It was not that many years ago where society universally recognized that discrimination based on immutable physical characteristics such as race, gender, etc. was morally repugnant. The counter-argument we're often presented with these days is that the ends justify the means. As someone who paid attention in history class, I find that troubling.
Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
51–60 of 111 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people, or just you? Clearly we both have differing subjective experiences, why do you assume yours more accurately represents the majority view of the community?
Look at the other replies to your post and tell me.
You are literally the only person replying to my post thus far so I don't know what to tell you.
edit - ok, one other person. But their comment doesn't prove consensus either way.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're part of the problem. Not actively pushing back against something doesn't make one "part of the problem". It makes one a bystander, and no, bystanders are not part part of the problem they are neutrals. They could be more "helpful" for our cause if they where not, but they are not part of the problem, they are "untapped potential" if you will. This kind of rhetoric bullies people into action and even tough I…
I don’t like that rhetoric either, but unfortunately certain radical ideologies do not acknowledge neutrality. Maybe we can turn to John Stuart Mill for a more eloquent appeal: “ Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man w…
> certain radical ideologies do not acknowledge neutrality
So what? Why can't we acknowledge neutrality because some other people don't?
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#54It’s so great that HN seems uniformly against racism affecting white men. But I guess I missed all the posts decrying discrimination when it was affecting women and POC?
Classic whataboutism, downvote and move on. This thread is not worth pursuing and OPs bias is clear.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#55This submission is flagged, but it shouldn't IMO. Everyone goes through hiring processes, everyone has been in a team onboarding people, and this of course isn't alien to tech companies. This submission, from my POV is clearly on-topic.
While I'd like to agree, I have yet to see a discussion on this topic on HN ever be insightful, or let me learn something new. It seems like it always devolves into the same opinions, and people just become more dug in and increasingly vitriolic. I'd love to see a solution to how that problem could be addressed, but if I had to put in a vote for "lowest quality discussions on HN" it would be on the "DEI battle" topic…
Whether this should be flagged depends on the flagging criteria, and I'm not sure there is general agreement on HN about 'flags'. This seems like a good place to have the conversation described by the OP, but I think that people are just flagging posts from viewpoints they disagree with these days.
At the risk of taking the conversation off-topic, this is probably a reflection of HN's changing demographics. It seems like HN is ever-more plagued by low-quality comments, such as reactions to headlines like: 'the title said rails, so I thought they were talking about Ruby on Rails, LOLZ!'. In addition to that, we have more newspaper editorials and polemics on the front page, and fewer 'nerdy' articles than ever before.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#56One of the first things you have to embrace is the inherent hypocrisy in the overall equality movement. While there are people who genuinely believe in equality and equal treatment for all, the loudest and most prominent people are pushing the exact agenda you are speaking about : " directly and openly identifying "white male" as a negative trait when discussing a candidate after an interview ". I have seen this first hand in interviews and in employment with some of the largest and influential companies in the tech industry.
The sad truth is that you have to find some way to find peace in it all. If that means being quiet, if it means accepting things that you feel are wrong, or if it means standing up to say it is wrong and being labeled. You have to make hard choices in both potential employers and how far up the ladder you want to climb. IT is not an easy decision and not one that anyone other then yourself can make. The idea of making current people pay for past mistakes is irrational, and the "what it has been like " movement will forever be seen as such. The socio-political components aside there are financial burdens as well, should a company not appear 'woke' enough and see their bottom line deteriorate.
IMHO our biggest mistake was making the cause of social justice profitable. As soon as people could gain money, power or influence based on calling other people out the core values became null and void to people who could care less about social justice and just want to be 'right' and/or reap the rewards both socially and financially. That is NOT to say that the fight for social justice should not be / can not be happening, it simply needs to be a matter of doing right for the sake of doing right and not for profiteering or popularity. We are the first to call out bad actors and put our hands out for the rewards therein, but we are the last to recognize good actors and then they turn up with their hands out, looking to be recognized from the rest of the pack we tell them "what do you want, a cookie?".
We need more social justice advocates, and less social justice warriors.
You can flag this all you care to , or even downvote it but it does not change the truth : We all fall into one of two categories - those who believe in equality for all with no discrimination whatsoever, or those who believe in socially acceptable 'justified' discrimination against specific groups.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#57I choose not to self-disclose, even in places where it might benefit me like sexuality or gender identity. If I get to the interview stage and the person I'm being interviewed by makes it a big deal, I thank them for their time and leave.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#58As a white male team leader with hiring authority I select the best person for the job who will enhance the team and bring with them the talent to accomplish our goals. Having said that, I believe diversity is a strength and that women and people of color are underrepresented in tech, and use my influence to help correct that as much as possible without sacrificing operational readiness. It has not been a problem. I can't speak for others experiences or biases but I simply do not see the problem that OP is detailing.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#59The argument you point out, about treating well-off groups equally as bad as those less well-off, is a bad argument and not what you should be thinking about. The practices you point out have nothing to do treating everyone equally bad. You are focusing on the unfortunate consequence of attempting to make right past injustices, rather than the effort to right past injustices. The goal is not to discriminate against y…
I'm afraid that, to my mind, it doesn't matter whether the goal is to discriminate or not. The discrimination itself is a problem, and we'd be better agreeing that this is a place we will not go to, no matter the end.
Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?
#60As a white male team leader with hiring authority I select the best person for the job who will enhance the team and bring with them the talent to accomplish our goals. Having said that, I believe diversity is a strength and that women and people of color are underrepresented in tech, and use my influence to help correct that as much as possible without sacrificing operational readiness. It has not been a problem. I…
> and [I] use my influence to help correct that as much as possible without sacrificing operational readiness.
So racism/sexism is okay as long as it doesn't hurt operational readiness? Or do you not consider this racism/sexism, if so how are hiring decisions based on race/sex not racist/sexist?