> "Should we let children cut off their genitals?"
It is currently against any kind of recommended practice to perform genital surgery on children. It is not approved nor is it practiced. This kind of intentionally hyperbolic language is the sort of thing that is the stuff of tabloid headlines, not reasoned discussion.
Well, I know both gay and trans people who have survived conversion therapy, but there's a really high incidence of suicide among people who have been through it. Also, the people I know have described literal torture as being part of existing conversion therapy techniques. There is also no evidence of it actually working.
All of these things seem to counsel against conversion therapy being an accepted practice.
Amazon is in Seattle. We are arguably the most trans-accepting city in the US (source: being a trans person living in Seattle). Trans people are mostly just an accepted part of the community here. And people here are generally not super impressed by the "think of the children!" wedge issue any more than they were impressed with the "OMG trans women in bathrooms!" wedge issue. I'm sure TERFs exist here, but they keep it to themselves, because it's not something to admit to in polite company.
Another big difference between this and Wal-Mart is geography. Wal-Mart's strongest areas are less-densely-populated rural areas where one store can draw customers from miles around. And indeed -- you can't easily set up a same-day Amazon delivery service in rural America. The distances and low population density make it completely impractical. For the foreseeable future, Amazon will compete with Wal-Mart in these areas using traditional UPS-style delivery and larger selection.
But this is going into New York City. And the flipside is that you can't put a Wal-Mart in the middle of NYC -- it's cost prohibitive. So it's not clear that this initiative even competes with Wal-Mart really. And brick and mortar stores in the middle of an expensive city have huge real estate costs, so it's difficult (though not necessarily impossible) for them to compete on cost the way Wal-Mart does.
So then my question would be- where does Amazon store their inventory? They still have to figure out a way to give people selection and timely delivery but do so in a way that doesn't involve storing large amounts of inventory in expensive, densely-populated urban areas. The same rules apply to them as Wal-Mart in that regard. Wal-Mart could open a distribution center in Manhattan too, if the economics of it worked out.
So let's supposed that this can be done profitably in New York. New York is a special case in a sense, that it is one of the most densely-populated areas on earth, and so deliveries do scale there in a way they don't elsewhere. But then what is the play in a place like Atlanta, Dallas, or Los Angeles, where driving is essential and addresses are wildly irregular?
It's in no way clear that Amazon wins on selection. In 25K SKUs, Amazon will have electronics, but almost certainly hace fewer SKUs than a dedicated electronics store. They will have groceries, but not as many as a grocery store. They will have clothing and housewares, but surely only a small sampling relative to Macy's.
I shop at Amazon Fresh in Seattle sometimes, and the selection is significantly trimmed relative to pretty much any local grocery store I can walk into. The tradeoff is the convenience of not having to go to the store and spend my time traversing the aisles.
They are starting with 25k SKUs. They have the potential to have infinite SKUs in this program, while brick and mortar stores are limited to shelf space.
That being said, it might make sense to keep the selection artificially small for multiple reasons.
Depending on how much volume you have, inventory turns are an important gate on how many items you can afford to carry. And I would imagine that there are practical limits on how many SKUs you can pull stock from and still deliver in an hour.
Only people who are not members of minority groups think that someone saying something degrading to you is an easy path to riches. It simply doesn't work that way in real life.
First off, no one is going to believe you, and everyone will seek to explain it away and inpugn your credibility. But even if you somehow have audiovisual evidence that proves your claims conclusively and you have a slam dunk court case, there's zero chance that you're going to make enough money from it to cancel out the income you will lose from making yourself effectively unemployable to anyone who runs a background check on you. If you're on record as a troublemaker that sues their employer, no one will hire you.
Sure. Everywhere I worked there had been people from all countries and continents but Antarctica, working together without any problems but they are, apparently, racists.
You know, I'd rather be with friendly "racists" who have not fired anyone over their alleged "racism" than anywhere in Tech, where one seems to have to be conforming to the party line even outside the work in order to keep the job (e.g. Adria Richards incident).
In general, if you make jokes that a member of another race would perceive as racist, you've already done something wrong, even if you don't perceive it as racist, but just as some sort of "weird" humor.
If it made the interviewee feel unwelcome at the company, there is no possible explanation that would make this ok -- the simple fact that they feel excluded is what makes it not ok.
Making people feel excluded, or even doing or saying things behind closed doors that would make people feel excluded if they knew about them, is part of the problem that makes people who are not part of the majority feel unwelcome in a company's culture, and in the industry as a whole.
Sam didn't start this in a vacuum. He started it after women in the tech community laid a lot of groundwork educating the community about gender diversity problems.
Are there specific things the technology community could do to open the doors to the Pacific Islanders community? I'm sorry to say, I don't actually know the answer to that. If you do, write blog posts and meet with people and try to organize other people like yourself online and work to educate the rest of us on what we can do. I absolutely think there would be plenty of people who would be more than happy to help tackle these problems if someone led the way.
But if there's no one out there already leading the way on a cause that's important to you, the absolute best thing you could do is to try to do it yourself. There's an old slogan, "Be the change you want to see in the world." It makes a pretty good point.
It is currently against any kind of recommended practice to perform genital surgery on children. It is not approved nor is it practiced. This kind of intentionally hyperbolic language is the sort of thing that is the stuff of tabloid headlines, not reasoned discussion.