351–360 of 1001 posts
A good read for some additional context on caste discrimination in the American tech industry: https://www.wired.com/story/trapped-in-silicon-valleys-hidde...
Not just caste discrimination, but also sexism. I have worked at least three companies where if there were Indian women, the vast majority were in QA.
There are 200+ million Dalits in India. These are the people which were previously called “untouchables”. I work in medicine, many Indians work with me and most are Brahmins with a few Christian Malayali from Kerala. I think the Malayali have shown it is possible to escape the caste system and to have success. However I am worried Dalits have been at the bottom and treated as such for thousands of years that it has e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claim "at least partly" and then proceed to prove it with anecdotal evidence. You'd need to prove it with a study similar to the ones that send identical CVs to companies, just changing one thing, which is what they want to discover if there's bias against.
No. A single anecdote is sufficient to merit "at least partly." You can say it's not generally proved. But it also wasn't a universal claim.
Do you realize how absurd language would be if what you claim is true? For example:
- Is is true latino men are discriminated against when applying for florist positions?
- Yes, it happened once.
Literally any group would be "party discriminated" in every possible scenario according to how you define "at least partly".
A good read for some additional context on caste discrimination in the American tech industry: https://www.wired.com/story/trapped-in-silicon-valleys-hidde...
As a Dalit myself, I wrote a Dalit 101 for non Indian audience. https://thelit.substack.com/p/dalit-101
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claim "at least partly" and then proceed to prove it with anecdotal evidence. You'd need to prove it with a study similar to the ones that send identical CVs to companies, just changing one thing, which is what they want to discover if there's bias against.
The onus is on the victims. Hmm, this sounds very familiar..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just caste discrimination, but also sexism. I have worked at least three companies where if there were Indian women, the vast majority were in QA.
Correct. Until I read feminist theory, QA is relatively easy job, good pay and anyway I hate coding. After I read, its deep rooted institutional bias against women to not be allowed to work in high paying, high prestige software development jobs.
The talk should have allowed to go through. The post I think said it right, people wanted to shut it down and the only way to do it is to discredit the speaker because they know there is truth to the arguments. However we should step back and think about how important it in the American context. What purpose is that talk going to serve? I don’t know if it does anything other than satisfying esoteric learning needs of…
Isn't the fact that it got shut down by higher caste Indians proof that the talk is important in some way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you assume "best" = "racist"? Also - which companies are saying they hire the worst people? I've worked at several companies - every single one of them claimed to hire the best. It's just corporate psychobabble at this point.
Racists tend to be ethno-supremecists, ie they think they belong to the "best" race.
Why are people who think they're "the best" inclined to think it's in part / mostly / solely due to race?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claim "at least partly" and then proceed to prove it with anecdotal evidence. You'd need to prove it with a study similar to the ones that send identical CVs to companies, just changing one thing, which is what they want to discover if there's bias against.
I think anecdotal evidence is almost literally what "partly" means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least partly. When I was starting out, I would apply to dev positions only to get offers to interview for lower-paid QA positions. After changing to a gender-neutral nickname and removing all female-identifying terms from my resume, I got the interviews for dev positions.
You claim "at least partly" and then proceed to prove it with anecdotal evidence. You'd need to prove it with a study similar to the ones that send identical CVs to companies, just changing one thing, which is what they want to discover if there's bias against.
In any case, I have done the five minutes of googling you seem to want. Biases in evaluating resumes based on gender and other such factors are not new nor unknown: here is an early study from 1986[1], 1988[2], 1999[3], 2001[4], 2007[5]. Feel free to visit google scholar and look more studies by yourself.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103186... [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.5... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698 [4] https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-4... [5] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23339-007