It's not easy to make a new platform. it's insanely difficult. These big social media companies have huge moats at this point, due to network effects and scale.
When other things have such powerful network effects we force them, through the state, to treat people fairly. For instance, utilities like water and electricity are natural monopolies because of the limited physical space for the infrastructure. Social networks aren't quite the same but there are powerful similarities.
That's correct, but none of those three people would then make as much money as the original single wage earner. And the couple wouldn't be getting ahead nearly as much as one would hope, since they have to pay for all that extra labor.
Because if you toss off a low-information provocation in an inflammatory thread, that's trolling whether you meant to or not. (But indulging in an in-your-face phrase like "safe spaces" makes me think that maybe you did mean to.)
The result tends to be flamewar. Flamewars are equal parts dumb and predictable. Also, we're trying for this place not to turn into scorched earth.
really did not intend to troll in the first place - maybe a little in the second. I find the sensitivity level here a bit shocking. thanks for the response though - I'll take the feedback and add supporting info in the future.
In the first one, a person made the argument that the sole black person in the department was there only because he was black. That's what "token black person" means.
The second recapitulates a common racial stereotype about native Americans.
I need to say that I am a bit unsure how to relate to the two possible interpretation of "token black person". On one side there are people that assume black people at prestigious jobs are black token on the other side there are people that explicitly set out to hire some black tokens; in the middle you would have the society and culture that allows it.
The first side is an easy case of racism in most cases, the second side seem more nuanced. In the GP case apparently the person thought of himself as a black token, that is for sure a bad situation... but I cannot wrap my head around "how" it is a bad situation and its implications.
I am sure that the fact that someone believes he is a "black token" is a problem, I am also sure that this could (almost) only happen in a place were there is quite some racism.
What I pointed out is that not all racism is the same; all of it is bad and all of it should stop, we agree on that, but as most human endeavour it is complex with complex motivation. If you and I want to stop it we should better think about how every situation can be different and how different type of racism require different solutions.
In my case above assuming incompetence and hiring minorities just to have better statistics are very different form of racism led by often different people, often with different motivation. If OP clarifies more I will trust that, but the wording itself was quite ambiguous to me
(also I have the impression some comments have moved around...)
I have no idea where you're trying to take this. I'm saying that it's not productive to argue over the subtext of a hypothetical conversation neither of us are a party to. At some point your argument is going to have to boil down to "no, that person relating that story is not being fully truthful". Ok, that's a coherent argument, but not one I'm interested in having with you.
I need to say I am a bit confused, I maybe replied in the wrong place.
I meant to reply to a comment that only provided as an information that somebody believed to be a token black hire. To this my point was that multiple non trivial interpretation were possible.
Now I realize I commented directly on the article so that I was in practice casting doubt on the content. This was a mistake, to be clear I trust the Edray Goins version of his own story.
A bit late to reply, but I feel it is an important distinction.
I'm assuming this is a genuine question on your part. I would suggest reading up on common stereotypes of the native peoples in the U.S. Native Americans did not design the road system in West Lafayette. Whites did. The person making the remark is in essence saying:
Yes the road system is really fucked up. It's so bad that I can't give a real explanation for it so I jokingly say a drunk Indian had to have done it because that's the only thing that can make sense.
For some reason I assumed that it was referring to subcontinent Indians, and was slightly confused because I don't consider it racist to point out that their road system is absolutely atrocious.
My first thought was that it was a non-sequitur, but that it involved subcontinent Indians. I find it ironic that people who are apparently calling out one kind of bigotry in this thread are then playing on stereotypes of what people who live in certain places are like.
As a nonwhite who actually has been racially bashed and who has seen people overcome bigotry through their basic humanity, I always want to warn everyone that the problem isn't people from a particular place, people of a particular ethnicity, or people grouped by any surface characteristic, chosen, indelible or in between. The problem is groupthink, and the dark emotions that can come about because of it.
The moment you start imputing thoughts, feelings, and emotions to people with scant evidence, you have taken a misstep. (1) You have succumbed to groupthink. If you would fight bigotry, it first behooves you to actively eliminate your own bigotry. It's then your duty not to fall into the very patterns you're supposed to fight.
(1) -- Also, if you start condemning people because you imagine you know what they are thinking and feeling, and you believe they are lying to you, then you set up a situation where no one can prove their innocence, and no one trusts anyone else anymore. We have historical accounts of such times and places. Often, such epistemological catastrophes accompany inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian violence and atrocities.
Native americans have high levels of alcoholism. The comment was referencing this as a contemptuous sterotype. A casual comment like that is a glimpse into widely held attitudes in the regional: the speaker felt comfortable saying it and assumed the listener wouldn't object.
A former governor of MN once claimed that its capital city streets were designed by drunken Irishmen. He immediately realized that was a Bad Thing to say, but it was certainly an afterthought to his statement.
The alleged drunk would never be white, that's the point. The punchline will always involve $DEROGATORY_MODIFIER $MINORITY. For instance, "drunk Indian"; if you grew up in IN, you'll tack on "but I repeat myself", because that's what passes for clever in IN. (I grew up there, I get to make fun.)
stablecoins achieve many of the original goals of bitcoin, but not any of the most important goals. the important goals are censorship resistance, and fixed monetary policy. Nothing in the crypto space addresses these goals better than Bitcoin.
"We always remove images of explicit sexual activity or fetishes, and nude or partially nude people in sexually suggestive poses."
Does GabTV have anything like this in their terms of service? Answer: No. They signed up with Stripe, agreed to the ToS, and now are generating moral outrage when Stripe comes knocking.
Yes, and that is f*ing annoying to have to do. Even if there are others doing the same thing, you end all end up being quiet about it. Super dumb that it's become acceptable to openly talk leftist politics in the office
idk why people are getting so hung up on this point. it is obviously true that more great mathematics has been produced by young people. obviously there are exceptions, but they add credence to the general case
When other things have such powerful network effects we force them, through the state, to treat people fairly. For instance, utilities like water and electricity are natural monopolies because of the limited physical space for the infrastructure. Social networks aren't quite the same but there are powerful similarities.