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

321–330 of 536 posts

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#321

Post by tptacek »

tablespoon wrote: post #315
zozbot234 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, academic philosophy is a rather sophomoric discipline. The non-sophomoric parts of it have long since moved to other departments - PG even has an essay about this http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

> Well, academic philosophy is a rather sophomoric discipline. The non-sophomoric parts of it have long since moved to other departments - PG even has an essay about this http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html Why would the opinion of a VC who dropped out of an undergrad philosophy program be an especially authoritative or notable on this topic? Some tech people have an annoying habit of shitting on anything that…

Appeals to Paul Graham are endemic to this website, for reasons lost to the mists of time.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#322

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

colpabar wrote: post #197
ricardoplouis wrote: post #174

Given the stark racial inequality we have today due to compounding wealth from centuries of colonialism and slavery, it seems diversity is the bare minimum we could do to address such a burden, and it's a shame that is even considered controversial. Is there an "unoffensive" solution to address this history or should we all just get along and pretend it didn't happen?

Nope! The bare minimum we could do is start getting mad about how rich the rich are, and stop fighting among ourselves . Diversity is a tool used by the rich to keep us from uniting against them, and sadly it is really effective.

How come every time systemic or structural racism is brought up, the discussion instantly pivots to it being "divisive" and the real battle being class consciousness or something.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#323

Post by sillystuff »

hintymad wrote: post #309
sillystuff wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

> 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. Wouldn't AA on social-economical status work, which can be more inclusive? Even you only mentioned "poor" and "wealthy",…

I mostly agree with you. I think the concept of race is one of the tools, wielded by the wealthy, to keep the rest of us divided. But, ignoring that we have hundreds of years of government policies that favored whites over non-whites isn't addressing the past wrongs that got us here.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#324

Post by phantom_of_cato »

tptacek wrote: post #305
rcoveson wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, becaus…

It sounds like your problem with my argument about the poor reasoning here is that I made it in too few words? I'll say it again: he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI, even institutionalized DEI; he thinks instead that he's checkmated it by attempting to reconcile a dictionary definition with the rationale the Supreme Court used in the 1970s to defend Affirmative Action.

> he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI

Sure, it would have been a better article if they had done that. What are some good books covering that? I haven't really heard much of an argument for it, merely brow-beating and social pressure. Ibram X. Kendi doesn't count, his arguments are ridiculously facile.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#326

Post by Sir_Liigmaz »

stuckinhell wrote: post #109
kadoban wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've refused to hire an english major young woman on my development team even under extreme pressure from management because she's a women, but also because she's the CTO's wife's niece That's not "woke", that's just garden variety nepotism.

That's the point, "woke" gives garden variety nepotism a nice shiny ESG approved cover.

I work in bank fraud and I have seen several articles celebrating 'girl bosses' who are just trust fund kids. Or a gay CEO that embezzled $30 million.

Like yay progress, I guess..?

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#327

Post by vlod »

opmelogy wrote: post #117
stewx wrote: post #63

For an example of this, see this story about Canadian professor and laser scientist Patanjali Kambhampati who was denied for grants because his avowed commitment to mere non-discrimination and merit-based hiring was deemed insufficient. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-deni...

I don't see a problem with this, especially if part of the mission of the folks giving the grant is to create opportunities for under-represented people. "If I want to focus on merit, fairness and equality, then you get called out as racist or sexist." I'm still waiting for an example where someone can actually vet people based on merit, fairness and equality without any of their own unconscious biases being a factor…

>I'm still waiting for an example where someone can actually vet people based on merit, fairness and equality without any of their own unconscious biases being a factor

Blind auditions for orchestras.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#328

Post by matthewrobertso »

tptacek wrote: post #305
rcoveson wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, becaus…

It sounds like your problem with my argument about the poor reasoning here is that I made it in too few words? I'll say it again: he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI, even institutionalized DEI; he thinks instead that he's checkmated it by attempting to reconcile a dictionary definition with the rationale the Supreme Court used in the 1970s to defend Affirmative Action.

Can you highlight where you made that argument the first time? I read your first comment as entirely concerned with tone and don't see where you are discussing lack of engagement with an argument.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#329

Post by ltbarcly3 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #7

I just saw this post reach about #4 on the frontpage, get flagged, marked DEAD, then come back but no longer on the frontpage, all in about 2 minutes.

The tribalism, it hurts. People are up-voting and down-voting this, which is just an observation about what happened when this was posted. Amazing!

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#330

Post by dllthomas »

lazyeye wrote: post #167
SR2Z wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that somehow being correct in an argument matters more than tone, which is... childish. If you want to have a productive argument (as opposed to just being an asshole screaming at passerby) you need to convince people that you are worth engaging. This means showing good faith and not being overly dismissive (i.e. tone).

You think tone matters more then being correct?

If my tone is such that no one engages constructively, then it's not going to be useful whether or not I'm correct.

If my tone is such that many people engage constructively, then it may well be useful whether or not I'm correct, as either people learn from my contribution or people (including me) learn from corrections to my contribution.

It's more than a little context dependent and YMMV, of course.

Post reply on HN