>latin@
A "word" invented by people who have no understanding of how latin and hispanic-derived languages work, and are probably more "white" than a scottish cave dwelling albino.
Rafael Avila de Espindola, one of the top contributors to the LLVM compiler toolset, has cut ties with the open source project over what he perceives as code of conduct hypocrisy and support for ethnic favoritism. In a message posted to the LLVM mailing list, de Espindola said he was leaving immediately and cited changes in …
No, that's how it has become warped in recent decades. Up until that point, "Latin" (Latin-American, Latin lover, etc.) correctly referred to people from countries that speak a language derived from Latin.
"Latin@" is presumably meant to imply Latino/Latina, but it looks contrived (and how are you supposed to say it out loud?). I have also seen Latinx, which is meant to imply both male and female, and also any other gender identities (not unreasonable), but I do wonder that the more weight is loaded onto a word, the harder it is for many people to take it entirely seriously, even though it starts with well-meaning intentions. Is there a reason that gender-neutral "Latin" isn't suitable, and what is the difference between Latinx and Hispanic (as Latinx, as far as I am aware, implies Spanish or Portuguese descent, but not French, etc?)
Similarly, the euphemism treadmill now apparently includes "BAME", which actually sounds like an insult, and also begs the question: if we accept that there are ethnic minorities (as any country will normally have one (or possibly more, in the case of a linguistically varying but otherwise similar population) predominant ethnic group), why should black people (which covers a multitude of origins in itself) be highlighted especially over any other identifiable ethnic minority?
"You are, and you don't even realize it. That's pretty much the point of promoting diversity."
Diversity of ideas is good - more people with different ideas make it more likely that a viable solution will be found, and if those ideas can be shared and discussed without fear of repercussion then they can complement each other and the sum will be larger than the whole of its parts.
However, forced diversity based on any racial, religious, political, or sexual criteria is bad. It discrimination and bigotry in pure form.
When someone says that the way to combat discrimination is WITH discrimination, all I see is a hypocrite.
" ... When someone says that the way to combat discrimination is WITH discrimination, all I see is a hypocrite."
Good point, and I can see the reason why you think as you do BUT .... the issue is that the whole of society IS by its very existence PRO White.
This is not a dig at you or any other person who maybe in this demographic BUT you are favoured by your skin colour as a matter of simply being the 'RIGHT' colour according to society.
Your own personal views and potential 'more than real' support of other peoples whatever their colour DOES NOT change the built-in bias that is there in society.
It is this that people are trying to overcome and this leads to very real discrimination against people that are white because they have the societal advantage from birth, with no need to gain membership or convince people of their intrinsic worth.
I know that many see this as unfair BUT there has been many hundreds of years of 'unfair' that had real life changing impact on hundreds of thousands of people every year. Sometimes the only way to effect change that has a hope of persisting is to fight fire with fire, therefore the historically persistent yet still endemic discrimination has to be fought with equal discrimination.
This is NOT personal against the one BUT against the 'Many' that cannot be addressed in any other way. Unfortunately, there are victims to this stategy but it is for the long-term and greater good as all these things tend to be.
You feel aggrieved and 'Hard done by', please bear in mind that this is not a new experience for so many non-whites that can follow this back for generations and they know so well the feeling you are experiencing.
A little bit of patience would be appreciated as the wait has been so so long !!!
...BUT .... the issue is that the whole of society IS by its very existence PRO White....
Er...not exactly. The whole of WHITE society IS by its very existence PRO White. You will find that the whole of ASIAN society IS by its very existence PRO Asian, and the whole of BLACK society IS by its very existence PRO Black.
It's just that in the West we have been shoehorning different cultures together on the assumption that everything would be marvelous....
"..BUT .... the issue is that the whole of society IS by its very existence PRO White...."
mm, not sure that is correct, have you tried to own a company in china? or other places?
(and quite a lot of biligual people are shocked when in other contries at the crap spoken about them when the speak doesn't realised they understand the language)
Wierdly a black friend could not understand my shock at his racist language about indian people.
You will tend to find in most countries tribalism causes intolerance about all other races.
> Unfortunately, there are victims to this stategy but it is for the long-term and greater good as all these things tend to be.
An laudable ethic that was used to great effect in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.
Trample the the rights of one and you trample on the rights of everyone. Or, as Marcus Aurelius put it almost 2000 years ago, "What is not good for the hive, is not good for the bee."
If we want to end discrimination, then we must end it, not introduce new forms of it.
"Sometimes the only way to effect change that has a hope of persisting is to fight fire with fire, therefore the historically persistent yet still endemic discrimination has to be fought with equal discrimination"
So instead of fighting against discrimination, your solution is to persist it.. so for the post you are responding to, you are one of the hypocrites they are talking about.
Your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
"Unfortunately, there are victims to this stategy but it is for the long-term and greater good as all these things tend to be."
i'm sorry but anytime someone starts talking about 'The greater good' claxons and and flashing red lights should be going off!
Also you need to be careful when the victims happen to be majority group that will eventually push back. Trump and co are the result of a disenfranchised majority.
"Trump and co are the result of a disenfranchised majority."
There is no "disenfranchised majority". There is only a majority who is getting a minuscule sample of how it (as a statistical group) have treated anyone who is not them and is butthurt at being treated as anything "lesser".
This is NOT personal against the one BUT against the 'Many' that cannot be addressed in any other way. Unfortunately, there are victims to this stategy but it is for the long-term and greater good as all these things tend to be.
So let me see if I have this right. Todays straight white men, whose careers you are deliberately trashing by creating bias against them, should just shut up because hundreds of years ago some other straigth white men did something wrong. And you feel, because clearly no intelligent thought has been applied, that this is justice? It isn't; it really really isn't.
You feel aggrieved and 'Hard done by', please bear in mind that this is not a new experience for so many non-whites that can follow this back for generations and they know so well the feeling you are experiencing.
Obviously they don't or they wouldn't be so keen to inflict it upon others. Their ancestors might have, sure, but there's no real discrimination today. I look around my team and we have two straight black guys, one gay white woman, two indians - one batting for each team, and two straight white guys. I hired everyone in the team. All I did was hire the best developers that came for an interview. Their skin colour, sexual preferences, age, physical ability, and whether or not they sit down to pee simply weren't relevant. They could all have been straight white men, or all one legged black lesbians for all the difference it would have made to me - physical characteristics bear no relationship to code quality.
A little bit of patience would be appreciated as the wait has been so so long !!!
But it hasn't. You;re attempting to claim some hereditary disadvantage. Most SJWs tend to be in their 20s or early 30s. You've not waited for anything. Ever. That your great grandparents might have been discriminated against does not imply disadvantage to you or that you have waited for your perverse form of justice.
If we're going to be racist, then everyone should be free to be racist. If we're not going to have racism, then we can't have what you propose because it is just racism.
It is this that people are trying to overcome and this leads to very real discrimination against people that are white because they have the societal advantage from birth, with no need to gain membership or convince people of their intrinsic worth.
If you think no white people have to gain membership or convince people of their intrinsic worth, try having an Appalachian accent.
'If you think no white people have to gain membership or convince people of their intrinsic worth, try having an Appalachian accent.'
If we're going on accents, I'd rather hire your Appalachian over Bostonian¹.
I do know that my career suffered a bit as I refused to drop my West of Scotland accent² and 'go native' (as advised to do so by a senior Scottish physicist in Oxfnord).
¹ Appalachian I don't mind, but for reasons unknown I really detest the Bostonian accent, even more than Bronx one, but hey, I'm a Scot, so what do I know?
² Well, it is mainly a West coast accent...with a strong hint of jute.
The Downvote ratio proves my point !!! ..... Thank you.
I don't believe that there are so many Racists reading this thread but I do believe that there are MANY who just cannot see the reality.
The bias is built in, even some people who are SO convinced it is not them !!!
It is unconsiously there built-in as part of your personality because you have known nothing else and can see no fault in you or the people around you.
As far as the 'Pro-White', 'Pro-Asian' etc goes not strictly true as even in these groups there are equivalent bias towards the 'Lighter Skins' and against the 'Darker Skins' often conflated with other issues to hide/dilute the act. ...... sound familiar ..... Myanmar for instance ???
The point raised about there should be NO Discrimination not yet MORE is very laudable BUT history shows that this is not going to happen.
The only people that can argue this are people that do not/have not experienced the reality as it is over the last 50 years. We can all agree with these 'High Ideals' but they are by definition unachievable so in reality the status quo is maintained ..... proof is all the laudable attempts to date to push equality without 'hurting' anyone that have simply & absolutely failed !!!
So many people will believe that discrimination has improved and is not as bad as say the 70's BUT this is just not true .... simply it has evolved to be more cleverly hidden, surrounded by good intentions and other diversions from the truth.
There are 1001 ways to be biased and discriminate against someone and YET be untouchable because the act(s) is so insidious. Proof is 50+ years of real world experience in the UK / Europe / South America / America etc. In all these places the issue is there and often in plain sight BUT everyone would state 'Hand on Heart' that there is little or no discrimination. Even in countries where the norm is a skin somewhat less than white there are the equivalent acts and bias that demonstrate that discrimination is real and alive even in groups that are targetted as a whole.
Why do you think this is so ???
Because there is proof of the gain you can make by playing this game all around them.
These groups are discriminated against themselves and they are reflecting the world they see by adopting the same mindset against their own sub-groups to fight their way to the top !!!
In their lives, why not that is how the world works doesn't it !!!!
More downvotes I expect ...... but you just keep confirming the truth as you do !!! :)
"When someone says that the way to combat discrimination is WITH discrimination, all I see is a hypocrite."
Positive discrimination is a difficult one. On one hand, it is consistent and simple to say we should not do it because it's discrimination. And that's nice, but simple is not correct. Consider the use of positive discrimination in Northern Ireland, to stop the anti-catholic bias. Consider, the legal alterations for voter registration in 1960s in the US, to overcome an effective anti-black block on voting.
If you think that these things were hypocritical, then that's fine, but they were both effective in ending a violent and coercive status quo.
Is that what we have here? Not sure, but when you have an occupation which is 90% men, you have to ask questions about whether there is an effective block on women.
"When the occupation is 100% self selective, then you can only rationally conclude that there is no block on anyone."
And we KNOW that it's self selecting because, of course, there is absolutely NO pressure for, e.g., young girls to get pushed towards dolls and cooking sets and away from science kits and construction toys... </eyeroll>
It is quite clear: discrimination is bad, if you think that discriminating is good, they you probably are a bigot.
Positive discrimination is the effect for the people NOT being discriminated. If you discriminate black people, it is positive por whites, etc etc.
So no, I am completely against it. I do remind ppl here that I am a foreigner in the UK, and have to live with discrimination (not terrible, but there). I would no like other ppl being discriminated so I get a job, it is WRONG, and I will need one soon...
Others need not apply.
Recently participated in a disastrous book club meeting. After attempting to preemptively qualify my misgivings about a book by describing who I am (my life experiences belie my appearance), I found I could not be heard.
And these were people who are intelligent, earnest and otherwise perceptive. I was misinterpreted and shut down because I am an ageing white male.
My main background point was drawing the parallel between the consistent oppression of black people in the US to the PRC's creating a permanent criminal class of descendants of landlords, capitalists, etc. for exploitation to keep the rest of the population happy. "You are better than they are." Which is to say, I have been thinking about all this for decades, and in depth.
But they could not credit my words, could not understand the idea, because there was a huge roadblock - my face.
One offered "restorative suggestion" from the book was completely wrong - much akin to quietly and covertly giving additional money to professionals based on ethnicity - when as I pointed out the right thing to do is openly recommend them to your friends and acquaintances. Put your values on the line and publically show that you value excellence, without bias. (They chanted "But the book says...")
I ask you if you didn't automatically dismiss my saying "(my life experiences belie my appearance)". Is it possible for an aging white male to be right about anything to do with any of the oppressions? Are you actually - in practice - unbiased?
BTW: in another attempt at qualification - in vain no doubt - I've worked at more than one company that went down in flames due entirely to a lack of diversity. And that includes near-exclusively non-European companies. Diversity is good, exclusions are bad. Practice that.
OBTW: Have you noticed that the anonymous icon is a white face? Perfect for denigration, yes?
You may have more luck by explaining it in their language. The key concept is "intersectionality," which explains that people are privileged and/or unprivileged for various reasons, which may intersect in any individual.
In other words, you might be privileged for being white while being unprivileged for having the wrong social background. Or disability, or health issues, or politics, or whatever.
It's a powerful idea, not least because it prevents the very "white is always wrong" scenario you describe.
Where is my sponsorship?
Also I feel discriminated because people with family ties with billionaries have a much easier time than I do and enjoy more advantages. Where is my sponsorship again for all this discrimination?
Or can we only "positively" discriminate on the "right" stuff?
Discriminating the discrimination.
'Or can we only "positively" discriminate on the "right" stuff?'
Yes. Discrimination on grounds of gender is illegal (in the UK), except under very specific circumstances. One of those circumstances is an extreme standing gender split in a profession. If the bias is not extreme, or starts to disappear, you cannot do it any more.
The suggestion that one can discount people based on skin colour is a problem because it doesn't see nuances and doesn't actually fix the problem.
Supposedly I am privileged because I am male and generally look northern European. I get treated differently because I am an immigrant, because I have a disability, because I have children, because I don't share others interests and generally because I am different.
Being preferentially treated is mostly about who you know and how you behave. I happen to work with people who see my worth but I've got a very long CV of places that wasn't inclusive of me.
Privilege is only obvious when making assumptions about people based on their looks but that is no good for activism or gestures. Worst case like Earth Hour potentially causing instabilities in the electrical grid.
Wealthy whites have been trying to scapegoat poor whites for the sins of the rich for the last 50 years.
Now, they equate the “white privilege” of the janitor with the “white privileged” of the CEO. Essentially, they are telling folks far beneath them on the socio-economic scale, how well they have it. Which, as we know, is easy for them to say.
“No, no, don’t look at the black incarceration rates since Democrats began pretending to care for minorities, look over there at the racist joke being told by the powerless gas station attendant ... he’s the reason you’re suffering!”
This whole mess started back in the early 70's so nothing new here except the ferocity of the attacks. Back then, it was pure numbers.. the company needed X-number of engineers and Y-percentage could not be white. Not qualification based at all. Lots of folks were hired to fill the quotas without being able to do the work. Little has changed excepted the volume level of the attacks have increased.
And if you happen to have a special vagina (apparently they are) one you are free from coercion, can impose on other people that they must be friendly and welcoming, and will get sponsorships and grants.
Gee ain't that lucky. Maybe i'll get one of those trans "vaginas" so I can get a sponsorship too just because I have one.
> Why am in not getting preferential treatment because of my sex and skin color? Is white male the wrong type?
As has been said already: you are getting preferential treatment. You just do not realise because that positive discrimination is countered by the negative discrimination that you also do receive. The latter on account of lack of moral character and intellectual strength.
Anything else you would like to complain about during work hours?