Support NeoGAF

[Vicetrailia]

Training would be pointless for the amount of staff turnover a place like Starbucks would have.

True, it's a huge company and a one-off thing won't move the needle much considering that a lot of the same employees won't be there in 2 years. But I don't think they're expecting it to work.

 

[llien]

True, it's a huge company and a one-off thing won't move the needle much considering that a lot of the same employees won't be there in 2 years. But I don't think they're expecting it to work.

I'm sorry, is there a place where diversity training measurably helped?

 

[Vicetrailia]

I'm sorry, is there a place where diversity training measurably helped?

I think Starbucks is doing this to show that they don't play around on equality, diversity, etc.

It's not a magic bullet: https://scienceforwork.com/blog/diversity-training-effectiveness/

One thing we know is that diversity training can be the most ineffective when it is made mandatory in a situation like this, because it kinda undermines the importance. This instance will do some good on a short-term basis, and not much on a long-term one.

 

[zumphry]

Well, Roseanne got canceled so I guess this worked! Thanks, Starbucks!

 

[prag16]

True, it's a huge company and a one-off thing won't move the needle much considering that a lot of the same employees won't be there in 2 years. But I don't think they're expecting it to work.

Yep. It's all PR/marketing essentially.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Yep. It's all PR/marketing essentially.

It's 12 million spent/lost that will restore the brand and hopefully mitigate risk.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm sorry, is there a place where diversity training measurably helped?

Is there a place where diversity training has made things worse?

 

[TrainedRage]

So when I bring my camping tent and set it up by the fireplace and start to live at Starbucks, will they kick me out?

 

[CreamCream]

Seriously, which sane person needs a training to NOT to insult customers with racial slurs?
This is like training people not to kill/steal/rape.

There are a LOT more people that act on their racial bias that would never do those other things. You underestimate racism

 

[Musky_Cheese]

There are a LOT more people that act on their racial bias that would never do those other things. You underestimate racism

Whats always been scary to me is how justified racism is to so many. And how sometimes it seems like an battle that can't be won. For all the advancements humans have made as a species, how we treat each other seems incredibly slow.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

This is so stupid. ONE person acted out so all stores need retraining on basic human principles? How cucked can you be starbucks? Expecting so much outta minimum wage people lol.

 

[TrainedRage]

We need androids ASAP.

Then all the races of the world could have a scapegoat to dump fear and bigoted views onto.

It would bring the human race together.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

We need androids ASAP.

Then all the races of the world could have a scapegoat to dump fear and bigoted views onto.

It would bring the human race together.

We seen these movies. Humans tend to get way fucked up in them.

I call dibs on being Kyle Reese. Time traveling and banging so to be moms.

 

[CreamCream]

We need androids ASAP.

Then all the races of the world could have a scapegoat to dump fear and bigoted views onto.

It would bring the human race together.

No it wouldn't. People would still be racist while hating the androids too.

Also, do the androids look like people? Because if they do, the black ones would get treated even worse.

 

[TrainedRage]

No it wouldn't. People would still be racist while hating the androids too.

Also, do the androids look like people? Because if they do, the black ones would get treated even worse.

You are so hung up on black people. Jesus.

 

[bitbydeath]

Seriously, which sane person needs a training to NOT to insult customers with racial slurs?
This is like training people not to kill/steal/rape.

Insecure people who target others to try make themselves feel better.

(Therapy would be the better medicine to treat that though)

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Training would be pointless for the amount of staff turnover a place like Starbucks would have.

This training is for preexisting staff.

For new staff, this training will be integrated into the onboarding materials.

 

[CreamCream]

You are so hung up on black people. Jesus.

Thread about racism against black people. Discussion about race. You offer up what I assume is a joke solution to race relations.

Sorry I crashed your party with realism.

 

[TrainedRage]

Thread about racism against black people. Discussion about race. You offer up what I assume is a joke solution to race relations.

Sorry I crashed your party with realism.

The reason I said the android comment wasn't meant as a joke.
I seriously believe that could start a large cultural shift in the way people look at race and humanity. It could bring people of all races together and give them a commonality that they may have not understood or even cared to acknowledge.

I could give you some examples if you like. There are some great podcasts and interviews with people in the field of AI and 'sentience'.

 

[CreamCream]

The reason I said the android comment wasn't meant as a joke.
I seriously believe that could start a large cultural shift in the way people look at race and humanity. It could bring people of all races together and give them a commonality that they may have not understood or even cared to acknowledge.

I could give you some examples if you like. There are some great podcasts and interviews with people in the field of AI and 'sentience'.

Alright, I’m legit interested to see what you have.

I’ve been playing Detroit so this topic has come up in a lot of conversation recently Because one of my major problems with the game is that it pretends that in the future racism doesn’t exist anymore and humans only hate androids.

 

[TrainedRage]

Alright, I’m legit interested to see what you have.

I’ve been playing Detroit so this topic has come up in a lot of conversation recently Because one of my major problems with the game is that it pretends that in the future racism doesn’t exist anymore and humans only hate androids.

So right there is a great example. Detroit Become Human. I'm in the same boat, wonderful game, opened up my eyes to some struggles that i'm sure PoC have gone through here in America. That I never fully understood. And yes I feel your point about the lack of racism in the game, but then again (in the game) those 30 years of innovation may have broken down some barriers that minorities had. I haven't finished but I thought the same thing. I would suggest also...

Look into Kate Darling (coolest name ever)


Ethics in AI

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(what im trying to say)
https://www.quora.com/Will-artificial-intelligence-and-automation-end-racism

A.I. and Automation will end racism. Because it’s never been about race. It’s always been about labor.

The segregation of participants in a labor market based upon their individual skill-sets is fair and just. i.e. paying an objectively more skilled roofer more money per working hour than an objectively less skilled roofer is fair. In this sense, the age-old saying divide and conquer does not apply.

Conversely, paying those roofers the same rate per hour would be unfair with consequences that would ripple beyond the two aforementioned individual participants. If an objectively more skilled roofer is paid the same as his objectively less skilled counter part, the more skilled worker is less likely to continue to work hard or improve his skills. The incentive to improve his or her skill-set is impeded or removed altogether. Moreover, the incentive for the less skilled roofer to improve his skills has also been removed.

During mankind’s agrarian age a societies’ labor was segregated primarily by the wealthy who could hire or buy laborers, free laborers, and non-free laborers (slaves or indentured servants).

New naval technologies allowed the wealthy to reach new shores and not only conduct trade and do business with wealthy foreigners but they were also able to hire and buy foreign laborers (slaves and indentured servants) as well.

New naval technology and the dawning of the industrial age brought new variables to the labor equation. In addition to domestic and free and non- free laborers we add foreigners, skilled, and a focus on profits. Now a once fairly non-controversial segregation of the participants of a societies’ labor pool began to experience more and more controversy.

In the new world labor started out being divided between the wealthy who could hire or buy laborers, the individual free laborers, the domestic and foreign indentured servants and slaves. Another way to look at the segregation of America’s labor pool participants is segregation based on a person’s wealth, a person’s liberty to use his labor and skills for his own profits, a person’s inability to use his own labor and skills for his own profits due to contract or the legal status of slavery. A status that has existed in every society known to man.

The world’s gradual move away from the norms and values of the agrarian age not only brought controversy to the issue of labor in general but specifically a man’s ability to use his own skills and labor for his own profit. These controversies brought the institution of slavery under attack for the first time in human history.

In America, that attack primarily came from those in the Northern free states. The society in the North marched into the industrial age with individual free labor being utilized in farming and manufacturing. The North was establishing a free market society. A society where a person’s skills, values, and social behaviors were their primary attributes. Our Two Societies

The South resisted the call of the industrial age by holding on to the norms, and values of the agrarian age. The attack upon the institution of slavery brought about the necessity of the slave oligarchy in the Southern states to defend and justify the institution of slavery. White supremacist ideology was used to defend and justify slavery’s existence in a country and a world moving at a high speed toward an all industrialized world highly focused on profits.

Among other things, America’s slave oligarchy used Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816–1882) 1400 page book “An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races” to justify white supremacist propaganda, racism, race slavery and the theory of Aryans as the master race. However, an anthropologist, Antenor Firmin, wrote a response to Count Gobineau book called “The Equality of the Human Races” which was widely accepted by the scientific community to refute, debunk and disprove the assumptions and theories presented by Count Gobineau. When was this Firmin’s book published? Was it in this new age of racial equality and enlightenment? No, it was published in 1885. And, it is very likely that you’ve just heard of this author and this book for the first time. The South’s slave oligarchy used propaganda to manipulate people from a relatively hierarchical culture into creating a racist society for the slave oligarchy’s financial benefit. A society in which a person’s primary attribute was their race.

The clash of these two societies is all too often oversimplified as being a clash between a bunch of hateful, state’s rights, racist in the South and a bunch of tenderhearted, slave loving, unionist in the North. There may have been some white mothers in Northern states like Main or New Hampshire, who had never encountered a black slave in their life time, willing to send their children off to war to fight for the liberation of slaves based on principles of liberty. Would you be willing to do that?

The fact that many of the decedents of those who were enslaved do not know one institution currently fighting against modern-day slavery leads me to doubt that the primary motivation to send a Northern child off to war was for the well being of slaves.

Furthermore, there may have been poor landless whites in the South (the vast majority of the white population at the time) willing to send their children off to war to fight for the institution of slavery. An institution which kept individual labor prices in competition with slave wages, an institution that kept similarly situated land prices several times cheaper in the South than in non-slave states. The Impending Crisis of the South The secession of the densely Yeoman populated western portion of the slave state of Virginia to form West Virginia leads me to believe that is not true.

The following sentence can be inferred as a primary reason for America’s civil war: X slave owner intends to take on a manufacturing interest and locate it in a slave state, produce a product using slave labor, and compete directly with manufacturing interest in the North which utilizes free and costly skilled labor.

In his book, Fredrick Douglass mentioned the hatred shown toward him from whites and free blacks when he was hired out as a slave at a ship yard in Baltimore.

With the aforementioned in mind, the following can be inferred:

The North’s free market society, with a relatively egalitarian culture, which saw individual labor as next to Godliness, and a person’s primary attribute to society being their skills, values and social behaviors, was strongly opposed to the institution of slavery not just on moral grounds but on economic grounds as well.

The South’s racist society, in which a person’s race is their primary attribute, with a relatively hierarchical cultural, with cultural elites that equated labor as only fit for the worst of the worst regardless of race, went into a war based on white supremacist ideologies and a state’s right to protect the economic interest of the slave oligarchy.

The Confederates lost the Civil war in 1864. The scientific pillar of white supremest ideology was debunked in 1885. Why is racism still a thing?

In part because it makes good politics. The following is an excerpt concerning a conversation between President Andrew Johnson and Montgomery Blair who served as Postmaster General under President Lincoln. “The key to postwar (civil war) politics, they believed, lay in changing the focus of debate from slavery (the institution not the slave) to race….”As Montgomery Blair put it “Race makes good politics.” Reconstruction America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877 by Eric Foner.

After the Civil war people of the Southern states was forced to become participants in a free market society and in certain states, half of those people were newly emancipated U.S. citizens with the right to vote. A right that land-less white males of North Carolina received just 7 years prior.

In many cases, the newly emancipated were more skilled than their white counterparts. Imagine being the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers one day and then having to compete against Lebron James the next day, not as a business owner but as a basketball player.

However, instead of hanging the political leaders and financially well-to-do that supported the Confederacy those elites were put back where they started before the war. Not only were their lives spared but they were also spared being put in direct competition with former slave laborers for their labor in a free market society.

Who would you want to hire if you had to pay someone to grow tobacco? A former slave owner or a former slave.

After the Civil war, the vast majority of the residences of the Southen states were poor landless whites who found themselves in direct competition against the likes of an agrarian age version of a bunch of Lebron James type farmers. Those whites were going to get victimized in the free market by those Lebron James type farmers.

What do you call a politician without a victim? Unemployed.

White supremacist ideology and racism were not strong enough to defeat a free market in war but in peace time it is strong enough to hold back a certain portion of America’s s labor pool from being competitive and competing on an equal playing field. After the Civil war white supremacist ideology, racism, and Jim Crow laws were used to stigmatize and segregate a portion of America’s labor force. This segregation was not based on skills, values and social behaviors but on race. Now the age old saying is appropriate. Divide and conquer.

But, again the free market is stronger than racism.

For example, in the 1930’s contractors in the Northern states started to notice that they were being continuously under bid on contracting jobs by businessmen who would go down south, and hire cheaper black southern carpenters for their jobs. With champions of the free market like Booker T. Washington, Philanthropist like Rockefeller and Carnegie Mellon, and institutions like Tuskegee University churning out very skilled carpenters to compete in America’s free market they began were victimizing the Northern contractors in the free market.

What do you call a politician without a victim? Unemployed.

So they came up with the Davis Bacon Act. AKA the federal minimum wage law. This took the incentive away from Northern contractors to travel south to acquire cheaper yet equally skilled laborers and bring them North. This protected the northern carpenters standard of living while simultaneously taking away the incentive for the Northern carpenters to become more innovative, creative and efficient in light of the competition in the free market.

This hurt the souther black carpenters in the short run, benefited the Northern white carpenters in the short run, helped politicians get elected, but in the long run stagnates competition in the free market.

After 1964, when the legal barriers to compete in America’s free market were removed many mental barriers were erected by politicians telling their constituents that America is still “in fact” just a racist society full of racists. Instead of telling the truth that America is a free market society with racist people in it.

This narrative keeps their constituents feeling like victims of society based on a fixed attribute like race. It also keeps the politicians representing that fixed attribute perpetually employed. Most importantly, outside of sports and entertainment this narrative keeps many black Americans in a perpetual state of being uncompetitive members of America’s free market labor pool.

Unlike the fields of sports and entertainment, in the business world and the science professions, many of America’s brightest have their marketability in the free market stigmatized with affirmative action policies. What we don’t realize about affirmative action is that if a student who places in the top 85th percentile in math, (a status that would place that student in most great American universities), is granted admissions to a University that generally only accepts students in the top 99th percentile, those teachers don’t teach at the 85 percentile level. They teach at the 99th percentile level. This situation has caused labor force participants with otherwise bright futures to struggle in school and often drop out feeling like failures. Paraphrasing from A personal Odyssey by Thomas Sowell

But again, racism is not as strong as a free market society.

Now we are leaving the industrial age behind and marching toward an information age where the free market’s labor pool is segregated by the wealthy, the highly skilled laborer, skilled laborer, the unskilled laborer, A.I., and Automation.

Since the end of the agrarian age and the beginning of the industrial age, our concentration has been less upon substance and survival and more on profits and affluence. The means to acquire profits and affluence has largely been in the ability to control labor for one’s profit as a wealthy person who hires laborers or as a laborer who hires himself out for his own profits.

If profits and affluence remain a primary motivator for the participants in America’s labor pool then only those wealthy enough to acquire the A.I. and Automation and the extremely few highly skilled labor pool participants will fare well in the near future.

The other members of the labor pool regardless of race will wake up and realize that those phantom white racists who control a supposed institutionalized racist society; or those illegal aliens who are taking your strawberry picking jobs; or that 30 year mortgage; or those promises from that outsider politician;(Robots can’t vote but they help elect Trump) or affirmative action policies; will mean nothing.

They will mean nothing if you have no place to exchange your skills and labor for profits because A.I. and automation has not only replaced you as a participant in the labor force but made you irrelevant.

A.I. and Automation will finally force us to realize what Antenor Firmin proved back in 1885 and that is that there is only one race. The human race.

As one race and as participants in America’s free market society we need to focus more on obtaining marketable skills. The marketable skills necessary to become and remain competitive in a free market. A free market growing more and more reliant on A.I. and Automation for efficient production that leads to profits.

The logical next steps for the free market is a labor pool with only the wealthy and A.I and Automation as its primary participants.

Finally, it will no longer be us against them. It will be us against the machines.

-Andre Davis

 

[CreamCream]

So right there is a great example. Detroit Become Human. I'm in the same boat, wonderful game, opened up my eyes to some struggles that i'm sure PoC have gone through here in America. That I never fully understood. And yes I feel your point about the lack of racism in the game, but then again (in the game) those 30 years of innovation may have broken down some barriers that minorities had. I haven't finished but I thought the same thing. I would suggest also...

Look into Kate Darling (coolest name ever)


Ethics in AI

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(what im trying to say)
https://www.quora.com/Will-artificial-intelligence-and-automation-end-racism

A.I. and Automation will end racism. Because it’s never been about race. It’s always been about labor.

The segregation of participants in a labor market based upon their individual skill-sets is fair and just. i.e. paying an objectively more skilled roofer more money per working hour than an objectively less skilled roofer is fair. In this sense, the age-old saying divide and conquer does not apply.

Conversely, paying those roofers the same rate per hour would be unfair with consequences that would ripple beyond the two aforementioned individual participants. If an objectively more skilled roofer is paid the same as his objectively less skilled counter part, the more skilled worker is less likely to continue to work hard or improve his skills. The incentive to improve his or her skill-set is impeded or removed altogether. Moreover, the incentive for the less skilled roofer to improve his skills has also been removed.

During mankind’s agrarian age a societies’ labor was segregated primarily by the wealthy who could hire or buy laborers, free laborers, and non-free laborers (slaves or indentured servants).

New naval technologies allowed the wealthy to reach new shores and not only conduct trade and do business with wealthy foreigners but they were also able to hire and buy foreign laborers (slaves and indentured servants) as well.

New naval technology and the dawning of the industrial age brought new variables to the labor equation. In addition to domestic and free and non- free laborers we add foreigners, skilled, and a focus on profits. Now a once fairly non-controversial segregation of the participants of a societies’ labor pool began to experience more and more controversy.

In the new world labor started out being divided between the wealthy who could hire or buy laborers, the individual free laborers, the domestic and foreign indentured servants and slaves. Another way to look at the segregation of America’s labor pool participants is segregation based on a person’s wealth, a person’s liberty to use his labor and skills for his own profits, a person’s inability to use his own labor and skills for his own profits due to contract or the legal status of slavery. A status that has existed in every society known to man.

The world’s gradual move away from the norms and values of the agrarian age not only brought controversy to the issue of labor in general but specifically a man’s ability to use his own skills and labor for his own profit. These controversies brought the institution of slavery under attack for the first time in human history.

In America, that attack primarily came from those in the Northern free states. The society in the North marched into the industrial age with individual free labor being utilized in farming and manufacturing. The North was establishing a free market society. A society where a person’s skills, values, and social behaviors were their primary attributes. Our Two Societies

The South resisted the call of the industrial age by holding on to the norms, and values of the agrarian age. The attack upon the institution of slavery brought about the necessity of the slave oligarchy in the Southern states to defend and justify the institution of slavery. White supremacist ideology was used to defend and justify slavery’s existence in a country and a world moving at a high speed toward an all industrialized world highly focused on profits.

Among other things, America’s slave oligarchy used Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816–1882) 1400 page book “An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races” to justify white supremacist propaganda, racism, race slavery and the theory of Aryans as the master race. However, an anthropologist, Antenor Firmin, wrote a response to Count Gobineau book called “The Equality of the Human Races” which was widely accepted by the scientific community to refute, debunk and disprove the assumptions and theories presented by Count Gobineau. When was this Firmin’s book published? Was it in this new age of racial equality and enlightenment? No, it was published in 1885. And, it is very likely that you’ve just heard of this author and this book for the first time. The South’s slave oligarchy used propaganda to manipulate people from a relatively hierarchical culture into creating a racist society for the slave oligarchy’s financial benefit. A society in which a person’s primary attribute was their race.

The clash of these two societies is all too often oversimplified as being a clash between a bunch of hateful, state’s rights, racist in the South and a bunch of tenderhearted, slave loving, unionist in the North. There may have been some white mothers in Northern states like Main or New Hampshire, who had never encountered a black slave in their life time, willing to send their children off to war to fight for the liberation of slaves based on principles of liberty. Would you be willing to do that?

The fact that many of the decedents of those who were enslaved do not know one institution currently fighting against modern-day slavery leads me to doubt that the primary motivation to send a Northern child off to war was for the well being of slaves.

Furthermore, there may have been poor landless whites in the South (the vast majority of the white population at the time) willing to send their children off to war to fight for the institution of slavery. An institution which kept individual labor prices in competition with slave wages, an institution that kept similarly situated land prices several times cheaper in the South than in non-slave states. The Impending Crisis of the South The secession of the densely Yeoman populated western portion of the slave state of Virginia to form West Virginia leads me to believe that is not true.

The following sentence can be inferred as a primary reason for America’s civil war: X slave owner intends to take on a manufacturing interest and locate it in a slave state, produce a product using slave labor, and compete directly with manufacturing interest in the North which utilizes free and costly skilled labor.

In his book, Fredrick Douglass mentioned the hatred shown toward him from whites and free blacks when he was hired out as a slave at a ship yard in Baltimore.

With the aforementioned in mind, the following can be inferred:

The North’s free market society, with a relatively egalitarian culture, which saw individual labor as next to Godliness, and a person’s primary attribute to society being their skills, values and social behaviors, was strongly opposed to the institution of slavery not just on moral grounds but on economic grounds as well.

The South’s racist society, in which a person’s race is their primary attribute, with a relatively hierarchical cultural, with cultural elites that equated labor as only fit for the worst of the worst regardless of race, went into a war based on white supremacist ideologies and a state’s right to protect the economic interest of the slave oligarchy.

The Confederates lost the Civil war in 1864. The scientific pillar of white supremest ideology was debunked in 1885. Why is racism still a thing?

In part because it makes good politics. The following is an excerpt concerning a conversation between President Andrew Johnson and Montgomery Blair who served as Postmaster General under President Lincoln. “The key to postwar (civil war) politics, they believed, lay in changing the focus of debate from slavery (the institution not the slave) to race….”As Montgomery Blair put it “Race makes good politics.” Reconstruction America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877 by Eric Foner.

After the Civil war people of the Southern states was forced to become participants in a free market society and in certain states, half of those people were newly emancipated U.S. citizens with the right to vote. A right that land-less white males of North Carolina received just 7 years prior.

In many cases, the newly emancipated were more skilled than their white counterparts. Imagine being the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers one day and then having to compete against Lebron James the next day, not as a business owner but as a basketball player.

However, instead of hanging the political leaders and financially well-to-do that supported the Confederacy those elites were put back where they started before the war. Not only were their lives spared but they were also spared being put in direct competition with former slave laborers for their labor in a free market society.

Who would you want to hire if you had to pay someone to grow tobacco? A former slave owner or a former slave.

After the Civil war, the vast majority of the residences of the Southen states were poor landless whites who found themselves in direct competition against the likes of an agrarian age version of a bunch of Lebron James type farmers. Those whites were going to get victimized in the free market by those Lebron James type farmers.

What do you call a politician without a victim? Unemployed.

White supremacist ideology and racism were not strong enough to defeat a free market in war but in peace time it is strong enough to hold back a certain portion of America’s s labor pool from being competitive and competing on an equal playing field. After the Civil war white supremacist ideology, racism, and Jim Crow laws were used to stigmatize and segregate a portion of America’s labor force. This segregation was not based on skills, values and social behaviors but on race. Now the age old saying is appropriate. Divide and conquer.

But, again the free market is stronger than racism.

For example, in the 1930’s contractors in the Northern states started to notice that they were being continuously under bid on contracting jobs by businessmen who would go down south, and hire cheaper black southern carpenters for their jobs. With champions of the free market like Booker T. Washington, Philanthropist like Rockefeller and Carnegie Mellon, and institutions like Tuskegee University churning out very skilled carpenters to compete in America’s free market they began were victimizing the Northern contractors in the free market.

What do you call a politician without a victim? Unemployed.

So they came up with the Davis Bacon Act. AKA the federal minimum wage law. This took the incentive away from Northern contractors to travel south to acquire cheaper yet equally skilled laborers and bring them North. This protected the northern carpenters standard of living while simultaneously taking away the incentive for the Northern carpenters to become more innovative, creative and efficient in light of the competition in the free market.

This hurt the souther black carpenters in the short run, benefited the Northern white carpenters in the short run, helped politicians get elected, but in the long run stagnates competition in the free market.

After 1964, when the legal barriers to compete in America’s free market were removed many mental barriers were erected by politicians telling their constituents that America is still “in fact” just a racist society full of racists. Instead of telling the truth that America is a free market society with racist people in it.

This narrative keeps their constituents feeling like victims of society based on a fixed attribute like race. It also keeps the politicians representing that fixed attribute perpetually employed. Most importantly, outside of sports and entertainment this narrative keeps many black Americans in a perpetual state of being uncompetitive members of America’s free market labor pool.

Unlike the fields of sports and entertainment, in the business world and the science professions, many of America’s brightest have their marketability in the free market stigmatized with affirmative action policies. What we don’t realize about affirmative action is that if a student who places in the top 85th percentile in math, (a status that would place that student in most great American universities), is granted admissions to a University that generally only accepts students in the top 99th percentile, those teachers don’t teach at the 85 percentile level. They teach at the 99th percentile level. This situation has caused labor force participants with otherwise bright futures to struggle in school and often drop out feeling like failures. Paraphrasing from A personal Odyssey by Thomas Sowell

But again, racism is not as strong as a free market society.

Now we are leaving the industrial age behind and marching toward an information age where the free market’s labor pool is segregated by the wealthy, the highly skilled laborer, skilled laborer, the unskilled laborer, A.I., and Automation.

Since the end of the agrarian age and the beginning of the industrial age, our concentration has been less upon substance and survival and more on profits and affluence. The means to acquire profits and affluence has largely been in the ability to control labor for one’s profit as a wealthy person who hires laborers or as a laborer who hires himself out for his own profits.

If profits and affluence remain a primary motivator for the participants in America’s labor pool then only those wealthy enough to acquire the A.I. and Automation and the extremely few highly skilled labor pool participants will fare well in the near future.

The other members of the labor pool regardless of race will wake up and realize that those phantom white racists who control a supposed institutionalized racist society; or those illegal aliens who are taking your strawberry picking jobs; or that 30 year mortgage; or those promises from that outsider politician;(Robots can’t vote but they help elect Trump) or affirmative action policies; will mean nothing.

They will mean nothing if you have no place to exchange your skills and labor for profits because A.I. and automation has not only replaced you as a participant in the labor force but made you irrelevant.

A.I. and Automation will finally force us to realize what Antenor Firmin proved back in 1885 and that is that there is only one race. The human race.

As one race and as participants in America’s free market society we need to focus more on obtaining marketable skills. The marketable skills necessary to become and remain competitive in a free market. A free market growing more and more reliant on A.I. and Automation for efficient production that leads to profits.

The logical next steps for the free market is a labor pool with only the wealthy and A.I and Automation as its primary participants.

Finally, it will no longer be us against them. It will be us against the machines.

-Andre Davis

Knocking points off for this guy citing an idiot like a Thomas Sowell and buying into “bootstraps” nonsense, but besides that part, I think I see the logic, and it makes sense.

But I still think it misses the mark. If it gave a predictive timetable of how the transition from racist society to not racist would happen, and in how many years, it might be easier to buy into. But you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t really believe some white peopke will stop crossing to the other side of the street when a black person is walking towards them just because everyone’s jobs are being done by robots.

It’s pretty clear that a large number of pooer conservatives will shun policies beneficial to themselves if they think it will benefit minorities, and honestly, sometimes their hatred of liberals in general runs even deeper.

I’m not sure I believe those huge rifts in this country can be fixed by androids.

 

[TrainedRage]

Knocking points off for this guy citing an idiot like a Thomas Sowell and buying into “bootstraps” nonsense, but besides that part, I think I see the logic, and it makes sense.

But I still think it misses the mark. If it gave a predictive timetable of how the transition from racist society to not racist would happen, and in how many years, it might be easier to buy into. But you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t really believe some white peopke will stop crossing to the other side of the street when a black person is walking towards them just because everyone’s jobs are being done by robots.

It’s pretty clear that a large number of pooer conservatives will shun policies beneficial to themselves if they think it will benefit minorities, and honestly, sometimes their hatred of liberals in general runs even deeper.

I’m not sure I believe those huge rifts in this country can be fixed by androids.

Hate is a powerful emotion, and some people are seemingly addicted to it. Will that ever change? I doubt it. So maybe the best we can hope for is a 'transference of hate'?

Shit you just killed my buzz. ;P

 

[mckmas8808]

This training is for preexisting staff.

For new staff, this training will be integrated into the onboarding materials.

Funny how people even hate the idea of training classes to help them with their possible bias at their jobs.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Funny how people even hate the idea of training classes to help them with their possible bias at their jobs.

They DGAF.

 

[strange headache]

Funny how people even hate the idea of training classes to help them with their possible bias at their jobs.

People don't like being told they are 'subconsciously' racist, when they are not. And those who are won't be swayed by a 3 hour session of finger-wagging. It's the reason why that sort of training simply doesn't work.

 

[lil puff]

I'm sorry, is there a place where diversity training measurably helped?

I honestly don't know, any more than I know if mandatory harassment training works.

I never mind the classes, but they are so dumbed down to the most obvious acts of harassment, that I think most people automatically disqualify themselves from listening.

"Hey baby let me show this nude pic" "You going to the beach later in that outfit?" "you get a raise, if I can raise... your skirt"

Professional adults sitting in a room watching that stuff boggles me.

When you insult the average person's intelligence, I don't know if it is effective. Some of the excerpts that I heard from that Starbucks meeting did sound dumbed down like that. Some of it seemed irrelevant to the situation, and more like general frustration and anger being directed at all those employees.

I guess - just like the sexual harassment classes, people that it doesn't apply to will find it ridiculous and move on. The guy that thought that it quid pro quo was ok, maybe will try to hide it better? Dunno.

 

[mckmas8808]

People don't like being told they are 'subconsciously' racist, when they are not. And those who are won't be swayed by a 3 hour session of finger-wagging. It's the reason why that sort of training simply doesn't work.

Is it possible that they don't work because the people themselves don't care enough to change or even care? I mean bias is a real thing. Even if it seems harmless to one side. Like do those same people all hate "Orientation" on the first day or week starting their new jobs?

 

[strange headache]

Is it possible that they don't work because the people themselves don't care enough to change or even care?

Why should people be asked to change if they are not racist? Your question is merely an extension of the same general assumption that ultimately leads to the failure of these kinds of training. Accusing people of not wanting to change implies that you think of them as racist a priori. By relegating said accusation to the metaphysical realm of the subconscious without being able to provide empirical proof on an individual level is exactly the kind of kafkatrapping that works contrary to what you're trying to achieve.

 

[luigimario]

A three hour session isn't going to magically change the centuries old cemented racist foundation of the US. But I guess Starbucks have to pretend to do something. Especially in the era of Trump.

 

[Gander]

It's disturbing that a company synonymous with liberals and free thinkers would have to do such a thing. That's keep in mind this isn't the first time Starbucks has had this problem, it's just the one that became the most public.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why should people be asked to change if they are not racist? Your question is merely an extension of the same general assumption that ultimately leads to the failure of these kinds of training. Accusing people of not wanting to change implies that you think of them as racist a priori. By relegating said accusation to the metaphysical realm of the subconscious without being able to provide empirical proof on an individual level is exactly the kind of kafkatrapping that works contrary to what you're trying to achieve.

Then that's our individual problem. If you aren't a racist and you don't have a subcouious bias toward people, then taking this course shouldn't backfire. It shouldn't make you a worse person. At worse it should make you sleepy and tired. And possibly you can learn one super small thing.

To say these trainings are making things worse, suggest that people are all fine until the training. And then they get upset and start doing bad things.

 

[Dunki]

Then that's our individual problem. If you aren't a racist and you don't have a subcouious bias toward people, then taking this course shouldn't backfire. It shouldn't make you a worse person. At worse it should make you sleepy and tired. And possibly you can learn one super small thing.

To say these trainings are making things worse, suggest that people are all fine until the training. And then they get upset and start doing bad things.

My problem is that it looks like that they are. It is the same when young male students need to visit a how to not rape class. I am not a rapist and I am not treating everyone differently based on their race or gender. So why should I attend something?

 

[mckmas8808]

My problem is that it looks like that they are. It is the same when young male students need to visit a how to not rape class. I am not a rapist and I am not treating everyone differently based on their race or gender. So why should I attend something?

You'd be right if "ONLY" men had to attend those classes. In your example wouldn't women also have to attend the class?

 

[Dunki]

You'd be right if "ONLY" men had to attend those classes. In your example wouldn't women also have to attend the class?

If this is the promise

Consent workshops are as important for women as men. Just as men don’t realise they’ve raped, women often don’t realise they’ve been raped. They’ll say they felt uncomfortable, got taken advantage of, or were pressured into sex. Rarely will they ever use the word, thinking that it describes something else. But it doesn't. I was initially the same - I didn't realise I had been raped until a friend told me that that was exactly what I was describing.


Most importantly, consent workshops will shift responsibility from the victim to the perpetrator. They will teach men not to rape,

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ent-at-university-its-about-time-9753860.html

You already set clear roles. Man are rapists women are victims. There is a judgement in there that is not acceptable to me.

 

[Dr. Claus]

If this is the promise


https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ent-at-university-its-about-time-9753860.html

You already set clear roles. Man are rapists women are victims. There is a judgement in there that is not acceptable to me.

While this is a bit off topic, what would constitute "rape"? Much like terms such as "alt-right", "racist", "sexist", "transphobe" - I see it being used in such a loose fashion. I would think that anyone would know when they have been actually raped, but how would you "not realize" that you have been so?

Either way, I really dislike the clear signs of roles being set here. Men already have a hard time coming out after being raped and getting help (I would argue more so than women in some countries), and making it clear that it is men that are the rapists and only women can be the victims?

 

[llien]

Is there a place where diversity training has made things worse?

Bar that something not being harmful is hardly a reason to spend money on it, studies show that yes.

 

[llien]

While this is a bit off topic, what would constitute "rape"? Much like terms such as "alt-right", "racist", "sexist", "transphobe" - I see it being used in such a loose fashion.

The problem with rape is that there is a bunch of extremely popular, yet at best flawed statistics as well as generic push to widen what actually constitutes a rape. Then you have an interviewer, that is motivated to inflate statistics, doing interviews and deciding on her/his own, whether encounter that interviewed experienced is a rape or sexual assault.

That "or sexual assault" is an interesting twist on its own as it often gets omitted (even though even brief, unintentional touching or even a comment could be regarded as SA) so dubious "1 in 5" statistic from "rape and sexual assault" turns into simply "rape" and we reached a point when a public figure was shamed and forced to apologize and shut the fuck up for stating that we shouldn't conflate butt touching and rape.

Another curious statsbloating method is: "drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.” Why would anyone seeking truth put these into the same category?

Time has a good summary on it.

Andrea Dworkin, one of the most influential feminists (today's sex negative mainstream movement largely roots on her ideasa) claimed, in all seriousness, that sexual intercourse between a man and a women is rape, if man had an erection. We are slowly, but surely drifting into that direction.

 

[mckmas8808]

If this is the promise


https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ent-at-university-its-about-time-9753860.html

You already set clear roles. Man are rapists women are victims. There is a judgement in there that is not acceptable to me.

This is written by someone just writing an article. This isn't from the person that owns the company. This is just one person's opinion on consent workshops. Lets not mix up the two.

Bar that something not being harmful is hardly a reason to spend money on it, studies show that yes.

Then if diversity training makes people more racist then I blame the person more than the training. No way a diversity training class makes someone racist or bigoted unless they felt that way in the first place.

 

[Super Mario]

Then if diversity training makes people more racist then I blame the person more than the training. No way a diversity training class makes someone racist or bigoted unless they felt that way in the first place.

You must have never worked for a big corporation. If you are white male, in a position of leadership at a (liberal) corporation you are undoubtably told that there are too many of you, and that we need more women and minorities "because it is better". I can assure you these trainings are not doing anyone a favor

 

[mckmas8808]

You must have never worked for a big corporation. If you are white male, in a position of leadership at a (liberal) corporation you are undoubtably told that there are too many of you, and that we need more women and minorities "because it is better". I can assure you these trainings are not doing anyone a favor

Would it not be better though? Or is the thought "we have this many white men in leadership because they are better/smarter/harder workers than the women and minorities"? Is it possible that diversifying your leadership can lead to a better company?

 

[CaliggyJack]

This is the best news I've heard all day!

Now people will have no choice but to go and drink actual quality coffee for once in their life.

 

[Super Mario]

Would it not be better though? Or is the thought "we have this many white men in leadership because they are better/smarter/harder workers than the women and minorities"? Is it possible that diversifying your leadership can lead to a better company?

People in the workplace are often petty. Forcing diversity does not go overlooked. The workplace doesn't suddenly become a melting pot of smiles like the cover of a magazine. There are many male-dominated businesses where adding in a woman would only make things worse. However, we don't talk about them getting those tough workhouse jobs. We want them to have more corner desks.

Show me how many Fortune 500 companies became great because of diversity. What is the quantifiable difference diversity makes? What business failed because lack of minorities or women? Businesses thrive or fail because of the quality of their leaders. Period. When you ease up on leadership qualifications, in favor of quotas, that doesn't make your business better. Also, how many of these companies were started by white men? Do we need to change that? Why? How would you even impact it? You can toss in things like "education" and "societal norms" but all you're doing is pandering. There's way more white men who started with no college education, no huge amounts of resources, building a business out of their garage. There's way more successful male CEOs. Hiring Chief Diversity Officers who sole job is to discriminate against white men is not going to make any business better.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

When you ease up on leadership qualifications

Who would do this though? Why is it always the assumption that you have to lower the qualifications to hire anyone but a white man?

 

[Future]

People in the workplace are often petty. Forcing diversity does not go overlooked. The workplace doesn't suddenly become a melting pot of smiles like the cover of a magazine. There are many male-dominated businesses where adding in a woman would only make things worse. However, we don't talk about them getting those tough workhouse jobs. We want them to have more corner desks.

Show me how many Fortune 500 companies became great because of diversity. What is the quantifiable difference diversity makes? What business failed because lack of minorities or women? Businesses thrive or fail because of the quality of their leaders. Period. When you ease up on leadership qualifications, in favor of quotas, that doesn't make your business better. Also, how many of these companies were started by white men? Do we need to change that? Why? How would you even impact it? You can toss in things like "education" and "societal norms" but all you're doing is pandering. There's way more white men who started with no college education, no huge amounts of resources, building a business out of their garage. There's way more successful male CEOs. Hiring Chief Diversity Officers who sole job is to discriminate against white men is not going to make any business better.

Depends on the business. If your business is trying to reach a wide variety of customers, than having a wide variety of people involved might find better ways to broadly increase appeal. A wide variety of people interacting with each other in their business may improve general people relations, which may improve their ability to communicate to a wide variety of customers.

I mean you must have googled this if you honestly have these questions. Do you not believe this studies and articles that list out the positives?

https://www.google.com/search?q=diversity helps organizations

Note, this doesn’t mean a non diverse business will fail. But there is evidence some diversity might help it succeed.

I’ll never understand why people hate this topic so much. You often want more points of view when running a business to expand your and appeal

 

[Super Mario]

Who would do this though? Why is it always the assumption that you have to lower the qualifications to hire anyone but a white man?

What would you say most businesses traditionally looked for when hiring leaders? I'd say it is a fair assumption that overall, qualifications were probably the first thing. And yes, sometimes the female candidate has the best qualifications. Where we sit today is men dominate a lot of these fields. When we have movements now that "need more women," what happens? Do we have a bunch of equally skilled or better female candidates just pop out of no where? Maybe, but probably not often. While anecdotal, I have seen many times where it was "close" between two candidates, but the woman was chosen to fill the quota. I think it would be hard to argue that this movement hasn't caused instances of that.

Depends on the business. If your business is trying to reach a wide variety of customers, than having a wide variety of people involved might find better ways to broadly increase appeal. A wide variety of people interacting with each other in their business may improve general people relations, which may improve their ability to communicate to a wide variety of customers.

I mean you must have googled this if you honestly have these questions. Do you not believe this studies and articles that list out the positives?

https://www.google.com/search?q=diversity helps organizations

Note, this doesn’t mean a non diverse business will fail. But there is evidence some diversity might help it succeed.

I’ll never understand why people hate this topic so much. You often want more points of view when running a business to expand your and appeal

I'm not here to say that "white men deserve every job". Diversity has its place. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that. It does make sense for a business to reflect its community. You wouldn't market products to women with no women working on that division. You don't place a store in a black community with no black employees. You certainly can't have any big business with all white men.

It has gotten out of hand though. I was once tasked with this before in a male-dominated industry. It's very troubling when you start discriminating instead of finding talent. It was even counter-productive. Many of the women that did get brought in, tend to not work out well for that particular role. Again, maybe it's that issue of representation.

Let me ask you this. Would the construction industries, HVAC technicians, waste disposal, landscaping, etc be better off with more women because diversity is better? If diversity is so beneficial, where is the call for more men to be kindergarten teachers, administrative assistants, childcare workers, and nurse practitioners? That's because it's not truly about diversity. It's about getting women into the higher paying positions. Ones that they don't desire on a large scale. No amount of feel good articles on Google makes that any better.

 

[Future]

It has gotten out of hand though. I was once tasked with this before in a male-dominated industry. It's very troubling when you start discriminating instead of finding talent. It was even counter-productive. Many of the women that did get brought in, tend to not work out well for that particular role. Again, maybe it's that issue of representation.

Let me ask you this. Would the construction industries, HVAC technicians, waste disposal, landscaping, etc be better off with more women because diversity is better? If diversity is so beneficial, where is the call for more men to be kindergarten teachers, administrative assistants, childcare workers, and nurse practitioners? That's because it's not truly about diversity. It's about getting women into the higher paying positions. Ones that they don't desire on a large scale. No amount of feel good articles on Google makes that any better.

Let’s start with the first bolded. No one should be fucking doing that. Typically, the people fighting for diversity aren’t saying hire unqualified people for the job. Some might, but that’s another subset of people that I am not a part of, and I’d be curious if ANY are in this thread

As for the second bolded... haha man. That’s what I’m talking about. Why does taking about diversity cause people to get all bent out of shape. Am I supposed to dismiss all those articles cuz they are just “feel good” bullshit that means nothing. What does that even mean?

I’d argue that people in general benefit from more points of view, and therefore every business would. Will it immediately help their bottom line? Probably not. But it might help the basic human relations of the company with having people used to be around others that are different. And most businesses can benefit from improved human relations and a very socially open staff. Got no feel good articles to back that up though, it’s just my hot take

 

[CaliggyJack]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I'm wondering is Trump the most hated president of all time by black people?

In the last 20 years? Sure. Of all time? Hell no.

That title belongs to Warren G. Harding.

 

[Cato]

Who would do this though? Why is it always the assumption that you have to lower the qualifications to hire anyone but a white man?

When that happened it was wrong.
Today in some places you have to lower qualifications to enroll someone that is not asian. It is still wrong.

We can not cure past mistakes by repeating them.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

We can not cure past mistakes by repeating them.

Can't cure current grievances by acting like past mistakes don't impact current lives either.