Maybe they hired the wrong person for the job. This could happen with any worker no matter their country of origin.
Maybe they’re a shit manager whose expectations are not clear and who provides no training.
Maybe the employee is going through something at home that is impacting their work. It’s a good manager’s responsibility to know their workers and give them grace.
Racism is just a lazy person’s excuse for not analyzing the complexities of the situation.
Racism doesn’t reduce complexity, it introduces complexity.
If you take two independent things, and then invent a rule to connect them. It’s strictly additional complexity
And then for some reason people try and combat it by layering on ADDITIONAL complexity. “Have you considered there might be circumstances you are unaware of?” Like, now we’ve gone from two unrelated things that we’ve invented a relationship for to that plus some unobserved moral “dark matter” which we can’t see but postulate could exist.
The simplest solution is the best.
“Hey we’ve got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they’re all so shitty”
“Yeah sounds like they’re shitting the bed at work. Don’t think it has anything to do with where they’re from, though”
Idk the simplest solution seems to be “my company keeps hiring lazy people, what does the screening / interview process look like? Why do we keep fucking up on the people we’re hiring?”
The solution I was referring to was disrupting malformed logic in thought patterns (racism).
Reconsider my original premise:
“Hey we’ve got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they’re all so shitty”
If you respond with “The real question is why does the company hire shitty people?”
You’re not refuting the malformed logic. You’re not disrupting the thought pattern. You’re introducing new variables and shifting blame.
Carry that logic forward from the point of view of the person asking the question, they’ll say “wow, you’re right: we should stop hiring people from the middle east”
Which, I would assume isn’t the direction you intended to steer someone’s thinking.
Again, it isn’t complicated and it’s stilly to make it complicated. This person observes two things and then connects the two as being related (quality of worker vs skin colour). They just aren’t related. That’s it. If they’re a bad worker they’re a bad worker, why ask someone to reject what they’re seeing with their own eyes? It just isn’t BECAUSE of skin colour.
It quite literally is the malformed logic being: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Nowhere else in logic do people refute that fallacy by trying to introduce new mitigating arguments. It’s fundamentally flawed from the outset and can be directly refuted.
If I talk about some white man I hired, and I said he sucked, that is also racism?
It is if you specifically mentioned that he’s white, yes. The problem is that you’re openly stating your biases as being important to the story. However your biases are exactly that, biased. You don’t know if they’re relevant or not, but you feel it necessary to say anyway. That’s prime prejudice. You don’t know their education, history, family life, economic situation, or any number of other factors that could come in to play. But you assign importance and blame to the fact they’re Indian. Racist.
Yes you should say that person you hired sucked or did not meet your expectations for the job.
Not all information is cleared away, the information pertinent to the performance of the job remains, which should be the only information that matters when the topic of discussion is someone’s job performance.
Unless, that is, you’ve met and tested the performance of every white guy available to you. Otherwise you’re painting people with the same brush. X type of people are Y is racist thinking.
