> The recent incident with ThePHD’s keynote downgrade was not racially motivated, thankfully, but… if that’s what it looks like from the outside, and any form of official communication is still days or weeks away, does it really make a difference?
yes! it does!
we can't keep framing everything as race, gender, or orientation related. people have to have basic filters for what the most important issue is in a situation. stop falling back to "easy" outs or making sweeping statements about the "deeper systemic problem".
there are plenty of social problems which can't be solved by attaching every motive to every situation
I think it matters in so far as people who “don’t fit in” to a group often feel excluded from the group, and seeing people like you honored makes you feel more welcome. As a bunch of nerds surely we know what it feels like to be the odd man out. But what if you’re the odd man out in every context except for your family? What if you are the only one like yourself, the only one who when you walk in a room people stop talking and shift uncomfortably? Even in a room full of nerdy outsiders, you’re the outsider outsider. I don’t believe racism entered into the decision. But in tossing aside an opportunity to honor a black engineer for their legitimately earned achievements, you take away a chance to make that uncomfortable black engineer who feels outside the group a part of that group, and that is a shame. It doesn’t have to be the only decision making criteria. But in my life, opening doors to people and making the uncomfortable feel comfortable is important. I at least remember being socially uncomfortable and feeling like no one is like me at many points in my life. I know how that feels, and I know my experience was a shadow of what a black person experiences daily in the US, and in tech in particular where they are essentially unrepresented. Y’all don’t have to care how folks feel around you, but I was raised to love my neighbor, and small gestures to make entire classes of people feel welcome in my field when all evidence bears they’re not, I’ll take it.
I believe the reason they are saying it doesn’t matter, is that without a clear statement of what happened from the decision makers, people can speculate.
One of those things people will speculate on is if this was one of the reasons. The fact that it is also part of the equation means it can’t be outright ignored and so will also need to be addressed. On top of that, this is already an underrepresented group, and regardless of if it was a primary motivating factor, it does not help show that group that they are welcome and in fact harms any effort to do so.
It absolutely matters if it was or was not a factor in this decision, but without clear information about the decision making process, speculation will occur, and that in and of itself is harmful.
I really don't agree, reading the original poster's experience, that we should walk away thinking that it was because they're black. Nor should we by default assume that's the case. Multiple follow-ups by people in the Rust community have said that the politics and behavior here are a wider issue with leadership.
If the takeaway or speculation is that what went wrong here was only an issue because the speaker is black, it cheapens their experience. It tells other minorities that when they flag a problem, the root cause is their race/gender/orientation; that the solution is then a code of conduct refresh, maybe diversity training, "educating themselves", etc. But that is not, fundamentally, as far as we can see, what is wrong here. We are not respecting the deep issues that the OP actually did identify by projecting other speculative possibilities.
What happened here is a problem no matter who the speaker was. Let's address that. If other evidence comes to light on the backing motivations, we can address those to, but it's not helpful to voluntarily pull other bad behavior that there is no reason to suspect here. No one can disprove a negative, but it's on all of us to not fall for that bait.
I vehemently disagree. Unless there is reason to suspect race is a factor, which there is none in this case, then discussion should move on the issue at hand, and speculation about racism should be discouraged or ignored. Your perspective, while well intentioned, is exactly the sort that drives needless division and suspicion in modern discourse.
To be clear, you do not believe that the Rust Leadership should make it clear how they came to this decision such that any speculation of other reasons can be put to bed?
The fact that it’s open to speculation is the exact reason they need to address it. Just ignoring it at this point doesn’t seem like a good idea, does it?
No, I absolutely think they should make that clear. But among all the reasons they made this decision, however opaque things have been thus far, I think it’s wrong to speculate that the cause is racism.
I don't appreciate the insult, especially saying I have a "low mind" whatever that means.
I am not racist. I wouldn't wager that this was race related. But I wouldn't say that someone seeing the situation, and then making the assumption that is it is race related, is out of the realm of possibility.
I would think that would be an unfortunate, but frequent, take away if the average person evaluated things at surface level.
You can disagree with me here, maybe with a Gallup poll for example, without insulting me.
Just because this is a sensitive topic doesn't mean you get to throw around insults and look down on another person.
See my response to Tremon but resorting to an ad hominem based on an (incorrect) assumption of how I judged the situation is both rude and a waste of time.
it's not an ad hom—it's shameful to truly believe that all or even just most "racist" people actively take action upon their racism, given any opportunity to do so, even when it's completely obvious that said racism-based action could be obviously traced back to the person in a position of organizational leadership such that they could take said action, and that such a person is even remotely likely to exist at the top of the Rust Foundation, and that they're just so gosh-darned racist that they impulsively act upon their racism at every possible opportunity, even in blatant defiance of basic corporate self-preservation instincts, such that there's any mere semblance of a shred of a possibility that this action was "because racism." shamefully delusional, there's no way around it.
Look man, in my opinion, in the current political climate this is clearly on the short list of possible bad takes for this tech scandal (hate the phrase, but it fits).
That is why this thread even exists in the first place.
That was my whole point.
You calling me "shamefully delusional" is definitely an ad hominem no matter how many words you try to stuff in my mouth.
hm, to me the opposite seems more likely. Rust community/leadership/confs/organizers seem very far from racism. some idiotic internal petty/interpersonal conflict seems much more likely IMHO.
How do you define "reason to suspect"? E.g. what separates the actions that would result from your position from the actions that would result from a position of "there's nothing wrong with racism as long as it's not said aloud"? Established behavioral patterns? Less than that? More?
If the one black guy in the entire convention had his talk downgraded through back-channel means, I would suspect race had to do with it (if only obliquely, in that often black peoples actions are often received in much less good faith than other races). If it was actually just general leadership incompetence I think that would be important to highlight. It’s super weird when the only black guy gets sus behavior, but it’s less weird if leadership has been sus for a while and it just happened to drive off the one black guy.
The problem with assuming race has something to do with it is, you don’t learn the author’s race as you read his blog and interact with him via git.
So you must assume either that the decision makers knew through other channels, or that without knowing, they’re out-crowding him via subconscious selectors.
If you think this is a race thing, you probably think everything is a race thing.
Well I mean very clearly the community knew he was black. That’s why this discussion is being had. It’s not like the guys talk was downgraded and he went “surprise!! You can’t downgrade me because I’m black!!”. No, everyone knew he was the sole black person doing a talk in the entire event and he was the sole person who was downgraded in a backchannel, opaque manner. I would think that to be sus.
I didn’t know that ThePHD was black. I think you paint “the community” as more homogenous and informed than it is. But I understand that the involved parties are aware of each other’s races.
I understand, then, a need to speculate on racism. But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t?
> But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t
I mean that’s why the original “btw this didn’t have to do with his race” statement existed. If you’re (hypothetical you) giving special, opaque treatment to the sole black person in the group, then it’s on you to clear up any speculation the opaque treatment had to do with being black, because it was only happening to the sole black person.
So the leadership did an opaque thing to the sole black guy and then clarified the weird thing had nothing to do with his blackness, just their poor communication or whatever.
There is reason to suspect race is a factor: the facts of who was disinvited and how they were treated. There is also reason (the word “uncomfortable” in JT’s post) to suspect people are weaponizing DEI language and sensitivities as an “I win” button to boot the speaker, which ironically is having the opposite effect than what DEI initiatives generally intend.
I vehemently disagree. The possible motives of those in power should always be looked at with a microscope, unless they give us comprehensive reasons as to the decisions they made. Your perspective, while well intentioned, is exactly the sort that drives implicit bias and a disregard for minority considerations or reasoning that the decision makers don't personally relate to.
> The possible motives of those in power should always be looked at with a microscope
There are myriad possible motives. Looking at them all without evidence is not productive. I would say that all credible motives and reasons should be examined. But speculating about every or any possible motive without evidence or meaning is a waste of time at best.
Speculation always devolves to a waste of time if extending indefinitely without reality checking. When it comes to people in power the speculation can, at the very least, encourage them to be loquacious with respect to the reasons for their decisions.
I deviated what I thought was the important part, and left the rest undeviated to send a message. If you agree, then we have no issue. It's fine to assume racism until the person demonstrates otherwise. And if assuming racism prompts them to so demonstrate, then it's to the good.
> without a clear statement of what happened from the decision makers, people can speculate
People can always speculate whatever they want. And let's be honest, the kind of people who like making utterly baseless claims about racism will do so regardless of any official statements or explanations. Unless there's actual evidence of racial animus it's best to just ignore these silly people.
My first guess was the because ThePHD did a lot to push C23 forward, this might have been seen as a 'betrayal' to the Rust community - but maybe my imagination is a bit too wild, at least that’s what I hope.
I don’t think the article is saying we should make everything into a question of race. Only that if Rust doesn’t reply, people will make up their mind, and people usually devolve to the lowest common denominator, which, in this case, is a race issue.
Maybe the downgrade not, but the original keynote was, but we can only guess. I don't think it's popular to vote against a black person being the keynote speaker.
At the same time this keynote is nowhere near as interesting as last year's async stabilization keynote, I think we can all agree on that.
If all you care about is appearances, it doesn't matter at all whether discrimination actually took place. If you do actually care about discrimination, it matters quite a lot whether it happened.
The last few incidents have been damaging with or without communication. For large companies who need stability to ship software - the Rust story has been one of what looks like a good language being destroyed by shitty leadership and shitty drama.
yes! it does!
we can't keep framing everything as race, gender, or orientation related. people have to have basic filters for what the most important issue is in a situation. stop falling back to "easy" outs or making sweeping statements about the "deeper systemic problem".
there are plenty of social problems which can't be solved by attaching every motive to every situation