One Black employee, cited in the report, said that “her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun.” Another Black employee said that a co-worker “broadly described Black employees as less capable” during a recruiting meeting. The company told employees that the story painted "an inaccurate picture.”
Is it really a concern troll political hit-piece, though? These seem like pretty concretely bad and racist things. Also, way to pick a single line you don't like out of an article that enumerates a whole bunch of issues with what Coinbase is doing.
I think they're different. A company can crack down on bigotry and discrimination without proclaiming a "commitment to racial justice". Just like a company can have a raging racism problem while publicly talking about their "commitment to racial justice." One is about legal compliance and action, and the other is words.
This needs to be said more, people have always fallen for these false platitudes from bosses, government and so on. Only recently has this "placation culture" really moved to companies and for whatever reason it seems our blind spot for this today is much worse than a decade ago
Is the piece about how it's financially predatory, or is it about how they're racist? Sticking that in randomly makes it seem like they're just trying to smear the organization however they can.
Anecdotal hearsay. Coinbase has nearly 5000 employees and they found 2 unverified examples of racism. Does that mean its a systemic problem? Why does have a crypto exchange have to take a stance on "racial justice"? What does that mean?
"But there are questions about Coinbase's commitment to racial justice." - this is a quintessential example of weasel words and is indicative of the article's quality.
The examples are one-sided claims without evidence, and there are many ways they could be "an inaccurate picture". The first case most likely is an inappropriate jocular interjection during casual mutual banter on clothing, music, or a story. The second case could well be a common misinterpretation of meaning during a discussion about affirmative action or DEI policies.
Calling Trump an authoritarianism when it was Biden that tried to coerce people to take a novel medical treatment or face losing their job, a fundamental violation of medical ethics.
What executive orders has Trump signed that are racist or authoritarian?
Please list the EO numbers and explain your rational of how you arrived there using the text in the EO, rather than some highfalutin opinion written by an activist.
I keep hearing this, but nobody can seemingly answer such a simple question. I can only conclude they are blatant liars and propagandists.
"Nobody is going to waste time indulging in my sealioning, so they're liars."
I'm also not going to waste my time indulging in it, but it's worth pointing out for passers-by that that's exactly what this is. It's a low-effort rhetorical gambit designed to waste time demonstrating from first principles something that the questioner isn't going to change their mind about anyway just because somebody more clued-in than said questioner sighed and pulled up EO 13769 to cite chapter-and-verse.
How exactly are you arriving at racism without first explaining why economic, political, and military relations between these countries were not the cause? Are the continued sanctions of Cuba racist? What is the discerning factor for why Biden continues these sanctions in the year 2023?
The word "racist" has been so over-used by activists to silence dissenting voices pointing out how brain-dead their ideas really are, that the word has lost all meaning. Just imagine if the word "dumb" had the same effect. How long would it take before it's meaning is completely eroded away to protect indefensible positions? That's is where we are.
I'm convinced there is no legitimate rationale here other than "orange man bad". This is very easy to falsify, but the fact there's a continued refusal to engage in the argument presented speaks for itself.
Well he did say he'll be a dictator for his first day in office. Can't think of the last time a non-authoritarian struggled to say "No" to "Will you be a dictator?"
He had a whole term to be a dictator. Why didn't he go full dictator last term? Or are you just saying in a hyperbolic way that that he'll do the same stuff he did last term?
And I don't think the surprise win of 2016 with no GOP machinery backing him out of the gate is going to be a good analog to the preparations that are ongoing right now. He will have far, far more capable people around him, a sense of revenge, and nothing to lose.
The correct answer to "Will you be a dictator?" when asked to a US presidential candidate, is "No." The fact that ridiculous question even had to be asked, and came from someone throwing him a softball (Hannity), and he still couldn't answer it correctly are all serious alarm bells.
> I am literally stating what he literally stated.
And if you look what he said in full context it doesn't seem that bad?
>"You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?" Hannity asked.
>"Except for Day One," Trump said.
>When asked to clarify, Trump said he would use the presidency to close the border and increase oil drilling in the U.S.
>"That is not retribution," Hannity said.
>"I love this guy. He says, 'You're not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said, 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator," Trump said.
I agree that it's not a great thing to say as a presidential candidate, but it's tenuous to go from that to "he's going to go full dictator like Xi Jinping/Putin/Maduro/Orban".
I didn’t say he is going to (especially not successfully). I said two things:
1) he is clearly authoritarian (adjective) and
2) there are several answers other than self-control or lack of willpower/desire that could explain the fact he didn’t successfully “become a dictator” in his first term, and some of those components have changed dramatically between then and now
You can always twist anything into enough knots to construe it as "blatant lies and propaganda" – clearly you've already made up your mind – so this is not an exercise worth doing for anyone.
It seems you've made up your mind without any evidence, but it's too embarrassing to admit you've been propagandized so you're making excuses and deflecting. Asking for a single bit of evidence isn't unreasonable.
For all that's been written about Trump, you'd think this should be easy to retrieve. I've personally looked and found nothing, but maybe my methodology was flawed which is why I asked.
If no evidence is provided, it's reasonable to conclude the claims are false.
