zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
Doing cheap PR moves like blacking out logos or posting Twitter "support" posts from CEO accounts or announcing the end of default branches named "master" is, as I said, cheap. The real issue is dealing with the elephants in the room, such as the aforementioned ICE contract of GitHub.

It is about time that corporations, with GitHub here as an example, noticed that backing this or that or another minority or "trying" to solve some medial issue only where it suits them PR-wise is simply abusing that minority in yet another way; it is a means of using that minority, and all the people who constitute that minority, as a tool for public relation stunts and political "but we support X, see?" newspeak that brings no actual change.

I'm genuinely curious if GitHub does support Black and Brown people enough to actually make that support noticeable for everyday lives of these folk.

>>phoe-k+Ih
I really dislike labeling any recognition of an issue as "cheap".

It was not that long ago that any positive recognition of even gay people existing in modern media outside of farce, recognition by corporations was seen as a HUGE step forward as far as making people or concerns SEEN.

Maybe some CEO's out there are all Snidely Whiplash and putting out all their messaging for free PR, but I'm not going to assume that and I think the recognition is of value.

>>duxup+vi
I understand the position, but nowadays Twitter is full of #BlackLivesMatter posts, pride flags can be seen commonly, all while, to bring the two most currently visible things that haven't changed, the sex/race pay gaps are still there, and Black folk are still much more likely to die during police interventions.

I guess I'm glad that the recognition and posts from CEOs is there, but posting rainbow flags and "Black Lives Matter" on Twitter has simply become fashionable now. It's possible to do that and do nothing else in order to announce a success and go, "hey, we support minorities" while ignoring problems that have people mispaid, misjudged, locked up for statistically longer, or just plain outright killed.

That's the elephant in the room I've mentioned, and unless these Twitter statistics and CEO or corporate recognition you mention translate into daily reality of these minority groups, they're not of much actual and practical use. They're not the goal, they're the means.

EDIT: in other words, if one of your Black friends gets shot "by accident" during a random police intervention - oh goodness, it's really sad, Alexa play some jazz music. But hey, #BlackLivesMatter is trending in social media, that must means that things are good for the Black folk, right?

/s

EDIT2: The word "cheap" is there because such a stunt is very far from being "expensive". It costs little to nothing, it can be done without other actions or at minimal costs, it does not require changes of management or company course or internal rules. It is, therefore, by definition, cheap.

>>phoe-k+Jk
"... and Black folk are still much more likely to die during police interventions."

Care to link to a source?

>>Foxhea+ko
I try to do my best to assume good faith, but sometimes comments like this make it really hard.

In any case, here's two links. One's from Drexel University, the other is a meta-composition of resources by an organization connected to the Kennedy School at Harvard. Educate yourself.

[1] https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2016/December/Black-Men-3-tim...

[2] https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-...

>>qchris+Ps
I don't know if it's one of the studies you linked to, but I read a study a week ago that showed that black men were 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop, but 2.1 more likely to kill a cop (compared to whites).