism" comes from Marx's idea of class struggle and we should stop using the word.
More like people in this thread haven't bought into the totally fictional ontology that progressives made up in the last few years.
This is an issue I take a lot of personal offense with.
I have met more than a few people who unironically think saying things like "White people are so stupid" or "I hate white people" is fine, but saying something like "Black people like fried chicken" is a harmful and racist stereotype which is unacceptable. Their reasoning is that it is impossible to be racist to the majority. That doesn't even make sense, but I've found it is impossible to convince this kind of person otherwise. Instead, I tell them their comments are personally offensive to me and they are hurting my feelings. I've yet to hear a single one apologize.
So I've made it a personal goal to purge these racists from my social circles, and to steer clear of people with this attitude.
I have met more than a few people who unironically think saying things like "White people are so stupid" or "I hate white people" is fine, but saying something like "Black people like fried chicken" is a harmful and racist stereotype which is unacceptable. Their reasoning is that it is impossible to be racist to the majority. That doesn't even make sense, but I've found it is impossible to convince this kind of person otherwise. Instead, I tell them their comments are personally offensive to me and they are hurting my feelings. I've yet to hear a single one apologize.
So I've made it a personal goal to purge these racists from my social circles, and to steer clear of people with this attitude.
Being racist against white people isn't a "thing" because they're the predominant group. You mean prejudice.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
TL;DR: there are different kinds of racism, you are talking about systemic racism.
TL;DR: there are different kinds of racism, you are talking about systemic racism.
Don't know why I'm being downvoted...Look at yourself more critically, folks. You can not be racist against a majority group. Full stop. Experiencing situational prejudice is something white people can and do encounter - but racism is systematic, its codified. It has generational impact. If a Black barista spits in your latte "because you're white" - that's prejudice. If you can't get a loan because of your skin color, that's racism. It's sad I have to point this out to a bunch of "smart" people.
[deleted]
I understand the importance of diversity, inclusivity and equal-opportunities etc.. But this looks quite bad on her part. Some of her comments are in fact racist. BTW, I'm a brown guy!
>I understand the importance of diversity, inclusivity and equal-opportunities etc.
'Hail to the king / our glorious leader / the church / - with that out of the way, ...'
'Hail to the king / our glorious leader / the church / - with that out of the way, ...'
All polemic aside — isn't there a value in making a nuanced statement? Let's for example take people who can be in principle against weapons deliveries into conflicted regions, but realize in some cases delivering weapons is the better option. They are non-dogmatic on this opinion, because to them the outcome counts more how the gesture makes them look.
Similarily you have people who realize diversity, inclusivity and equal opportunity are good goals, but there is certain actors whose way of trying (or pretending?) to get there just are not good and sometimes downright destructive of the very goals that they claimed should be reached.
But as much as things like diversity and inclusivity might seem like a fashion, for some people they are part of a world that they rather live in. So they are not just mere symbolic tokes or boxes to be ticked that make you look good to your peers, but part of an urge to leave this world in an better condition than we entered it in — and how we treat each other is a part of that, but by far not the only one.
Similarily you have people who realize diversity, inclusivity and equal opportunity are good goals, but there is certain actors whose way of trying (or pretending?) to get there just are not good and sometimes downright destructive of the very goals that they claimed should be reached.
But as much as things like diversity and inclusivity might seem like a fashion, for some people they are part of a world that they rather live in. So they are not just mere symbolic tokes or boxes to be ticked that make you look good to your peers, but part of an urge to leave this world in an better condition than we entered it in — and how we treat each other is a part of that, but by far not the only one.
Those things aren’t necessary when good-faith communication can be assumed. This is an Internet forum, so good-faith communication cannot be assumed.
RIGBY...
So why don't these people quit their jobs and open up those positions for minorities?
That's what Alex ohanian did at Reddit. Stepped down on the condition it be a minority candidate taking his place. This is after he replaced two Asian fall-people though, Ellen pao and yishan Wong. Arguably fed Ellen to the wolves.
Why arguably?
He did X, community thought she did X, started hate campaigns against her (remember r/Pyongyang?), got her fired.
Then months later we found out she had noting do with X.
He did X, community thought she did X, started hate campaigns against her (remember r/Pyongyang?), got her fired.
Then months later we found out she had noting do with X.
https://nitter.net/libsoftiktok/status/1524080238333898752#m
In case people don’t use/hate the twitter client.
In case people don’t use/hate the twitter client.
[deleted]
>More white dudes interviewing white dudes. Yayyyyyy.
I'm not sure I get the implication of this tweet. Are white men not supposed to be able to get jobs, or be in a position to hire people?
I'm not sure I get the implication of this tweet. Are white men not supposed to be able to get jobs, or be in a position to hire people?
I am just glad that in the HFT world we are not jumping on to this woke bandwagon like the tech folk.
Haven't read all the comments yet but I guess it will be 95% missing the difference between personal/private life discrimination (which is a right, anyone is entitled to decide whoever she/he wants to hang out with), and discrimination at the workplace (which should be actively fought against, and using quotas seems to be the only way for the moment).
I think that Dropbox is right to do so, as soon as it identifies that a given ethnicity is overrepresented and does not reflect its target audience.
I think that Dropbox is right to do so, as soon as it identifies that a given ethnicity is overrepresented and does not reflect its target audience.
Racism is for everyone.
'divide et impera'
The moment a universal idea is replaced by particularism, she is dead.
In-group/out-group
It's just a question of who gets the roles of ruler, ruled and scapegoat.
'divide et impera'
The moment a universal idea is replaced by particularism, she is dead.
In-group/out-group
It's just a question of who gets the roles of ruler, ruled and scapegoat.
The Dropbox employee, @jazzy33ca, has set post visibility to followers only.
> Therefore, I choose to prioritize folks in our BIPOC and URM communities.
Americans have an obsession with race (more broadly, identity) that I think borders on unhealthy. As far as I can understand, at the most general level, the reason for the obsession is to address historical or current hardship due to factors outside one's control. This obsession is everywhere: in school admissions (high school and college especially), in social conversations, in framing unjust law enforcement practices, in employment, and so on.
What makes me uncomfortable is just how much appearance plays into assumptions about an individual, because even when it comes with good intentions, it just seems so... shallow. Why aren't there more questions related to the aspects of one's life to determine what kind of hardship/discrimination one has endured? Why must it solely focus which appearance/race/recognized group you don? Where are the questions to describe in detail unjust financial hardship, personal discrimination, or unfairly limited opportunities? Why claim a person adds diversity before you even know how adding such person (without making superficial assumptions) will add to diversity, equity, or inclusivity? For example, does this black candidate have major setbacks as a result of ancestral slavery that we should take into consideration for equity purposes, or is this black candidate a well-educated wealthy recent immigrant who grew up in a nation's upper class who currently doesn't feel discriminated against? There's no way to find out without the candidate voluntarily offering this information. Institutions love to use outward appearance as a proxy for what it purports to improve. And even if they didn't, given how badly managed and flooded recruitment currently is, I can't imagine that there is enough capacity for recruiters/computers to sufficiently handle the answers to such personal ambiguous questions.
In 2009, Chicago Public Schools in its high school Selective Enrollment plan moved toward awarding more points to people who live in low-income neighborhoods. While this is nowhere near perfect and is susceptible to gaming, surely this must be a better system than the one that asks for your race in a drop-down select or a list of tickboxes?
Lastly, without getting into too much detail, I know how easy it is to take advantage of these systems. Since no one can verify your cultural identity, and no one verifies your family/individual income, it's extremely trivial to put yourself at the front of a digital priority queue by claiming that you are such-and-such identity, and if necessary, with such-and-such socioeconomic hardship. You can also be mixed-race.
I'm fine with the game that Americans love, but can't we do something so that it isn't so easy to game, or base it off better and more varied heuristics?
> Therefore, I choose to prioritize folks in our BIPOC and URM communities.
Americans have an obsession with race (more broadly, identity) that I think borders on unhealthy. As far as I can understand, at the most general level, the reason for the obsession is to address historical or current hardship due to factors outside one's control. This obsession is everywhere: in school admissions (high school and college especially), in social conversations, in framing unjust law enforcement practices, in employment, and so on.
What makes me uncomfortable is just how much appearance plays into assumptions about an individual, because even when it comes with good intentions, it just seems so... shallow. Why aren't there more questions related to the aspects of one's life to determine what kind of hardship/discrimination one has endured? Why must it solely focus which appearance/race/recognized group you don? Where are the questions to describe in detail unjust financial hardship, personal discrimination, or unfairly limited opportunities? Why claim a person adds diversity before you even know how adding such person (without making superficial assumptions) will add to diversity, equity, or inclusivity? For example, does this black candidate have major setbacks as a result of ancestral slavery that we should take into consideration for equity purposes, or is this black candidate a well-educated wealthy recent immigrant who grew up in a nation's upper class who currently doesn't feel discriminated against? There's no way to find out without the candidate voluntarily offering this information. Institutions love to use outward appearance as a proxy for what it purports to improve. And even if they didn't, given how badly managed and flooded recruitment currently is, I can't imagine that there is enough capacity for recruiters/computers to sufficiently handle the answers to such personal ambiguous questions.
In 2009, Chicago Public Schools in its high school Selective Enrollment plan moved toward awarding more points to people who live in low-income neighborhoods. While this is nowhere near perfect and is susceptible to gaming, surely this must be a better system than the one that asks for your race in a drop-down select or a list of tickboxes?
Lastly, without getting into too much detail, I know how easy it is to take advantage of these systems. Since no one can verify your cultural identity, and no one verifies your family/individual income, it's extremely trivial to put yourself at the front of a digital priority queue by claiming that you are such-and-such identity, and if necessary, with such-and-such socioeconomic hardship. You can also be mixed-race.
I'm fine with the game that Americans love, but can't we do something so that it isn't so easy to game, or base it off better and more varied heuristics?
Is attacking libs from the left a good long term political strategy for the right?
In electoral politics I believe some Republican research suggested they could get a higher vote differential by discouraging people from voting for Obama by portraying him as too corporate and centrist than by attacking him for being too communist or whatever.
Which makes sense when voting is not fully representative and can be gamed with single issues.
But it feels like a strategic error in the wider court of public opinion.
Yes there might be a small hardcore that truly think renewables are bad for the planet or libs are bad for equality, but surely those ideas of equality and environmentalism, which are already out there and winning are only going to be made stronger?
In electoral politics I believe some Republican research suggested they could get a higher vote differential by discouraging people from voting for Obama by portraying him as too corporate and centrist than by attacking him for being too communist or whatever.
Which makes sense when voting is not fully representative and can be gamed with single issues.
But it feels like a strategic error in the wider court of public opinion.
Yes there might be a small hardcore that truly think renewables are bad for the planet or libs are bad for equality, but surely those ideas of equality and environmentalism, which are already out there and winning are only going to be made stronger?
The trouble with attacking your opponents from the other side is that now you're on the other side of them instead of the side you wanted to be on.
But this strategic analysis shouldn’t get in the way of principles, unless you think “don’t be racist” isn’t a principle of all mainstream political perspectives.
It's a TikTok outrage account. They're not exactly playing 10D political chess, nor are they associated in any official way with the Republican party.
It's sort of irrelevant if they're official. Look at all the pitchforks, then sort them by who's holding them.
At this point in America's politics, it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official
At this point in America's politics, it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official
You say "It's sort of irrelevant if they're official" then you say "it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official", which kind of comes of as you're saying: they are official, so it's not that they are irrelevant, it's just that you're not buying it. Or maybe you're just not explaining yourself clearly: Which is it? Is it relevant or is it not?
If your first statement is what you meant (It's sort of irrelevant if they're official), what's your evidence? What/where are the pitchforks? Do you think people who are advocating one side or the other are not convinced with what they're advocating?
If it's your second statement (it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official), I ask again, what's your evidence? What is it about "this point" in America's politics that makes it clear as you're saying that attacks are always official?
If your first statement is what you meant (It's sort of irrelevant if they're official), what's your evidence? What/where are the pitchforks? Do you think people who are advocating one side or the other are not convinced with what they're advocating?
If it's your second statement (it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official), I ask again, what's your evidence? What is it about "this point" in America's politics that makes it clear as you're saying that attacks are always official?
I read through this guy JohnHaugeland's history for a page or two to try and figure out if it's a troll account or not. It's not a troll account, just your average HN poster. Absurdly arrogant, with a tendency to go from single-line, fairly innocuous comments to full-blown ranting essays attacking people. I'd forget about engaging him anymore.
The sad part is that if we met in real life, I think we might agree on a few things.
The sad part is that if we met in real life, I think we might agree on a few things.
The posted account, @libsoftiktok, is not officially endorsed by the Republican party. I don't really know what you mean.
It's weird that you responded to "being official isn't relevant" by talking more about officialness
>It's sort of irrelevant if they're official
>It's time to stop pretending they are not official
I literally didn't understand your previous comment, because it makes no sense. If you could clarify that would be great, otherwise I'm not going to keep responding.
>It's time to stop pretending they are not official
I literally didn't understand your previous comment, because it makes no sense. If you could clarify that would be great, otherwise I'm not going to keep responding.
It actually does make sense. It's also quite simple.
Here, I'll repeat myself.
1) It doesn't matter if they're official
2) Please don't waste time pretending they aren't official, because that doesn't matter
Here, I'll repeat myself.
1) It doesn't matter if they're official
2) Please don't waste time pretending they aren't official, because that doesn't matter
Ok, now that you've re-worded your comment entirely, I get what you were trying to say. I still don't get how anyone could say that. Understanding who said what is very important and official positions do matter. I would consider myself conservative, but I am not a registered Republican, so they don't represent me. There's lots of Qanon people inside the GOP, but there's also people not associated with Qanon in the GOP, because that's not their official position.
Do you also think the NAACP speaks for every African American full stop? Or that every local Antifa chapter gets to decide what the movement means?
EDIT: To summarize and get back on topic, @libsoftiktok is a sub movement within new conservatism. By the definition of sub-movement, they do not represent all conservative opinions. And they are not part of some "larger strategy" to attack liberals, or at least, there is no evidence that is true.
Do you also think the NAACP speaks for every African American full stop? Or that every local Antifa chapter gets to decide what the movement means?
EDIT: To summarize and get back on topic, @libsoftiktok is a sub movement within new conservatism. By the definition of sub-movement, they do not represent all conservative opinions. And they are not part of some "larger strategy" to attack liberals, or at least, there is no evidence that is true.
It's hard to respond to you when you ask if I hold grotesque views, while saying things like "what you were trying to say"
If you're able to hold a more polite conversation, let me know
I see that you continue to tub thump exactly the irrelevant thing. Maybe you think repetition makes it matter more?
If you're able to hold a more polite conversation, let me know
I see that you continue to tub thump exactly the irrelevant thing. Maybe you think repetition makes it matter more?
I've given you way more politeness than you deserve, it seems like you're incapable of reading what you yourself wrote. Get bent.
It isn't discrimination to actively search out minority hires and to encourage and help them apply to an open interview process. This is called positive action.
The actual selection process cannot discriminate.
There's obviously a lot of Twitter comments to take in and out of context, but just because you put some [rightly] questionable comments next to positive action doesn't mean discriminatory hiring processes.
The actual selection process cannot discriminate.
There's obviously a lot of Twitter comments to take in and out of context, but just because you put some [rightly] questionable comments next to positive action doesn't mean discriminatory hiring processes.
> It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
> For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
> For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
But that's demonstrably not the case here. Their job adverts make no mention of that stuff (other than to point out that they're equal opportunity).
This is a hiring manager offering to help people apply. You can be as pro-whateveryoulike as you want to be at that stage.
This is a hiring manager offering to help people apply. You can be as pro-whateveryoulike as you want to be at that stage.
It is very much the case.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists.
Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. The fact that she blocked access to her social media tells me that she has lots to hide.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists.
Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. The fact that she blocked access to her social media tells me that she has lots to hide.
Circumstantial evidence of what? She explicitly said:
> When I offer to prioritize BIPOC conversations, I'm offering a little equity: a chance to offer a little advice, answer questions, or give a little encouragement. I also can sometimes give portfolio feedback, or an honest evaluation on where an application might go.
This is clearly pre-application support. There's no suggestion that other people won't get it, or that their applications won't be dealt with fairly. That would be illegal. Offering pre-app help to disadvantaged and under-represented groups is not.
I'm coming at this from a British and European standpoint but our rights here aren't that dissimilar. The guidance on Positive Action is much closer to what she's doing than the crime you're inferring.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/e...
And you'd block access to your social platforms if you had this shit raining down on you, I guarantee it.
> When I offer to prioritize BIPOC conversations, I'm offering a little equity: a chance to offer a little advice, answer questions, or give a little encouragement. I also can sometimes give portfolio feedback, or an honest evaluation on where an application might go.
This is clearly pre-application support. There's no suggestion that other people won't get it, or that their applications won't be dealt with fairly. That would be illegal. Offering pre-app help to disadvantaged and under-represented groups is not.
I'm coming at this from a British and European standpoint but our rights here aren't that dissimilar. The guidance on Positive Action is much closer to what she's doing than the crime you're inferring.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/e...
And you'd block access to your social platforms if you had this shit raining down on you, I guarantee it.
[deleted]
That tweet is a job advertisement. It's an advertisement for a job.
My friend group is approximately 50/50 white non white. I didn't do that on purpose. I fell in love with an Asian woman and married her. The friends I picked up just happened to be a spread of ethnicities.
One thing that I've learned is that it's much easier to get along with people from different cultures when you treat them as an individual and their ethnicity as just one of the parts that make them who they are. It's silly to treat that as the defining feature of a person.
I think people conflate things worth observing and fixing at the population level and things the shape your interpersonal interactions. Yes it's good to work on equal outcomes for people of all races but of that becomes a dominant driver in behavior things get weird.