Hacker News Reader

Comment by ravenstine | Hacker News Reader

> Her entire argument frames race relations within the context of the workplace which is problematic because her approach is coercive, not educational.

It's also problematic because the workplace inherently has an underlying adversarial quality that can provide a never-ending supply of "microaggressions" and various forms of otherings that effectively sow more division than actually get non-whites anywhere.

The author is particularly clever for writing a book for the target of anti-racism, because the market for "look who's racist" media is thoroughly saturated.

Since race is becoming a greater and greater issue, I imagine it will continue to become a get-rich-quick scheme for some adept to the English language, or the language of CorporateSpeak.

View on HN

> It's also problematic because the workplace inherently has an underlying adversarial quality that can provide a never-ending supply of "microaggressions"

Its also the only place in adulthood where people willingly or unwillingly must work together with people different than them and not necessarily of their choosing to reach a common goal.

The only place?

Can you think of others? Maybe sports?

Charities. Church. Musical groups. Schools (PTA, etc). Local government.

None of those places is a literal requirement for sustenance, but you do need to work somewhere, and for most people, that somewhere is anywhere that will take you.

Pedantically you are mostly correct. Practically I'm not convinced your distinction is useful.

Practically speaking, having freedom of choice is a big deal. And we are free to choose our churches, whether to engage in our PTA, etc.

We're also free to find new jobs if we don't like them, but it sure is harder than those other choices.

For me it is. Everywhere else I choose who I do and do not interact with, I go to stores where only “my people” go, I live in a neighborhood where only “my people” live.

Even that common goal often ends up being an IRL McGuffin when the real point for most people is to get paid. For some, reaching that goal may be counter to their employment or workplace comfort. The common goal may not actually be so common, especially if the means to reach that goal elevates some over others, which almost certainly will happen in any hierarchy.

> the workplace inherently has an underlying adversarial quality that can provide a never-ending supply of "microaggressions"

Did you pick this idea up somewhere else or think of it yourself? I've not heard that concept, and it makes way too much sense.

The term was coined in 1970:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

I think poster was referring to the fact that workplaces are naturally fun of microaggressions regardless of race or sex, so it's easy to point the finger. It's analogous to how everybody's speeding, so everybody's guilty, and anyone can be pulled over (but usually the black person will happen to be the one pulled over).

>usually the black person will happen to be the one pulled over //

Which country are you in? Have you checked that statistic or did you assume it?

US, and no, I didn't need to check the statistic. Do you also think people shouldn't be protesting because they haven't proven black people are being targeted disproportionately by police to a 95% confidence interval?

I prefer to base my views on facts. You need to check the statistics because it's very easy to be wrong - we all have biases and limitations.

I gather statistics show USA police are not targeting black people ("damn lie and statistics" though, so I'm Caruso's about that result), contrary to how I imagined it. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it possibly means the problem is more concentrated - ie in general the police are doing well, but specific groups/officers are being highly discriminatory.

I find it CorporateSpeak to say that race is becoming a greater and greater issue. It's long been a great issue. Wars have been fought over race, and the concept of race.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com