Uber Eats removes delivery fee for Black-owned restaurants(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Uber Eats removes delivery fee for Black-owned restaurants
https://twitter.com/UberEats/status/1268643816292020224
34 comments
I respect your need to moderate discussions.
But there’s an effort to redefine racism to include any policy that acknowledges race, as opposed to the normal definition that holds a policy is racist if it promotes the superiority of one race over another.
Semantic arguments are bad when they obscure and distract from the central point. But they are good when the distinction at issue is important to the issue at hand. In this case, the distinction is critical. In a world where widespread racism exists, but policies are not allowed to acknowledge race, then policy cannot address racism, thus it continues.
> ...keep discussion stuck in superficial and uninteresting places...
Sigh
Leaves me with so little hope. I guess we get to go around and around again on all this.
But there’s an effort to redefine racism to include any policy that acknowledges race, as opposed to the normal definition that holds a policy is racist if it promotes the superiority of one race over another.
Semantic arguments are bad when they obscure and distract from the central point. But they are good when the distinction at issue is important to the issue at hand. In this case, the distinction is critical. In a world where widespread racism exists, but policies are not allowed to acknowledge race, then policy cannot address racism, thus it continues.
> ...keep discussion stuck in superficial and uninteresting places...
Sigh
Leaves me with so little hope. I guess we get to go around and around again on all this.
Sorry, and not to pick on you, but this is part of the going around in circles. People have been making the exact same points for literally decades. Combine that repetition with the superficiality and hair-triggerness of internet discussion, and we get a recipe for tedious flamewar, which is definitely off topic here.
It's part of the general principle about canned arguments. Intellectual curiosity is all about diffs, and the diff between threads with canned arguments and threads without them is significant. The latter are much more interesting.
It's part of the general principle about canned arguments. Intellectual curiosity is all about diffs, and the diff between threads with canned arguments and threads without them is significant. The latter are much more interesting.
> Intellectual curiosity is all about diffs, and the diff between threads with canned arguments and threads without them is significant.
Setting aside the context for this discussion: I really love your way of putting this. I've always looked at a lot of things that way - especially reading non-fiction books. I read a lot, so I usually only take a way a few key points from a book - but it's those diffs to how I viewed the world before that are the important part.
Setting aside the context for this discussion: I really love your way of putting this. I've always looked at a lot of things that way - especially reading non-fiction books. I read a lot, so I usually only take a way a few key points from a book - but it's those diffs to how I viewed the world before that are the important part.
Setting aside the obvious PR opportunism, how would something like this actually work? Does Uber currently collect data on the race of the people who own restaurants they deliver from? Is data like this publicly available somehow? Is this data something they're going to start collecting to facilitate this feature? Does that sound like data it would be good for Uber to have?
Knowing what we know about Uber this all seems highly problematic.
Knowing what we know about Uber this all seems highly problematic.
I wonder how this will work from a legal point of view. This is a blatant, obvious example of racism, they aren't even attempting to be subtle about it.
It's effectively affirmative action, and there's a long history of legal apologia for it.
In the final analysis, the law is interpreted by humans, and if a class of violation (like racism) is popular enough, the system finds a way to excuse it with hand-waving.
In the final analysis, the law is interpreted by humans, and if a class of violation (like racism) is popular enough, the system finds a way to excuse it with hand-waving.
Wouldn't defending such lawsuits still cost a lot of money though, even if you end up winning?
Maybe, assuming that the lawsuits didn't get dismissed. Small companies don't have that much legal clout, and large companies are even more subject to the whims of the mob (through PR) as the justice system.
In the United States, we have several legal mechanisms for categorizing ownership of businesses, including the SBA 8(a) Business Development program (https://www.sba.gov/category/business-groups/minority-owned) and the SBA Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contracting program (https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistan...).
That's just for small businesses in general. When you look at purchasing entities such as the DoD and state governments, there are many such ways to identify ownership as belonging to a disadvantaged population.
That's just for small businesses in general. When you look at purchasing entities such as the DoD and state governments, there are many such ways to identify ownership as belonging to a disadvantaged population.
Well, this is somewhat meaningful in that they do something that actually costs something. But the principle is wrong.
And, will they do this for other minorities when they suffer discrimination at the hands of the state? How about poor people?
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
And, will they do this for other minorities when they suffer discrimination at the hands of the state? How about poor people?
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
[deleted]
While a wonderful gesture, something about this feels a bit... tangential to the real issue to me in a way that's distracting. Am I off base here? It feels like it's leaning toward opportunistic.
How is that a wonderful gesture?
This is a corporate PR stunt that has nothing to do with anything and that perpetuates racial discrimination.
This is awful.
This is a corporate PR stunt that has nothing to do with anything and that perpetuates racial discrimination.
This is awful.
I think perhaps it was the wrong choice of word - I didn't want to immediately condemn them and failed to come up with something more appropriate.
Our political establishment has no interest in ending racism; each "side" benefits from dividing Americans into identity-based groups and pitting them against other Americans on wedge issues. The hypocritical irony now is of promoting these identity-based groups for the purposes of some vague "justice" when doing so will necessarily widen the divides and propagate hatred further. It's a cynical distraction from the reality that the actual institutionalized racism predominantly occurs under the watchful leadership of the same politicians decrying it, and then you have hangers on like Uber trying to seize an issue for their own profit. It's as transparently self-serving as all the companies changing their logo avatars to rainbows for "Pride Month" a year ago, once it was politically risk-free to do so.
As one party to an interracial gay marriage I say "no thanks."
As one party to an interracial gay marriage I say "no thanks."
Hear hear. Racism and other forms of idpol have been critical tools of the political establishment in oppressing the working classes throughout American history (see 1700s Virginia Slave Codes for an early example).
While bashing "bad" racism is politically correct, bashing "good" racism is almost universally seen as taboo. Hence racism is immortal in America.
While bashing "bad" racism is politically correct, bashing "good" racism is almost universally seen as taboo. Hence racism is immortal in America.
>How is that a wonderful gesture?
There is an economic justice part of US racism that is not addressed enough if at all... Black people have been literally robbed of their income/wealth regularly and often for a few centuries now. If companies want to stand up and try to help repair this lack of justice that we all inadvertantly benefitted from, this is one way to do it.
Just because the government (for at least 100 years) continues to drag its feet when it comes to reparations doesn't mean individual companies can't step up.
There is an economic justice part of US racism that is not addressed enough if at all... Black people have been literally robbed of their income/wealth regularly and often for a few centuries now. If companies want to stand up and try to help repair this lack of justice that we all inadvertantly benefitted from, this is one way to do it.
Just because the government (for at least 100 years) continues to drag its feet when it comes to reparations doesn't mean individual companies can't step up.
It's virtue signaling 100% from a corporation. But w/e.
I won't consider Uber to be "good corporate citizen" for it. But it helps a bunch of small restaurants in a time period where margins are tight so net positive maybe?
At least they're putting money down on it vs just issuing some statement.
I won't consider Uber to be "good corporate citizen" for it. But it helps a bunch of small restaurants in a time period where margins are tight so net positive maybe?
At least they're putting money down on it vs just issuing some statement.
Killer Mike had a documentary on Netflix (?) about black life in America, and mentioned that money flows out of the black community far faster than any other minority in America. If we assume that Uber is acting in good faith, which I have no reason not to believe, then what else can they do?
Feel the same way, curious how long the gesture lasts and where they end up accounting the loss
Something can be both.
And we can enjoy the bright side of it, while not being naive.
And we can enjoy the bright side of it, while not being naive.
I can only say - be very careful in how you approach these issues. Similar actions in india resulted in not so great outcomes from the government and corporations. And we are still stuck with the prejudice and discrimination - for some even greater than before.
It's less a ploy to make Uber Eats look good than one to make people feel less bad about using Uber Eats.
It is interesting to see the responses here as opposed to this thread where pointing out that a company having diversity targets means they are explicitly not hiring based on performance (not just measuring who they have hired based on demographics of who has applied, and not mentioning race at all) ends up with multiple people agreeing that I'm a 'racist bad person'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433335
Reverse racism is a dull, simplistic and naive, and implementing it at the business level is illegal and likely unhelpful on a systemic level, not to mention that people don't spend their money based on the demographics of the company who made a product. Race also isn't the only protected class, no one seems to be mentioning women, people closer to retirement age or veterans.
I would be more impressed if uber set up offices in poorer areas regardless of demographics or lobbied for schools to have more uniform funding regardless of their neighborhood. Maybe they could have small business courses at their offices or teach people about car maintenance.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433335
Reverse racism is a dull, simplistic and naive, and implementing it at the business level is illegal and likely unhelpful on a systemic level, not to mention that people don't spend their money based on the demographics of the company who made a product. Race also isn't the only protected class, no one seems to be mentioning women, people closer to retirement age or veterans.
I would be more impressed if uber set up offices in poorer areas regardless of demographics or lobbied for schools to have more uniform funding regardless of their neighborhood. Maybe they could have small business courses at their offices or teach people about car maintenance.
What I don't understand how come ideas like this are generated and even passed by the management?
Management just doesn't have any particular skill at not generating flagrantly illegal ideas. I once saw a guy announce in a company-wide email that he was leading an initiative to help the recruiting team bucket incoming applications by gender. I strongly suspect that whoever approved this program is currently being yelled at by their legal department.
I don’t expect managers to know the law, I do expect them to check with those that do.
And responsible managers do. Unfortunately, many others conceptualize legal as a department to help them fight the law rather than a department to help them follow it.
I don't think their move here is illegal. I think it's ill-advised, bad PR, will backfire and probably predatory on the group they are ostensibly trying to help. (Maybe even without them even understanding why.)
That all said, I was almost going to downvote your comment, but it made remember how much Uber actually has made a business model out of breaking the law in every country they are active in. Move fast and break things became move fast and break the law.
That all said, I was almost going to downvote your comment, but it made remember how much Uber actually has made a business model out of breaking the law in every country they are active in. Move fast and break things became move fast and break the law.
> I don't think their move here is illegal.
This seems illegal to me, but I really don't know. What are the laws surrounding race-based company promotions/discounts?
This seems illegal to me, but I really don't know. What are the laws surrounding race-based company promotions/discounts?
Here’s the Unruh Act which applies in California:
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
Can you go into more detail? I've seen other people hint at that perspective elsewhere in the thread, and I want to understand it, because right now it's just completely mystifying to me. Uber Eats is now charging people extra to order from some restaurants depending on the race of their owners; how is that not a straightforward violation of antidiscrimination law?
It can be viewed as a kind of affirmative action. It’s a contested area but I don’t see Uber convicted over it but even if they were, I wouldn’t call it straightforward, but rather unclear.
At a previous employer I once received a company-wide email from their operations manager about "fixing" their TrustPilot score (which was low and totally justified) and how he was encouraging us to leave reviews with our opinions "as a user" despite us being employees (I raised concerns but those fell on deaf ears).
I don't understand how an e-mail like that can even be written. Even if they don't follow through with the action, if that email were to leak it will become a (justified) PR disaster for the company (said company already had a PR disaster a few months before). I might expect a clueless intern to send it out, but not an experienced operations manager. Worse, none of the CS & marketing employees saw anything wrong with that and actually went ahead and posted reviews in their name.
I don't understand how an e-mail like that can even be written. Even if they don't follow through with the action, if that email were to leak it will become a (justified) PR disaster for the company (said company already had a PR disaster a few months before). I might expect a clueless intern to send it out, but not an experienced operations manager. Worse, none of the CS & marketing employees saw anything wrong with that and actually went ahead and posted reviews in their name.
How is this not illegal given the Civil rights act of 64? This seems like a clear violation.
How do companies find out personal details like race about who runs a business (and actually do it accurately)?
Can they also find out things like religion or ethnicity?
Whether it’s corporate data collection or users checking a box, it seems like a good intention that is primed for manipulation - which I guess some companies might gloss over as long as it benefits them.
Can they also find out things like religion or ethnicity?
Whether it’s corporate data collection or users checking a box, it seems like a good intention that is primed for manipulation - which I guess some companies might gloss over as long as it benefits them.
If anyone is interested, here's an interview with a human rights lawyer Robert Barnes, a man that has litigated wrongful death cases against police, and supreme court cases.
Very pertinent, internal take on the courts, BLM, Antifa, police, Covid, and current cases before the supreme court.
https://youtu.be/6SSse90R72o?t=4021
Very pertinent, internal take on the courts, BLM, Antifa, police, Covid, and current cases before the supreme court.
https://youtu.be/6SSse90R72o?t=4021
I’m Black and I am very uneasy about this move. I can’t figure out why. I think I would be more comfortable if they had some type of “economic empowerment Zone” that just happened to cover majority/minority communities. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would just feel better to me.
[deleted]
How do they know whether a restaurant is "black-owned"?
I don't get how this solves anything, regardless of the legal or racist accusations already discussed.
The aim is to surface black-owned restaurants. But the solution is to remove the delivery for those restaurants. Do they have a filter for restaurants with no delivery fee? Are they also tagging the restaurants to make it obvious which are in this scheme?
Secondly, how do you determine which restaurants qualify? Is it just applied to independent businesses or is it something larger chains can game as well? It seems full of holes at the foundation.
The whole thing screams of a marketing department that think they should do _something_ to make it look like they're supporting protests but put in the tiniest amount of effort they could manage.
The aim is to surface black-owned restaurants. But the solution is to remove the delivery for those restaurants. Do they have a filter for restaurants with no delivery fee? Are they also tagging the restaurants to make it obvious which are in this scheme?
Secondly, how do you determine which restaurants qualify? Is it just applied to independent businesses or is it something larger chains can game as well? It seems full of holes at the foundation.
The whole thing screams of a marketing department that think they should do _something_ to make it look like they're supporting protests but put in the tiniest amount of effort they could manage.
What if a white person is one of the shareholder of a restaurant run by blacks? /s
Actually Seems like predatory pricing targeting this one group to make these businesses unfairly dependent on Uber Eats in a monopoly grab
A version of this is used in india to reduce wages. When you divide people into two big groups and compensate one - you create unequal net wage - and if there is not enough employment, one group hogs all the jobs while others have to significantly reduce their wages to compete.
This is just capitalism in action.
This is just capitalism in action.
[deleted]
What constitutes as "black"?
[deleted]
is it even legal to have explicitly race-based policies like this? could a company do the same thing for other race groups?
Expect class action suits to follow. What if you are losing business as a restaurant because your competitors get free delivery?
[deleted]
This is disgusting virtue-signaling from an awful company.
If Uber really wanted to help the Black community (and other minorities) how about actually treating their delivery drivers (a lot of which come from low-class backgrounds and part of minorities) fairly with decent wages and benefits?
How about a fair, transparent fee structure? As others have pointed out, the delivery fee is just one of many fees, the rest of which are conveniently hidden from the user and passed onto the restaurants which have no choice but to pay them because Uber Eats is one of a handful of delivery services and they're all equally scummy.
How about decent customer service that plays fair when things go wrong instead of fobbing the customer off and hope they don't do a chargeback? (not many people do which is why they get away with it)
If Uber really wanted to help the Black community (and other minorities) how about actually treating their delivery drivers (a lot of which come from low-class backgrounds and part of minorities) fairly with decent wages and benefits?
How about a fair, transparent fee structure? As others have pointed out, the delivery fee is just one of many fees, the rest of which are conveniently hidden from the user and passed onto the restaurants which have no choice but to pay them because Uber Eats is one of a handful of delivery services and they're all equally scummy.
How about decent customer service that plays fair when things go wrong instead of fobbing the customer off and hope they don't do a chargeback? (not many people do which is why they get away with it)
Uber has been sending me invalid coupons through SMS for over a year now. A couple months ago I got fed up with it and decided to contact support, and they refused to even engage with the subject. I think it takes a lot to provide customer service worse than Google's, and they somehow managed to do it.
I recommend all users of Uber eats and co read some of the large subreddits for gig economy and uber eats workers on reddit. It’s pretty telling just how awful these companies are... and though it’s still relatively new these announcements for affirmative action are leading to a lot of pushback that some would identify as hurting the cause rather then helping it.
I respect what they're going for here, but an explicitly race-based discount seems very illegal.
I don't respect what they're going for here since what they're actually doing is trying to put a shine on their decrepit corporate image by virtue signalling.
[deleted]
How is this supporting the current situation, when this is a literal example of racism?
People don't need or DESERVE special treatment, be it negative or positive, people deserve to be treated as equal.
I don't understand why is it so hard to fathom?
People don't need or DESERVE special treatment, be it negative or positive, people deserve to be treated as equal.
I don't understand why is it so hard to fathom?
It seems like you are finding it hard to understand what makes racism systemic, white restaurant owners are not an oppressed group, nobody is being racist against them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
Why do you assume only impact is on white restaurant owners?what about Asian, Mexican, Iranian, etc restaurant owners who are being charged a fee for delivery based only on their skin color?
Are black restaurant owners an oppressed group?
Black households have about $5000 in wealth. When considering the fact that they are owed 40 acres and a mule in reparations, remember that each black household should be worth upwards of $800,000 (~$20k per acre).
Ask yourself if education, poverty, healthcare, loans, housing, etc... would be an issue if they were actually paid what we all collectively owed them. I expect some portions of the racism would still exist but economic empowerment is always a potential gamechanger.
Seems uber is trying to help fix that gap themselves. I commend them for at least trying something novel.
Ask yourself if education, poverty, healthcare, loans, housing, etc... would be an issue if they were actually paid what we all collectively owed them. I expect some portions of the racism would still exist but economic empowerment is always a potential gamechanger.
Seems uber is trying to help fix that gap themselves. I commend them for at least trying something novel.
Being a person of color in the US absolutely means you are confronting systemic racism throughout your life. So absolutely, yes, compared to white restaurant owners. Example: If you are black, you are less likely to get a small business loan, and if so you are likely to get worse rates [1]. They also are encountering more resistance to accessing COVID-19 bailout funds [2]. These are just two examples specific to being a business owner, not to mention the systemic racism they face as individuals.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/16/black-owned... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/business/minority-busines...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/16/black-owned... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/business/minority-busines...
Why would they single out black people out of all people of color and other disadvantaged groups?
A lot of minorities are running restaurants.
A lot of minorities are running restaurants.
>Why would they single out black people...
Black people are the least rewarded early investors in the startup we call the USA.
They have more right to be in this country than any group other than Native Americans, a large % are in fact descendants of native Americans but are not recognized as such due to a paper genocide and deportation program carried out by the govt of the US in the early 20th century.
No other minority group is in this position. Anyone who has studied the history knows the country still owes a tremendous outstanding debt to this group of people.
Black people are the least rewarded early investors in the startup we call the USA.
They have more right to be in this country than any group other than Native Americans, a large % are in fact descendants of native Americans but are not recognized as such due to a paper genocide and deportation program carried out by the govt of the US in the early 20th century.
No other minority group is in this position. Anyone who has studied the history knows the country still owes a tremendous outstanding debt to this group of people.
People still seem unaware of these basic facts... And we've had black history month for how many years?
The education system in America is truly lacking and it shows when it comes to the topic of race/racism which is a key part of our economic history and inextricably tied to the history and development of US capitalism.
The education system in America is truly lacking and it shows when it comes to the topic of race/racism which is a key part of our economic history and inextricably tied to the history and development of US capitalism.
The definition of racism is not treating a race different from others. Racism is a belief that one race is better or worse than others, and the politics that arise from that belief. Recognizing that a group has been treated unfairly and compensating for it is not racism.
A more accurate term is "racial discrimination". Doesn't make it any more palatable.
Strictly speaking racism is the view that different races of human even exist.
Yay! I am a racist then. And you go tell the black guys they do not exist.
I think the point Scarblac was trying to make is that by the biological definition of race, there is only one human race, and all human belong to it. We have historically said that Black people, White people, Asian people, whatever, belong to different races, but that's not accurate and it is that error that lets racist ideas (in the discriminatory sense) to exist. Those "race" categorizations have no basis in biology and have shown to be flexible over time. A hundred years a go, an Irish person would not have been considered white, and a Spanish person might have. Today the Irish man is white, and the Spaniard might be called a Latin.
I think it's better to say that race exists, but it's a cultural construct, not a biological reality. It's clear that in the USA the largest part of people with black or dark brown skin color have a shared history and culture that comes from the capture of native African population. They clearly have something in common, and they exist as a group. The term "race" is problematic, but it's the best one we have.
I think it's better to say that race exists, but it's a cultural construct, not a biological reality. It's clear that in the USA the largest part of people with black or dark brown skin color have a shared history and culture that comes from the capture of native African population. They clearly have something in common, and they exist as a group. The term "race" is problematic, but it's the best one we have.
[deleted]
There are a number of visual examples that help explain the difference between equality, equity and justice. But this one I particularly like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/gq2n31/inequali...
https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/gq2n31/inequali...
Please don't write inflammatory comments that spread misunderstanding and disinformation.
I'm very skeptical of this move, its sustainability in the medium term, and I overall really dislike Uber as a business, but equality is NOT the point.
Society is already unequal, you cannot wish it away with a magic wand.
The way to address inequality, is to think in terms of equity:
http://betterbikeshare.org/2019/10/24/equity-vs-equality/
Also, this is obviously not an example of racism. Racism can be defined as:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
The term that you're looking for is Affirmative action, defined as:
"Affirmative action is a policy in which an individual's color, race, sex, religion or national origin are taken into account to increase opportunities provided to an underrepresented part of society"
I'm very skeptical of this move, its sustainability in the medium term, and I overall really dislike Uber as a business, but equality is NOT the point.
Society is already unequal, you cannot wish it away with a magic wand.
The way to address inequality, is to think in terms of equity:
http://betterbikeshare.org/2019/10/24/equity-vs-equality/
Also, this is obviously not an example of racism. Racism can be defined as:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
The term that you're looking for is Affirmative action, defined as:
"Affirmative action is a policy in which an individual's color, race, sex, religion or national origin are taken into account to increase opportunities provided to an underrepresented part of society"
Seems like Uber is thinks black businesses are not capable of competing in a free market without a handout. Based on your definition, it is explicit racism.
Its a form of economic reparations. When it comes to all the forms of racism blacks have experienced over the past few centuries I find it funny that this is what offends people, "subsidized deliveries".
The reason you think that is because you're assuming the free market is 1) free and 2) treats everyone equally, which is not the case.
Treated equally in a food ordering service? Show me where it says “restaurant owned by a black person” in the Uber app allowing people to discriminate when ordering food.
Quoting a message from this thread:
> If you are black, you are less likely to get a small business loan, and if so you are likely to get worse rates [1]. They also are encountering more resistance to accessing COVID-19 bailout funds [2]. These are just two examples specific to being a business owner, not to mention the systemic racism they face as individuals.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/16/black-owned.... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/business/minority-busines....
> If you are black, you are less likely to get a small business loan, and if so you are likely to get worse rates [1]. They also are encountering more resistance to accessing COVID-19 bailout funds [2]. These are just two examples specific to being a business owner, not to mention the systemic racism they face as individuals.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/16/black-owned.... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/business/minority-busines....
How do we live in a free market? Corporations get bailed out all the time for poor business decisions.
I'm thinking in terms of equity, and it still seems pretty unfair that my local Mexican restaurants are being discriminated against.
Take one simple example: urban redlining. Urban redlining wasn't that long ago. Many white boomers (and hence their children) so clearly benefited from it at the expense of black people. So it's a bit rich to put in place blatantly racist policies, which allowed enormous wealth accumulation at the expense of another group, and then quite literally within the same lifetime when those policies have been banned, and the wealth accumulation has already happened, shout "Why is it so hard to fathom we all deserve to be treated as equal??"
I think this Uber Eats policy is both bad policy and dumb, but I also think that pretending legal racism that only ended in my parents' (still alive) lifetime doesn't have a huge effect on society, not to mention ongoing institutionalized racism the current protests are meant to address.
I think this Uber Eats policy is both bad policy and dumb, but I also think that pretending legal racism that only ended in my parents' (still alive) lifetime doesn't have a huge effect on society, not to mention ongoing institutionalized racism the current protests are meant to address.
After "fight fire with fire", through awful virtue signalling comes "fight racism with racism".
Nice move, Uber!
Nice move, Uber!
I know it's just an expression, but that has always bugged me. Fighting fire with fire is a legitimate firefighting technique (controlled burns.) Red Adair even fought fire with explosions.
Perfect. Now racists can know exactly which businesses to avoid buying from, thus hurting their businesses.
how is that not consider 'racist'?
As many others have said:
1. At least in the US, this is quite blatantly illegal. Uber Eats is not stupid, they know this. Whether you take the charitable view (Uber knows this but they wish to push back against historical and systemic racism) or the uncharitable view (this is a bare virtue signaling ploy), Uber Eats is betting they what they get from doing this is worth more than eventually having to stop or get sued.
2. Personally, as someone who strongly supports the BLM movement, I find this beyond stupid. It doesn't solve the problem at hand, and it just plays into the further division of society that the right wing has played so masterfully into fomenting.
1. At least in the US, this is quite blatantly illegal. Uber Eats is not stupid, they know this. Whether you take the charitable view (Uber knows this but they wish to push back against historical and systemic racism) or the uncharitable view (this is a bare virtue signaling ploy), Uber Eats is betting they what they get from doing this is worth more than eventually having to stop or get sued.
2. Personally, as someone who strongly supports the BLM movement, I find this beyond stupid. It doesn't solve the problem at hand, and it just plays into the further division of society that the right wing has played so masterfully into fomenting.
Comments here show a lot of people don’t really know what racism is.
Now is an important time to learn, so please read.
Racism if the belief that race is the basis for determining that one group of people is superior to another group.
Specifically, it is NOT acknowledging that their are differences in the circumstances and opportunities people have based on race. Nor, necessarily, treating people differently based on acknowledging those differences.
Regarding Uber Eats... this policy isn’t racist simply because it treats black-owned restaurants differently.
Lesson over. The rest is just my opinion.
Uber eats’ policy it is divisive. It’s also tone-deaf (how does this help black people in their struggle to be treated like everyone else?). And —- I can’t know for sure from the information I have —- but I suspect racism lead to this poorly conceived policy, because of how divisive it is and how condescending it feels.
Now is an important time to learn, so please read.
Racism if the belief that race is the basis for determining that one group of people is superior to another group.
Specifically, it is NOT acknowledging that their are differences in the circumstances and opportunities people have based on race. Nor, necessarily, treating people differently based on acknowledging those differences.
Regarding Uber Eats... this policy isn’t racist simply because it treats black-owned restaurants differently.
Lesson over. The rest is just my opinion.
Uber eats’ policy it is divisive. It’s also tone-deaf (how does this help black people in their struggle to be treated like everyone else?). And —- I can’t know for sure from the information I have —- but I suspect racism lead to this poorly conceived policy, because of how divisive it is and how condescending it feels.
I believe is immoral to pay someone more or give business advantages to someone based on their race or gender, or any other attribute.
The policy should be more like, if you support black lives matter publicly then we will waive delivery fee.
The policy should be more like, if you support black lives matter publicly then we will waive delivery fee.
While narrowly correct, this barely rises above the level of pedantry. As I'm sure you're aware, racism is in common use as a short form for "racial discrimination", of which this is uncontroversially an example. Unless you object to white nationalist separatists being called racists, on grounds that wanting a separate white homeland doesn't require any belief in racial superiority? (Or the more mundane form, people who want their neighborhoods to be their own race and oppose race-mixing)
This isn't the fact-check "lesson" you think it is; it just pedantic apologia for racial discrimination that shows your own narrow understanding of the situation more than anything else.
This isn't the fact-check "lesson" you think it is; it just pedantic apologia for racial discrimination that shows your own narrow understanding of the situation more than anything else.
Wow.
No surprise racism is as strong and prevalent as ever.
You will continue to be mystified and confused about why people are as upset as they are if you refuse to understand what the issue actually is.
Let's just start with the first thing: the idea that white nationalists separatists do not view white people as superior is nonsensical on its face.
> This isn't the fact-check "lesson" you think it is; it just pedantic apologia for racial discrimination that shows your own narrow understanding of the situation more than anything else.
I am sad you see it this way. We've got a long way to go. Just try to open up your mind a little. I feel you have the potential or you would not have even responded.
No surprise racism is as strong and prevalent as ever.
You will continue to be mystified and confused about why people are as upset as they are if you refuse to understand what the issue actually is.
Let's just start with the first thing: the idea that white nationalists separatists do not view white people as superior is nonsensical on its face.
> This isn't the fact-check "lesson" you think it is; it just pedantic apologia for racial discrimination that shows your own narrow understanding of the situation more than anything else.
I am sad you see it this way. We've got a long way to go. Just try to open up your mind a little. I feel you have the potential or you would not have even responded.
> No surprise racism is as strong and prevalent as ever
Funny, I feel the same way about your comment. The regressive, dehumanizing impulse most people have to squash everyone into "black guy" or "Asian woman" instead of "full human being whose life can't be reductively captured by their skin color or genitals" is at the root of both old-fashioned racism and the newfangled form you're so enthusiastic about.
> the idea that white nationalists separatists do not view white people as superior is nonsensical on its face.
I'd imagine the overlap is significant with white supremacists, yes. But racial-/ethnonationalists of every race and ethnicity exist, and they're not all supremacists. There's a memeplex out there that races shouldn't mix that's decoupled from any notion of superiority: for anyone not rightly ensconced in their bubble it's not very difficult to come across this in the wild in, eg, the black community. I'm assuming you don't think that every African-American or Japanese or Indian or Arab or Burundian racial essentialist also thinks that they happen to be the master race? If not, it seems absurd to conclude that whites are the one race for whom this belief exists but _never_ among people who doesn't also believe in racial supremacy.
(For what it's worth, I'm pretty opposed to racial separatism, but I'm not ignorant enough to think that it's the same thing as white supremacy. There's a difference between modern Japan and the Third Reich's views on race)
Funny, I feel the same way about your comment. The regressive, dehumanizing impulse most people have to squash everyone into "black guy" or "Asian woman" instead of "full human being whose life can't be reductively captured by their skin color or genitals" is at the root of both old-fashioned racism and the newfangled form you're so enthusiastic about.
> the idea that white nationalists separatists do not view white people as superior is nonsensical on its face.
I'd imagine the overlap is significant with white supremacists, yes. But racial-/ethnonationalists of every race and ethnicity exist, and they're not all supremacists. There's a memeplex out there that races shouldn't mix that's decoupled from any notion of superiority: for anyone not rightly ensconced in their bubble it's not very difficult to come across this in the wild in, eg, the black community. I'm assuming you don't think that every African-American or Japanese or Indian or Arab or Burundian racial essentialist also thinks that they happen to be the master race? If not, it seems absurd to conclude that whites are the one race for whom this belief exists but _never_ among people who doesn't also believe in racial supremacy.
(For what it's worth, I'm pretty opposed to racial separatism, but I'm not ignorant enough to think that it's the same thing as white supremacy. There's a difference between modern Japan and the Third Reich's views on race)
> newfangled form you're so enthusiastic about
I am not redefining racism. Just look it up. Superiority based on race. Merriam-Webster:
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
I’m not going to post a link. Just type racism into your favorite search engine. You’ve got to decide if you want to learn or not.
> I'm assuming you don't think that every African-American or Japanese or Indian or Arab or Burundian racial essentialist also thinks that they happen to be the master race?
Yes, people who are not white can be racist.
> There's a difference between modern Japan and the Third Reich's views on race)
Absolutely. It’s not like Nazi Germany owned a patent on racism. It could, and does, exist in Japan.
I am not redefining racism. Just look it up. Superiority based on race. Merriam-Webster:
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
I’m not going to post a link. Just type racism into your favorite search engine. You’ve got to decide if you want to learn or not.
> I'm assuming you don't think that every African-American or Japanese or Indian or Arab or Burundian racial essentialist also thinks that they happen to be the master race?
Yes, people who are not white can be racist.
> There's a difference between modern Japan and the Third Reich's views on race)
Absolutely. It’s not like Nazi Germany owned a patent on racism. It could, and does, exist in Japan.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html