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

Who cares about diversity?

fakenous.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 536 posts

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#291

Post by ajvs »

tptacek wrote: post #268
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely find this criticism of yours to be almost-inexcusably vapid in its own right. You're criticizing tone, not content. And your bolded, italicized dagger-marked point doesn't make sense to me without context. Other than style and tone, what is your issue with the content of this writer's position? What are your suggestions for how it could be amended?

No, I'm criticizing tone and content. And I don't think "vapid" is a word you get to use here: I probably read this person's blog more carefully than most of his supporters on the thread did.

I didn't see a single line arguing how the content of this blog post was wrong also. If you think there are gross inaccuracies then please do write a better focused critique.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#292

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

opmelogy wrote: post #176
lazyeye wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like the kind of thing you say when you are annoyed but cant find a good argument against the points being made.

I'm trying to actually figure out what his points are. None of it is making much sense because he just seems so far off in his own thinking that it's not connected to DEI at all. Still trying to untangle it, but here's my lol as I work through what he's saying. 1.1 When did we start pretending to care about diversity? He says 1978. What? He's fabricating a story to prop up his flawed belief system. 1.2 Diversity is i…

That's a remarkable comment, it almost entirely consists of curse words:

fabricating

flawed

yikes

stereotypical

myth

Yikes

gone off the rails

misses the point

face palm

painful to read

lol

doesn't understand

why this is even here

lol my god

Sigh

He really has no clue

sad

useless noise

out of touch

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#293

Post by jrajav »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #225

True diversity would mean having to accept, even welcome, a MAGA wearing redneck onto the board of a black university. Therefore diversity discussions (almost always) are not about "diversity for everyone", but instead it's social cudgel for one side to use against another.

Sorry, no it doesn't. The point under discussion is affirmative action, that is, specifically targeting and aiding underrepresented groups, so you're just misunderstanding the premise in the first place - but also, to say 'a MAGA wearing redneck' and 'black university' specifically, you clearly get that it's a racist in a race-specific context.

The thing nearly everyone tries to gloss over when they pull this "Well why don't you let more conservatives in then" is that many front-and-center conservative platforms these days are explicitly intolerant. Why should you be surprised or upset when tolerant institutions seek to reject those? It's a feature of modern civil society, not a liberal conspiracy.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#295

Post by nobody9999 »

guywithahat wrote: post #86
ryeguy_24 wrote: post #54

Isn't the real issue behind all the names (diversity, inclusion, etc) about the equalizing of opportunity or at the very least, bringing certain oppressed groups (and, if you don't think certain groups are or have been oppressed or discriminated against, educate yourself) up the opportunity curve? Do we want to live in a world where you have less opportunity because of characteristics you were born with?

Making the world fair would be equal opportunity. Equity is the hot topic nowadays, which is explicitly ignoring more qualified applicants for less qualified applicants because of their race, and that's what people are upset about.

Life isn't fair. Nor will it ever be.

Equal opportunity won't create fairness, as we're not all clones.

What equal opportunity can do is provide those who have been systematically discriminated against (as well as everyone else) a fair shake. What they then do with that 'fair shake' is up to them.

This is a complex topic that reaches into many areas of life, including (but not limited to) home environment, quality of schooling, societal advantages/disadvantages, economic advantages/disadvantages, stratification by class/ethnicity/melanin content and a raft of other issues.

I agree that just focusing on melanin content is a poor way to address the issues seen.

That said, claiming that failure to solve all of a society's problems via melanin content awareness in hiring decisions means that the concept of equal opportunity is a failure is supremely unconvincing IMHO.

Edit: Fixed typo (unconvicing --> unconvincing).

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#296

Post by LatteLazy »

jedberg wrote: post #180

So here's where I'm stuck: On the one hand I totally understand the objections to categorizing people based on things that won't affect their job performance per se -- skin color, gender, who they are attracted to, etc. But on the other hand, those people have been systematically discriminated against, well, forever. So the question is, where should the fix be applied? If the only people who have the skills to do the…

>you can't deny that a black woman has had a vastly difference life experience than a white man

Of all the people at my company, black and white, male and female, I am the only one from a poor background. My life experience is vastly different from all of them.

This is the issue with defining life experience or diversity purely in terms of race and sex.

I think the demand for a simple and easy answer to diversity (we have x% from group y!) Is well intentioned but very counterproductive.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#297

Post by rcoveson »

tptacek wrote: post #268
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely find this criticism of yours to be almost-inexcusably vapid in its own right. You're criticizing tone, not content. And your bolded, italicized dagger-marked point doesn't make sense to me without context. Other than style and tone, what is your issue with the content of this writer's position? What are your suggestions for how it could be amended?

No, I'm criticizing tone and content. And I don't think "vapid" is a word you get to use here: I probably read this person's blog more carefully than most of his supporters on the thread did.

Bit by bit, we've got:

> it's all sort of comically smug

Tonal critique, valid but not worth much.

> everybody else in the entire world is wrong, and here is a 7-point axiomatic derivation proving it

What argument doesn't take this form? If you're making an argument you yourself agree with, then yeah, the implication is that you disagree with people who disagree with it. Axiomatic derivations will be involved, because... why wouldn't they be?

> much of it depending on specific definitions of specific words

I think what you must mean here is surprising definitions of certain words (otherwise, again, what argument doesn't have this characteristic?). I personally was not surprised by the usage of any of the major words in the article. Certainly some of the words are really "improper nouns", like "diversity", but it's clear from context what the different sorts of diversity being discussed are.

> Check-mate, atheists!

Maybe tonal critique?

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#298

Post by sillystuff »

littlelamb wrote: post #88

I am absolutely all in for equality, but definitely strongly against equity. When I get HR try to shove a resume down my throat because it ticks all of their boxes despite having none of the boxes to be succesful on the job, that is when I draw the line. I don't care if you're white, black, purple or green, and whether you fuck men, women, all of them or none of them is none of my business. At the end of the day I wa…

(Speaking of the US) Our society has historically created great differences in opportunity. It is unarguable that white males have disproportionately benefited[1][2][3].

Affirmative action / Diversity Initiatives are a blunt instrument that attempts to address these historical inequities. If e.g., a student from a school in a poor area had the same quality of a K-12 education, did not have to worry about tuition (I.e., make university free again) / living expenses to be able to continue at university as the wealthy kid, affirmative action could have been phased out from higher ed.

The problem is that the inequities continue, so what should have been a short-term policy to address historical inequities has become a long-term papering over of deep issues in our society.

Policies to allow affirmative action to be phased out in higher ed might include, funding K-12 schools equitably instead of based on local property tax revenue + parental donations. Changing college entrance policies to accept only the top n students from any school, to create an incentive for wealthy to place their children in "worse" schools which would incentivize those same wealthy to properly fund all schools. Paying the parents of the children in the "bad" schools a wage that allows them a life with dignity and time to spend with their children. Mandatory paid time off so sick children are not just left on their own at home (possibly getting into trouble). Policing that doesn't target certain demographics foreclosing future opportunities-- e.g., a kid with an arrest record is barred from attending paramedic classes at the local community college. Etc.

We need to make fundamental changes in all areas of society to address inequities in opportunity just in college / university admissions. A great side effect is poor rural whites would benefit just as much as other marginalized groups by systemically addressing the issues (one fewer way for the wealthy elite to divide us). But, our society has collectively decided it is easier just to keep affirmative action / diversity programs around.

Workplaces are downstream from schools, so everything that needs to be solved around equitable access to education needs to occur before the "temporary" policies to address the fallout of not addressing our societal issues systemically can be phased out at the workplace.

[1] https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-ben...

[2] https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/gi-bill-world-war-ii-and-e...

[3] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history...

Edit: fixed grammar

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#299

Post by unknownaccount »

jrajav wrote: post #277
unknownaccount wrote: post #183

People shouldnt be forced to accept diversity. It should be opt-in. Forcing anything on a person against their will does not work and leads to radicalization. The harder they push, the more radicalized people become. This is what leads to attacks like Christchurch.

Are you implying that people in favor of and/or implementing affirmative action members share some culpability in far-right terrorist acts? Huh. In my book, deciding to leave civil society for untargeted violence against innocent people of some other group immediately puts all the responsibility for your actions into your lap. You don't get to say it was because of some vague ideological pressure at that point.

I'm not arguing who's responsibility it is. I'm just pointing out that in practice, when you force an ideology on people + take away any outlet for them to express dissent(through deplatforming/censorship etc) then this is the kind of thing that ends up happening. That being said, whenever someone enacts a policy that affects others it is important that they consider the effects of externalities. While they may not be directly responsible for those externalities, it's irresponsible not to take them into consideration. Pointing fingers after the fact doesn't bring people back to life.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#300

Post by registeredcorn »

tptacek wrote: post #251
registeredcorn wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, continue.

I'm pretty comfortable with my points as they stand right now.

Point, not points.

I don't believe any of us disagree that such programs are ineffective under optimal conditions. Aside from that, what are the "lots of" other sharp, critical comments to be made?

I would think, given the over the top snark you had in your previous comments, you would have more to say on about on the topic. Right?

Post reply on HN