Who cares about diversity? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#521

Post by handoflixue » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 6:15 AM UTC

hpkuarg wrote: post #426

handoflixue wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving alms to the poor isn't "revenge-driven justice against the rich" - it's helping out people in need. Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. Surely one can by analogy reason that there are ways to support historically disadvantaged groups that aren't "perpetuating discrimination"?

> Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. In what way is this obviously fallacious? Alms have to come from somewhere, and if you take them from the rich then it is clearly discrimination against the rich. You could very well make the argument that this is justified, but fallacious it is not. That aside, it doesn't take a lot of scanning thro…

> You could very well make the argument that this is justified

Discrimination isn't just "we treat people differently" - we put prisoners in jail, we don't trust liars, we try to keep abusers away from positions of power.

Discrimination is when it crosses the line into injustice - when you're acting solely off hatred and stereotypes.

Since you're conceding that it's justified, it seems that no actual injustice is occurring here.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#522

Post by handoflixue » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 6:17 AM UTC

green_on_black wrote: post #403

handoflixue wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving alms to the poor isn't "revenge-driven justice against the rich" - it's helping out people in need. Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. Surely one can by analogy reason that there are ways to support historically disadvantaged groups that aren't "perpetuating discrimination"?

I agree with your train of thought, but I disagree with the specifics. Though, that's in part due to my own definition of discrimination in this context to be "placing a label to tell 2+ groups apart and taking action using that label". Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor is inherently discriminating between the rich and the poor with a follow-up action to remove resources from one group (the rich) and…

I think that definition is going to cause some very confusing conversations. We don't generally talk about it being "discrimination" to put criminals in jail, keep abusers away from positions of power, or distrust liars. Generally speaking, when people talk about discrimination, it's because there's an injustice - the difference in treatment is based on stereotypes and hatred rather than any truth about that individual.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#523

Post by nickm12 » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 6:56 AM UTC

deathanatos wrote: post #131

I'd love to see incentives to help level the playing field for people who come from impoverished backgrounds. But instead, what we get, and what people seem to clamor most loudly for, is what a former employer of mine had: "hiring bonus if the candidate isn't white or male" (and at one point, all I could hire was non-white or non-male, and the way it was spun was "we are in a hiring freeze, except for diversity hires…

I really don't like the term "diversity hire". A candidate cannot be diverse. Diversity is a property of a population.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#524

Post by tootie » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 3:48 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #513

tootie wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you are moving the goal posts into the parking lot right now. The initial question was whether or not there was value in taking incremental steps to combat racism and you're saying we shouldn't build statues to the keyboard warriors of Twitter. Nobody ever suggested that. And while we can absolutely evaluate historical figures on their cultural context that doesn't mean we should lionize them on public propert…

I'm not moving goalposts, I think you've completely misunderstood the argument. Specifically, my point isn't that we shouldn't build statues for keyboard warriors, it's that the logic of presentism defies sensibility--presentists would say that woke college students are more moral because they adhere to the moral standards of the present than the imperfect-by-present-standards abolitionists of yesteryear. > Nobody ev…

"presentists would say that woke college students are more moral because they adhere to the moral standards of the present than the imperfect-by-present-standards abolitionists of yesteryear."

No they don't. Idk who even talks about this kind of thing. Certainly nobody in office that I've ever seen. I'm sure you could find a few people who think this, but it's nowhere near the state of the actual public debate.

"Right, but as he fails the moral standards of his own day as well as the present, he oughtn't be venerated either way."

Right, this is currently a position held by liberals and strongly opposed by a lot of conservatives who want to preserve monuments to things that were despicable even 150 years ago. Mind you, the infamous Forrest statue was erected in 1998, not 1870! It's not just a matter of reevaluating in present day, there are people evaluating the Confederacy in present day terms and still calling it great and getting support from elected officials. Those are the people in in power who are sending the signal that explicit racism is still very much prevalent in the halls of power and require explicit counteractions like DEI.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#525

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

nimih wrote: post #367

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ensuring that people from marginalized backgrounds get good treatment is important in third level education, would the same arguments not apply in a much stronger fashion to first and second level? I always (not an American) thought it was weird that all the focus was on university while the research would suggest that interventions at primary school level (and before) would be wildly more effective.

> If ensuring that people from marginalized backgrounds get good treatment is important in third level education, would the same arguments not apply in a much stronger fashion to first and second level? They do, which is why [primary] school desegregation was (and remains) an important policy goal for various progressive and racial justice movements during the previous century. edit: It may not be clear to folks who…

> They do, which is why [primary] school desegregation was (and remains) an important policy goal for various progressive and racial justice movements during the previous century.

Sure, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Given that the funding of primary schools is predominantly driven by property taxes, one could argue that this is actually been made worse (assuming lower prop taxes => less weathly parents => structurally disadvantaged races).

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#526

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #524

throwaway894345 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not moving goalposts, I think you've completely misunderstood the argument. Specifically, my point isn't that we shouldn't build statues for keyboard warriors, it's that the logic of presentism defies sensibility--presentists would say that woke college students are more moral because they adhere to the moral standards of the present than the imperfect-by-present-standards abolitionists of yesteryear. > Nobody ev…

"presentists would say that woke college students are more moral because they adhere to the moral standards of the present than the imperfect-by-present-standards abolitionists of yesteryear." No they don't. Idk who even talks about this kind of thing. Certainly nobody in office that I've ever seen. I'm sure you could find a few people who think this, but it's nowhere near the state of the actual public debate. "Righ…

> No they don't. Idk who even talks about this kind of thing.

It's pretty commonly talked about whenever woke people want to tear down statues of historical progressives or when they want classrooms to stop teaching "dead white men" and so on. The whole claim is that these historical progressives fail to live up to today's rapidly-changing left-wing morals and thus they oughtn't be celebrated or taught (e.g., tearing down a Lincoln statue because Lincoln didn't accomplish more than abolition).

> Right, this is currently a position held by liberals and strongly opposed by a lot of conservatives who want to preserve monuments to things that were despicable even 150 years ago.

Yes (for some value of "a lot of conservatives"), but again I don't know why you keep bringing conservatives up when we're talking about woke progressives and liberals. Similarly, I don't know why you're bringing Forrest up when we're talking about presentism.

> Those are the people in in power who are sending the signal that explicit racism is still very much prevalent in the halls of power and require explicit counteractions like DEI.

DEI doesn't actually work though[0][1][2][3][4], and woke progressive politics are driving the resurgence in right-wing identity politics, as liberals predicted roughly a decade ago ("fixating incessantly on everyone's racial identity is going to strengthen right-wing white racial identity", "left wing illiberalism is going to legitimize right wing illiberalism", etc). In addition to increasing the amount and intensity of anti-minority racists, woke progressive politics on things like policing have driven crime rates (especially violent crime rates) through the roof disproportionately affecting minority communities.

If you want to minimize right-wing racism, you have to minimize all racism--in other words, you want liberalism, not left-wing illiberalism.

[0]: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

[1]: https://hbr.org/2019/07/does-diversity-training-work-the-way...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210614-why-ineffectiv...

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/opinion/workplace-diversi...

[4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/07...

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#527

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #518

throwaway894345 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is responding to context that you set yourself: > Trying to teach kids accurate history of deplorable things done by some people's ancestors is just teaching accurate history. Specifically, the parent is noting that “the DEI folks” (or whatever descriptor you might prefer) are only interested in teaching about the dark history of “some people”, but there are atrocities committed among every sufficiently la…

That's not true and and it's not relevant. Teaching history is teaching history. The DEI camp want to improve the world in which we currently live. That it's due to historical injustice is beside the point. The two things are unrelated.

> That's not true and and it's not relevant.

Feel free to support your claim. In the meanwhile, it's both true and relevant.

> Teaching history is teaching history

Yes, but 1619 != history.

> The DEI camp want to improve the world in which we currently live.

Perhaps their intent is noble, but they seem to have been counterproductive. First of all, DEI programs don't actually work, and this is pretty widely accepted[0][1][2][3][4]. Secondly, broader woke identity politics are not merely ineffective at reducing right-wing identity politics, they are driving them. Since left-wing identity politics became mainstream, right-wing identity politics moved from the fringe to a mainstream position. Right-wing identity politics moved from the margins in 2010 to a pretty popular position among Republicans. Right-wing hate groups have increased in number and brazenness. And by the way, liberals were sounding the alarm that this would be the consequence of going all-in on left-wing illiberalism--there was obviously no way that reducing everyone to their skin color was ever going to do anything other than increasing a right-wing white identity.

[0]: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

[1]: https://hbr.org/2019/07/does-diversity-training-work-the-way...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210614-why-ineffectiv...

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/opinion/workplace-diversi...

[4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/07...

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#528

Post by ricardoplouis » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #425

ricardoplouis wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is truth to the matter, but it's also because class conscious groups fail to recognize that they perpetuate the same racism, sexism, etc... that the elites do. Coincidentally, ignoring race as an issue is the one issue many people on both sides of the political spectrum can get down with even though economic equality does not guarantee racial equality.

No one on the Left is about ignoring race as an issue. That's pretty much a right-wing trope 100%.

I've personally seen the race problem in multiple large scale socialist orgs, but feel free to ignore the criticism.

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#529

Post by teddyh » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

origin_path wrote: post #478

api wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This suggests that if we got rid of this rhetoric something else would take its place as it fills a kind of market niche. There's a limited amount of space in elite institutions and thus fierce competition over the right to obtain these degrees, which have become (in some circles) the modern equivalent of writs of noble title. This creates demand for mechanisms that can be used to signal and play status games. Also s…

There was no equivalent a few generations ago because hardly anyone went to university at all.

What is the equivalent in other countries, then? I.e. where college attentance is increasing, but where U.S. norms about diversity are less acute?

Re: Who cares about diversity?

#530

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 8:16 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #321

tablespoon wrote: post #315

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 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.

[deleted]