Wokeness in Tech - (Rainbow-washed logo) Targeting bleeding-edge architectures to facilitate viral niches and strategize best-of-breed networks #BlackLivesMatter

[Bongocat]

The dress code itself would be permissive enough where you can dress like a idiot for the most part but that there would be specific restrictions on a few specific things that would easily weed out soys and troons.

No beards, no danger hair, no side-shave haircuts for women, no "programmer socks", punk fashions would be heavily discouraged but not totally banned, plaid must be kept to a minimum, stuff like that.

I was looking at software companies a while ago. One fairly major (but still local) one indicated that their employees could not have facial hair. I thought that was really dumb at the time, but now I wonder...

 

[AnOminous]

No beards, no danger hair, no side-shave haircuts for women, no "programmer socks", punk fashions would be heavily discouraged but not totally banned, plaid must be kept to a minimum, stuff like that.

No "anything studies" degrees. No useless degrees in general. No facial expressions like anything in this thread.

 

[Syaoran Li]

No "anything studies" degrees. No useless degrees in general.

True, but that would go without saying, wouldn't it?

 

[discombobulate]

I was looking at software companies a while ago. One fairly major (but still local) one indicated that their employees could not have facial hair. I thought that was really dumb at the time, but now I wonder...

Not a good idea for that company. Unless being clean-shaven is essential for the job and beards can't otherwise be accommodated (like beard nets in food service), forbidding beards is just asking for an employment discrimination lawsuit. It's a classic instance of disparate impact: almost 50% of black men have a condition where shaving is excruciatingly painful and leads to terrible itches. Look down at the "legal" section and you'll see what I'm talking about.

@Syaoran Li anti-discrimination law would also fuck up your idea. While sexual orientation and gender identity aren't protected characteristics yet in federal law they are in many states and cities and recent SC cases have brought LGBT stuff more and more into protected characteristics. A dress code that obviously is meant to fuck up trannies would get torn up in a case.

 

[Corn Flakes]

True, but that would go without saying, wouldn't it?

You would think so, but apparently Current Year allows for that to require mentioning.

Not that it matters much. Half these dangerhairs have degrees in fields related to IT. What they they got before they got thigh-high striped socks and started calling themselves Saoirse or Brianna so they could distract themselves from their crippling student debt.

Not a good idea for that company. Unless being clean-shaven is essential for the job and beards can't otherwise be accommodated (like beard nets in food service), forbidding beards is just asking for an employment discrimination lawsuit. It's a classic instance of disparate impact: almost 50% of black men have a condition where shaving is excruciatingly painful and leads to terrible itches. Look down at the "legal" section and you'll see what I'm talking about.

@Syaoran Li anti-discrimination law would also fuck up your idea. While sexual orientation and gender identity protected characteristics yet in federal law they are in many states and cities and recent SC cases have brought LGBT stuff more and more into protected characteristics. A dress code that obviously is meant to fuck up trannies would get torn up in a case.

Also, a no-beard policy without a sanitary reason would run afoul of certain religious protections. Sikhs come to mind.

 

[AnOminous]

Also, a no-beard policy without a sanitary reason would run afoul of certain religious protections. Sikhs come to mind.

You could make an accommodation for Sikhs and other beards for religious reasons, but "soy boy" isn't a protected class.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Not a good idea for that company. Unless being clean-shaven is essential for the job and beards can't otherwise be accommodated (like beard nets in food service), forbidding beards is just asking for an employment discrimination lawsuit. It's a classic instance of disparate impact: almost 50% of black men have a condition where shaving is excruciatingly painful and leads to terrible itches. Look down at the "legal" section and you'll see what I'm talking about.

@Syaoran Li anti-discrimination law would also fuck up your idea. While sexual orientation and gender identity aren't protected characteristics yet in federal law they are in many states and cities and recent SC cases have brought LGBT stuff more and more into protected characteristics. A dress code that obviously is meant to fuck up trannies would get torn up in a case.

I get the anti-discrimination laws would be a thing to contend with but that's why the dress code only singles out a few specific ridiculous things like neon-dyed hair, punk-style haircuts, or garish "programmer" socks

Any even halfway competent lawyer could say "a transgender employee could wear a dress or feminine attire that does not violate the dress code fairly easily, and having a bright blue side shave haircut is not a prerequisite of being LGBT"

You would think so, but apparently Current Year allows for that to require mentioning.

Not that it matters much. Half these dangerhairs have degrees in fields related to IT. What they they got before they got thigh-high striped socks and started calling themselves Saoirse or Brianna so they could distract themselves from their crippling student debt.


Also, a no-beard policy without a sanitary reason would run afoul of certain religious protections. Sikhs come to mind.

Already have that covered. Dangerhairs can be passed up for non-dangerhairs with IT degrees and if they don't get the job, it's not like we'll inform them they weren't hired.

The "No beard" policy would have a specific exemption for religious protections.

Most soys are atheists and I don't see the average troon or soy beardo belonging to any of the religions that require men to have beards (Sikhs, Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.) since they're usually strict religions with defined codes of moral conduct that typically preclude the inclinations and beliefs of a typical Woke Leftist.

 

[Bongocat]

"soy boy" isn't a protected class.

yet.

 

[discombobulate]

I get the anti-discrimination laws would be a thing to contend with but that's why the dress code only singles out a few specific ridiculous things like neon-dyed hair, punk-style haircuts, or garish "programmer" socks

Any even halfway competent lawyer could say "a transgender employee could wear a dress or feminine attire that does not violate the dress code fairly easily, and having a bright blue side shave haircut is not a prerequisite of being LGBT"

It's not that simple. Promoting a gay softball league at work isn't a prerequisite of being LGBT either but the SC found in the favor of Bostock just this year. The onus is on the employer to prove the disparate impact is justified once the petitioner can demonstrate that it's happening. The fact is that your idea of a dress code is obviously aimed at a specific group of people who are disproportionately likely to wear certain clothes and you don't have any good reason to exclude those clothes. Most tech jobs aren't customer facing and even if they are dyed hair, even neon, and stupid hair cuts are pretty normalized now. Whether or not it's good, anti-discrimination case law has been exploding over the last couple years.

You very much can't discriminate among feminine activity/attire based simply on how the employer thinks of it, there still must be a justifiable reason behind it. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins very clearly established that.

Soy boys are another thing, though I think your ideas wouldn't work out. I've known more fratboy brogrammers who wear plaid and have beards than I have soy boys and a defining trait of soy boys is that they don't have the gumption to go against authority; they wouldn't choose to violate a dress code without some queer raising a stink first. If you want to refuse to hire soy boys you don't need to rely on a fiddly dress code, you just tell them to fuck off.

 

[Chan Buddhism]

Idk man just in the job application they gotta put their twitter handle. They get hired if they don't use twitter

 

[Bongocat]

Idk man just in the job application they gotta put their twitter handle. They get hired if they don't use twitter

Unironically a good idea. If they don't outright give their handle, most lefties are retarded enough now to put their real name on their sperg account somewhere.
Alternatively, they take a gigantic political shit on their business handles that are supposed to have their real name. One side effect of thinking you're "on the right side of history" is that you have zero filter.

I've been involved in hiring before and uh...
well I've never cited twitter as a reason for not hiring someone, but lets just say it gives me the go ahead to put "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" into high gear.

 

[Chan Buddhism]

Unironically a good idea. If they don't outright give their handle, most lefties are retarded enough now to put their real name on their sperg account somewhere.
Alternatively, they take a gigantic political shit on their business handles that are supposed to have their real name. One side effect of thinking you're "on the right side of history" is that you have zero filter.

I've been involved in hiring before and uh...
well I've never cited twitter as a reason for not hiring someone, but lets just say it gives me the go ahead to put "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" into high gear.

Being on the farms as my main site it's easy to forget how little regular people give a fuck about anonymity. But these are supposed to be computer engineers. If they don't follow the most basic rule of internet security I sure as hell wouldn't pay them to dick around with computers.

 

[Least Concern]

Yeah, I can't get in board with a dress code or facial hair restrictions or that sort of thing. Or even just a blanket "don't hire trannies" rule. We get a warped perspective here on the Farms that talentless brats like Wu are all that's out there, but there are plenty of men who will wax their body hair and wear dresses and get their Adam's apples shaved - and then come to work and sit down at their desks and get some amazing work done without having to constantly make sure everyone in the room is focused on their special identity. I've worked with - and learned from - people like this. Not every transsexual is a tranny, and I'm willing to look a little deeper than someone's facial hair or choice of clothes before deciding if they're going to be a problem or not.

But yeah, by all means, look at their social media, and especially look for anything they've said about their previous employers…

 

[Bongocat]

Not every transsexual is a tranny.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Yeah, I can't get in board with a dress code or facial hair restrictions or that sort of thing. Or even just a blanket "don't hire trannies" rule. We get a warped perspective here on the Farms that talentless brats like Wu are all that's out there, but there are plenty of men who will wax their body hair and wear dresses and get their Adam's apples shaved - and then come to work and sit down at their desks and get some amazing work done without having to constantly make sure everyone in the room is focused on their special identity. I've worked with - and learned from - people like this. Not every transsexual is a tranny, and I'm willing to look a little deeper than someone's facial hair or choice of clothes before deciding if they're going to be a problem or not.

But yeah, by all means, look at their social media, and especially look for anything they've said about their previous employers…

Yes, people like that exist. And they are not the ones so many find concerning.

You make it sound like the problem is with transsexuals per se, which it is not. The problem is the witch hunts, the thought crime, the Twitter mobs, the Maoist struggle sessions, the explicit firing of people for being white and male, the people who's sole purpose of being in a FOSS community is to talk about how all of society is an intersecting system of oppression.

Jeremy Howard of FastAI recently got the treatment. Listen to how he talks about NumFOCUS.

https://archive.vn/xKKbb

One thing about Coinbase: the attitudes expressed by the CEO may be representative of fintech at large. Maybe others have higher thresholds for what they are willing to tolerate. By I'm learning there's very little appetite for the heavy-handed politics in these communities.

 

[Syaoran Li]

It's not that simple. Promoting a gay softball league at work isn't a prerequisite of being LGBT either but the SC found in the favor of Bostock just this year. The onus is on the employer to prove the disparate impact is justified once the petitioner can demonstrate that it's happening. The fact is that your idea of a dress code is obviously aimed at a specific group of people who are disproportionately likely to wear certain clothes and you don't have any good reason to exclude those clothes. Most tech jobs aren't customer facing and even if they are dyed hair, even neon, and stupid hair cuts are pretty normalized now. Whether or not it's good, anti-discrimination case law has been exploding over the last couple years.

You very much can't discriminate among feminine activity/attire based simply on how the employer thinks of it, there still must be a justifiable reason behind it. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins very clearly established that.

Soy boys are another thing, though I think your ideas wouldn't work out. I've known more fratboy brogrammers who wear plaid and have beards than I have soy boys and a defining trait of soy boys is that they don't have the gumption to go against authority; they wouldn't choose to violate a dress code without some queer raising a stink first. If you want to refuse to hire soy boys you don't need to rely on a fiddly dress code, you just tell them to fuck off.

The thing is that how could you prove in a court of law that banning bright dyed hair and beards would be specifically meant to preclude troons or whatever? Or how a company with a gay CEO (assuming I'm the one that's the president of it) would be anti-LGBT?

That's part of why I'd want to establish it as a small company in a red state. Unless you're in a city like Austin, Atlanta, or Asheville, the average circuit court judge in those states are usually Boomers or older Generation X'ers who aren't exactly known for activism and probably still have that mindset of "You don't dye your hair for work. It's a business place." and probably would find a dress code permitting track pants and T-shirts to be too permissive (especially if you're in Appalachia, the most conservative part of the Bible Belt)

As for hiring soys then I can definitely do that, but I still would ban beards in the dress code (with exemptions for religious reasons)

Idk man just in the job application they gotta put their twitter handle. They get hired if they don't use twitter

That's another component that I would use and I'd make it clear that we are fine with employees not having Twitter, so they wouldn't be compelled to lie.

The average Woke Leftist will put their Twitter anyway and then we can use that to keep them from being hired. If they don't get hired, they won't be able to even attempt entryism.

Yeah, I can't get in board with a dress code or facial hair restrictions or that sort of thing. Or even just a blanket "don't hire trannies" rule. We get a warped perspective here on the Farms that talentless brats like Wu are all that's out there, but there are plenty of men who will wax their body hair and wear dresses and get their Adam's apples shaved - and then come to work and sit down at their desks and get some amazing work done without having to constantly make sure everyone in the room is focused on their special identity. I've worked with - and learned from - people like this. Not every transsexual is a tranny, and I'm willing to look a little deeper than someone's facial hair or choice of clothes before deciding if they're going to be a problem or not.

But yeah, by all means, look at their social media, and especially look for anything they've said about their previous employers…

We can't have a blanket "don't hire trannies" rule but the dress code would be a way to weed out soys, woke dyke dangerhairs, and troons who'd be a problem and attempt to perform entryism.

But it's the secondary line of defense. The main line of defense would be screening them out by looking at their Twitter presence.

 

[AnOminous]

Yeah, I can't get in board with a dress code or facial hair restrictions or that sort of thing.

I don't think it's going to happen. I just don't see a modern company adopting a dress code like IBM circa 1955 because it wouldn't even just piss off the weirdoes, but everyone else too. I don't see anything wrong with a dress code that you can't show up looking like a garish freak who dressed out of a dumpster behind a Torrid. And I do think a mild dress code would eliminate a lot of weirdos. Also in most places you can discriminate based on politics so you could quite simply refuse to hire anyone but Republicans. Or Democrats for that matter. Again, I don't see many companies opting for that. You occasionally will see a news story about someone firing people for political party but it's generally some single guy tard raging about a current election.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I don't think it's going to happen. I just don't see a modern company adopting a dress code like IBM circa 1955 because it wouldn't even just piss off the weirdoes, but everyone else too. I don't see anything wrong with a dress code that you can't show up looking like a garish freak who dressed out of a dumpster behind a Torrid. And I do think a mild dress code would eliminate a lot of weirdos. Also in most places you can discriminate based on politics so you could quite simply refuse to hire anyone but Republicans. Or Democrats for that matter. Again, I don't see many companies opting for that. You occasionally will see a news story about someone firing people for political party but it's generally some single guy tard raging about a current election.

I'm not sure how a dress code outlawing beards and danger hair but being permissive on most other things would be such a deal breaker for normal people but if that's the case, then we're even more fucked than I thought.

And again, this would be a case of a small gaming company being started up by someone outside the main Silicon Valley paradigm.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Taking a step back from the whole dress code subject, simply establishing a gaming company outside of the major metropolitan areas, even more so in a deep red state, would do a lot to cull the soy crowd. These people are attracted to large cities like flies to shit. And as the coof has shown us, software development is one of those fields where you can actually do a lot of work remotely, so you don't even have to worry that much about attracting talent to the ass-end of Montana or whatever. Get your local tax credits for starting a business there, bring in all the people who want to come in, remote everybody else. And since the job interviews would all be online to begin with, you're justified in trawling through their social media presence.

 

[Besachf Jhakut]

Taking a step back from the whole dress code subject, simply establishing a gaming company outside of the major metropolitan areas, even more so in a deep red state, would do a lot to cull the soy crowd. These people are attracted to large cities like flies to shit. And as the coof has shown us, software development is one of those fields where you can actually do a lot of work remotely, so you don't even have to worry that much about attracting talent to the ass-end of Montana or whatever.

Good point, but note this requires a higher level of software development management skill. You want that anyways, but hiring is hard.

bring in all the people who want to come in, remote everybody else.

And I've read this make fair management a lot harder, because there's a big difference in the nature of your interactions face to face and remotely. It would probably be better to go all remote in one fashion or another except for occasional face to face meetings (those can anchor an otherwise all remote relationship), and would save money for office space.

Countering the above, pre-COVID-19 the open office craze was in part just a means to get more investment, by showing clueless potential investors, see, we have so many people working hard here! No need to bring up how much you've destroyed the productivity of those working on the harder software and systems problems. But clueless investors are a problem in any case, and political ones you particularly want to avoid probably won't even consider flying out to "Montana" (which is itself sufficiently Purple and close to California I'd avoid it for other reasons).