Hacker News Reader

Comment by peteretep | Hacker News Reader

> when you get accused of racism, what can you even do?

Make sure nobody has any examples of you being racist

Say you're, I don't know, the person who gives driving license tests. You fail a <race> person, person claims you are racist against <race>. How do you make sure no one has examples like that? Just always pass literally everyone no matter how bad a driver they are in case they're going to later claim discrimination?

You can avoid explicit examples with evidence attached ("he called me a n-word and fired me, see <youtube link>") but I don't see how you can reliably avoid claims of bias. And while the nyt article isn't out yet, I'm willing to bet that these (like most) claims is one of bias. Moreoever most actual legitimate instances of racism are also going to be of that form, because most people aren't stupid enough to make illegal things they are doing obvious.

That kind of thing would not hold up in court without a strong pattern proved or additional explicitly discriminatory behavior. Discrimination is surprisingly hard to prove, in fact.

We're not talking about court (or at least I'm not), we're talking about a newspaper article and reputation.

(I edited a second half into my original comment that might make this clearer, though I did that before I saw your reply)

Well, I think people have to decide for themselves. If you accuse someone of bias without sufficient evidence, there’s no reason you should be believed. As for most instances of racism merely being bias, I don’t think this is the case, at least for allegations that make it into the NYT. Typically there is also evidence of a hostile environment provided. When there isn’t then the evidence of bias needs to speak for itself.

You can provide the reason for your decision. If you routinely evaluate driving tests, you will have based your decision on factors that you have applied without bias.

And if you feel so inclined, you can express your understanding to that person who feels that they have been wronged because of their background. Chances are they have been right far more often than they have been wrong and it's very stressful having to deal with an ever-present potential for unprovoked adversity.

It should be a very small burden on you to acknowledge their situation.

To return to the topic, Coinbase doesn't lose a breath acknowledging their Black employees who did file complaints. If they had any sympathy for these employees — which they should have even if they were not wronged for being Black — why didn't they express it in the statement?

That is unlikely to work. You may have heard of implicit bias [0]? A case can be made that you were born a racist and you have to prove that you have shaken yourself free from your racist beginnings.

I personally think it is a silly case, but 'well, just don't be racist' is a silly defense - so maybe they'll work well together.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype

Anybody can accuse you of anything, it’s true, but accusations of racism without specific allegations of racist behaviours or actions are rarely reported in NYT.

The NYT? After the Trump presidency? Here is a helpful attack article they wrote about an issue that turned out not to involve any particular racial undertones [0] - although you wouldn't figure that out from the NYT reporting. They aren't known for being careful before calling people racist with light evidence. Another good example of 'nobody has any examples of you being racist' being nowhere near enough to keep a reputation intact too.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/covington-catholic-hig...

As a non-white person, I generally regard people that wear those hats the same way I treat people who wear confederate paraphernalia - from a safe distance far away.

Implicit bias is extremely hard to argue in the absence of other examples of racist behavior. In the court of public opinion, well. I think you're doing well as a baseline if the only arguments someone can make are about implicit bias. An accusation of implicit bias is far easier to defend against than one of racial abuse.

Not sure that's true. An allegation of racial abuse you defend against by saying "I did not do that", hopefully with evidence on your side (other people were at the meeting, maybe).

But how do you defend against implicit bias? "No, I'm not"? In the current climate, I'm not sure that saves your public image...

You can always claim not to have acted with bias but if there’s strong evidence that you did then I’m not sure how one is supposed to defend against it, in an informal sense (IANAL). I would just admit it, make amends, and try to move on.

But if there's strong evidence that you acted with bias, then isn't that evidence of explicit bias? I'm not even sure what strong evidence of implicit bias would look like.

What about in the day and age where "silence is violence"? Apparently just trying to not get involved is enough to make a whole company raciest?

Announcing a policy where you’re saying “we’re above politics and we’ll pay you to leave if you’re not” is quite definitely not an example of “trying to not get involved”

How is it not?

It's taking a side and saying that if you don't like the side they take then you can leave. The side they're taking is "we're above politics."

And "above politics" is the same as "not involved in politics". Call it a side/position/stance/perspective/angle or whatever else. It's still means they're not involved.

It means they’re involved in preserving the present state of affairs in politics. We can call this being apolitical if we’d like, we just need to be clear about what we mean.

> "means they’re involved in preserving the present state of affairs"

No it doesn't. Perhaps constantly forcing your subjective interpreted and implied meaning on everyone else is the root of the problem.

> "call this being apolitical"

Sure, call it that. It literally means not involved.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apolitical

I still feel that you're missing my point but I am clearly not skilled enough to make it more obvious.

Your point is exceedingly obvious. It's being refuted by both literal definition and reasonable interpretation of the vast majority.

As I understood the "we're above politics", it was "you don't do politics at work". How is that taking a side? And if it is taking a side, which side?

Well, this particular policy change appears to have been at least partially in response to labor action that the company didn’t like, and if that’s not political than nothing is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com