Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

electronconf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 339 posts

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#171

Post by ubernostrum »

PrimHelios wrote: post #107
threeseed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) I never said anything about advocating for unqualified people. b) Almost all Fortune 1000+ companies are doing this today. And it's been conclusively shown to be improving the quality and strength of the board and encouraging more diverse people to join the SLTs. c) Not sure what that rant at the end has to do with anything.

>I never said anything about advocating for unqualified people. That's what being against meritocracy means. A system based on something other than merit. If the people in charge aren't the people with the most merit, they aren't really qualified. >Almost all Fortune 1000+ companies are doing this today Appeal to popularity is a fallacy > And it's been conclusively shown to be improving the quality and strength of th…

"Meritocracy" isn't. It's a sham, a veneer layered on over an ugly and disgusting history of bigotry and oppression, to cover up the underlying biases which still exist and are perpetuated every day.

Assuming that any attempt to change the system necessarily involves hiring/promoting "unqualified" people shows one of those biases: the bias to believe that anyone who does not resemble the existing majority must be "unqualified" or else they'd already have succeeded.

Which is much like the economics joke: an economist and his friend are walking along, and the friend spots a $20 bill on the ground reaches for it. The economist says "that's impossible -- if it really were a $20 bill it would've been picked up by someone else already!"

We know that the old convenient lies -- "people of that race/gender/etc. just aren't as interested in our field" or "evolution shaped their brains to be good at other things, not at this thing" or... well, any of them -- are just that: lies. We know that when a more level playing field is forced upon an industry, suddenly that industry stops looking a lot less white and a lot less male, and further stabs the heart of the "it's a meritocracy" lie.

Promoting the lie of "meritocracy" is, at this point, insupportable and indefensible, no matter who does it or why.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#172

Post by QuantumYeti »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86
viraptor wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply that being happy to be surrounded with a more gender/race diverse crowd than the typical 90s IT conference is either racist or sexist. I just don't understand that argument.

Calling something a "white sausage party" is racist and sexist, and if you said something equivalent against women or minorities on-line, you'd end up in a huge shitstorm. This assymetry is a big part of the problem.

I don't fine the usage of the word "white" in that sentence to be racist. The phrase "sausage party" is derogatory slang for a group of men. If he said "white group of men", that wouldn't be racist or sexist, so "white sausage party" could only possibly be considered sexist.

And I agree, asymmetry is part of the problem. As a white male, there's not a lot of derogatory terms regarding my skin color/sex that I'll get upset about. But there are tons of derogatory terms for minorities and historically oppressed groups of people where those words will carry a weight that I've never experienced.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#173

Post by naasking »

huffmsa wrote: post #148
catenthusiast wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*your

No, it's you're. Conjugation of "you are". As in > No I get you, YOU ARE saying.

The correction was for "YOUR views" which incorrectly used you're.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#174

Post by viraptor »

Yver wrote: post #155
viraptor wrote: post #69

I'm disappointed in how many comments here are just kneejerk reactions. Reaching for weird comparisons, getting angry at the idea of diversity and social justice, and many others. This wasn't enforced from outside. It's the organisers who agreed: yup, that's not what we want to do ( https://twitter.com/nmsanchez/status/870811022306574336 ) Stop for a moment, think of how you'd organise a conference. Is it different?…

I haven't read a single comment here from someone "getting angry at the idea of diversity." What I've read are comments expressing disappointement that speakers are being judged by the color of their slides, not the content of their presentation.

Single example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480955

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#175

Post by PrimHelios »

chatmasta wrote: post #146
PrimHelios wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I never said anything about advocating for unqualified people. That's what being against meritocracy means. A system based on something other than merit. If the people in charge aren't the people with the most merit, they aren't really qualified. >Almost all Fortune 1000+ companies are doing this today Appeal to popularity is a fallacy > And it's been conclusively shown to be improving the quality and strength of th…

So why is it the first thing you mention in your HN profile?

Because it's an extremely important part of who I am. If you look, you'll notice there's more than that.

Also, because people will see my comments and scream something about me being a white cishet male or say that I "sound like a cisshit". Shit's happened to me before and I try my best to squash it before it happens again.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#177

Post by ubernostrum »

julianmarq wrote: post #161
selllikesybok wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if people stopped flipping out a out having to think about injustice and their relative complicity in institutional inequality... Like, freaking out about having to think about it. About not being able to sail through life without ever having to.

> relative complicity No, this stuff doesn't belong in HN, I don't accept it; this isn't tumblr. Nobody is complicit of anything just for existing. At risk of invoking Godwin's law, that's exactly what the nazis said about every jew, including children. > About not being able to sail through life without ever having to. Yeah, let's not pretend you aren't a person who's had so much privilege that the biggest thing you…

The instant someone steps in to make comments defending the status quo -- when the status quo is obviously deeply flawed -- they become complicit irrevocably and beyond any hope of later denial.

Like you just did with your comment.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#178

Post by PrimHelios »

ubernostrum wrote: post #171
PrimHelios wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I never said anything about advocating for unqualified people. That's what being against meritocracy means. A system based on something other than merit. If the people in charge aren't the people with the most merit, they aren't really qualified. >Almost all Fortune 1000+ companies are doing this today Appeal to popularity is a fallacy > And it's been conclusively shown to be improving the quality and strength of th…

"Meritocracy" isn't. It's a sham, a veneer layered on over an ugly and disgusting history of bigotry and oppression, to cover up the underlying biases which still exist and are perpetuated every day. Assuming that any attempt to change the system necessarily involves hiring/promoting "unqualified" people shows one of those biases: the bias to believe that anyone who does not resemble the existing majority must be "un…

Your entire post can be responded to with two words: Citation needed.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#179

Post by [deleted] »

naasking wrote: post #159
TeMPOraL wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thanks for the numbers. That feels much better than what I was lead to believe happens at the borders all the time.

0.01% of 57 million people still means 5,700 people were harassed, largely unnecessarily.

[deleted]

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#180

Post by julianmarq »

selllikesybok wrote: post #165
julianmarq wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were going for discrediting calling something "a white-sausage party" as if it were a bad thing isn't racist by linking that, you failed. The very first definition in your own link on racism: > : 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 Inherent inferiority , I'd assume, fits within that mind fr…

I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior? Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior. Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.

> I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior?

That you don't see it is framed as a question. Ok, look at it harder and come back to me when you have an actual answer instead of a question on your own reading capacity.

> Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior.

Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking.

> Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.

You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.

Post reply on HN