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.
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.
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.
Care to link to a source?
From Significance, right at the top: "(...) Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men."
For example, at an individual level, there is a lot of good research about how housing segregation is one of the largest continuing drivers in systemic racism in the US. So if you have a bunch of BLM posters in your yard, but at the same time fight tooth-and-nail against any increased density in your neighborhood that might actually lower housing costs where you live, well you should just STFU, or at least realize the underpinnings of your blatant hypocrisy.
Could you link some of it? I'm alien to this particular issue.
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-...
Protests happened in the past too? Do we discount that?
It's all cynicism and divisiveness these days about how someone isn't doing enough, even among folks who share values ... in favor of I don't know what standard ...
In this study run by Harvard professor Roland Fryer, it was found that African-Americans are 20% less likely to be shot and proportionally more likely to see use-of-force against them.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399
I didn't find anything unbiased in my quick search on "likelihood of death during interaction."
I did not mean to imply that the visibility of these issues hasn't changed; it's quite obvious that these issues are much closer to the surface of everyday discourse than they were earlier.
The visibility alone does nil, though, when it comes to everyday practical effects. The mere fact that this issue is visible did not change the death counts. Death statistics during police interventions can be considered one such standard. It's a good first step that needs to be followed by further steps.
Support by major companies, while admittedly less effective, is another signal that helps. Claiming that it's useless is false and claiming it's cheap is ignorant - the OP clearly demonstrates that a good deed never goes unpunished.
The visibility alone does nil, though, when it comes to everyday practical effects. The mere fact that this issue is visible did not change the death counts. Death statistics during police interventions can be considered one such standard. It's a good first step that needs to be followed by further steps.
1. Most humans have ancestral past as slaves, be it serfdom or thraldom.
2. Etmologically the master branch is associated with the concept of a master copy, not a whip lashing plantation owner.
3. Slavery is pretty much a thing of the past, accept from certain parts of the middle east and africa. And let us not forget, the producers of our consumer goods in asia...
Sold by the same companies that foregive to care jackshit about anything. LOL!
In reality, police brutality is nothing new. Politicians should have made changes to keep police accountable years ago, but have consistently failed to do so. Now we've reached a tipping point where the public at large demands change, which needs to come from politicians, and the protests are the manifestation of this.
Does a Tweet from a CEO immediately fix the issue? Of course not. But that's like saying any individual is not going to make a difference when protesting, so they shouldn't bother. Obviously this will only lead to complacency, which will only cause the problem get worse. Democracy, in this case, means as much public pressure as possible so that politicians can no longer ignore the issue without fear of being voted out of office.
Every single bit of additional pressure helps the cause, and whether or not it's also good PR is irrelevant.
The 2.5x number isn't really disputed, it is the reason for it & the policy that is proposed because of it that is contentious.