371–380 of 414 posts
So, I have only my own limited, American, anecdotal experience, but I did work for Infosys for a little while, so I suppose I should share that here. We were a team of less than a dozen developers, and we had a woman, who as I recall was a mother, as one of our devs. Not saying this means it didn't happen elsewhere in Infosys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
>Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. This line of thinking seems logical but is missing out on the human experience part of the equation. It doesn’t address why things are the way they are today. Affirmative Action, for lack of a better phrase, does a lot of things: 1) It provides representation for the future. “M…
Moreover, while I believe that diversity is a benefit, I suspect returns diminish beyond 5-10% (beyond that, it's no longer "wow, a career woman! I've never seen that before!"--similarly, a team that is 50% black is probably not going to produce a facial recognition product that is 40% better than the team that is only 10% black, although the team that is 0-5% black may well make a product that performs poorly on black faces).
> The most powerful force for gay acceptance was Will and Grace because it was primetime gay people just being there and it being normal.
I'm not sure this is true; I think it's mostly just that "gays are harmful" was a really hard position to support, and the gay rights movement didn't try to bash their opponents over the head (they weren't trying to cancel people for questioning dubious narratives, for example).
> Last, resume vs resume can be apples and oranges because it cannot account for their path to that. Was there significant harassment, discrimination and other social tribulations to earning whats on the sheet of paper? The stronger candidate may have unseen potential because of the social barriers they had to climb.
You can't assume someone had greater social barriers based on race or gender. What is true for a large, diverse group of people (like a race or a gender) is often not true for individuals. This is just stereotyping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
Discriminating in favor or certain minorities is as close as you can get to balancing the injustice. Consider how many covert ways there is for biases to systematically screw over people, and how impossible it can be to definitively prove. * The things you were exposed to as a child. Whether or not you know/see people who look like you in a certain career path. * Whether or not you feel like you fit in at certain cla…
What this does is distribute the injustice evenly between the races, but this sort of concern about races (rather than the individuals that comprise them) strikes me as the very essence of racism: it's treating individuals within a race as unimportant and treating race itself as all-important.
> As a population however, you can tell that it occurs. People within these groups get no benefit of the doubt. They will have to overachieve to get the same opportunities as others.
We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
No person is a problem because of theyir sex or skin color. That is what you are insinuating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state I live in is 85% white and the goal is to hire much less than 85% whites. So the goal is to create a diverse community that doesn't exist.
Of course if 95% of the workforce is currently white and you aim for proportional representation the hiring goals will be to hire more non-whites for until the goal is reached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diversity can foster innovation.
Diversity of world view and human experience foster innovation. If you hire all of the same socioeconomic strata even if they are different races chances are you will not get a wide depth of experience and world view
How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Some people are running a marathon, half way through it is discovered half of them had been given weighted shoes that made them run significantly slower. The organizers and racers agree this is wrong and unfair, and so they make sure everyone has correct shoes for the rest of the race. Yet those half of the racers that had weighted shoes are several miles behind the rest. What would you suggest be done?
I was a consultant for an American company that also hired dozens of cheap consultants from development countries. Mostly India but also neighbouring countries and some Eastern European countries. Indians were by far the hardest to work with. They ghosted women systematically which was a nightmare for our project manager. They also lied shamelessly about their qualifications which led to absurd situations. The proble…
Many of them just can't speak English correctly. Only a small percentage of the individuals who speak English at a proficient level of those who do, they predominately come from very wealthy upper caste families and now you have a new problem. And well. When it comes to caste, many Indians simply believe it to not exist anymore in India because of how deeply engrained it is in their social classes they never notice i…
I’m someone who loves seeing well written and hearing well spoken English. The standards I hold myself to are quite high.
However, I have never had a problem with people- native or foreign born- with less than perfect English communication skills.
Going down that route smacks of elitism, xenophobia and a hyper-normative mindset. The way you get good at standard English is by practice, which they are doing every day at work using the skills (technology) they have mastered. Some of my family are ESL and my place of birth (in the UK, for God’s sake) was and is looked down on for the dialect.
Is it really that hard to just ask someone to repeat or restate themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of them just can't speak English correctly. Only a small percentage of the individuals who speak English at a proficient level of those who do, they predominately come from very wealthy upper caste families and now you have a new problem. And well. When it comes to caste, many Indians simply believe it to not exist anymore in India because of how deeply engrained it is in their social classes they never notice i…
> Many of them just can't speak English correctly. I’m someone who loves seeing well written and hearing well spoken English. The standards I hold myself to are quite high. However, I have never had a problem with people- native or foreign born- with less than perfect English communication skills. Going down that route smacks of elitism, xenophobia and a hyper-normative mindset. The way you get good at standard Engli…