BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#61

Post by mantas » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 3:37 PM UTC

aes256 wrote: post #52

mseebach2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant anti-discrimination as the law that keeps the GP from being fired for admitting he's gay. As for the number of Brits being religious, I think it's easy to conclude that more than 35% of Brits celebrate Christmas. Given the origin of the poll, I would not be surprised if the question was phrased very narrowly. It's not discriminatory to celebrate Christmas by default if your company is in a culture that predom…

The question was "Are you religious?", and 65% answered negatively. You can't really frame something as fundamental as that. I personally think the 35% figure is inflated by people who identify with Christianity but don't practice it, or people who do practice it but out of fear more than faith. Britain is no longer a Christian country, and that's not a bad thing. Give it another two generations and Christians will b…

1) Many people who identify themselves as non-religious celebrate Christmas anyway.

2) Christmas existed in virtually all European cultures before Christianity. Under different titles though.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#62

Post by illuminate » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 4:17 PM UTC

Wintamute wrote: post #48

saraid216 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, most modern academic work on racism goes by his latter definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological

No, he was suggesting a definition of racism that called anti-racist affirmative action as "not racist", and attempts to undermine affirmative action as "racist". That seems rather specialised to me, and at best a convolution on top of the sociological definition you linked to. Also, most modern academic work != a wikipedia link, do you have any other sources?

"called anti-racist affirmative action as "not racist", and attempts to undermine affirmative action as "racist""

Policies that acknowledge and address systemic racism are not "racist" because they acknowledge race and make decisions based on these imbalances.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#63

Post by illuminate » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 4:19 PM UTC

aes256 wrote: post #42

saraid216 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, most modern academic work on racism goes by his latter definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological

Of course, if sociologists accepted the former definition, they wouldn't have anything to talk about. Conflating the two definitions and describing people as 'racist' for re-enforcing racial imbalances in society is disingenuous. A lot of people oppose affirmative action (thus earning the label 'racist' according to the latter definition) not because they are prejudiced, but simply because they do not believe in the…

"A lot of people oppose affirmative action (thus earning the label 'racist' according to the latter definition) not because they are prejudiced, but simply because they do not believe in the efficacy of the process."

As with many things in life, it's not necessarily what you say, but how you say it that determines context and intent.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#64

Post by aes256 » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 4:33 PM UTC

mantas wrote: post #61

aes256 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was "Are you religious?", and 65% answered negatively. You can't really frame something as fundamental as that. I personally think the 35% figure is inflated by people who identify with Christianity but don't practice it, or people who do practice it but out of fear more than faith. Britain is no longer a Christian country, and that's not a bad thing. Give it another two generations and Christians will b…

1) Many people who identify themselves as non-religious celebrate Christmas anyway. 2) Christmas existed in virtually all European cultures before Christianity. Under different titles though.

I don't disagree. Christmas occupies a peculiar place in British culture because it is part religious festival, part cultural tradition.

Rather like the monarchy, people tend to go along with it, despite the fact it's an anachronistic and unjust system, because it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling.

I think that's part of the reason so much vitriol is aimed at "politically correct" attitudes towards Christmas. It angers both religious and non-religious people because they see it, more than anything else, as an attack on a national pastime.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#65

Post by rmc » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

mantas wrote: post #60

rmc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can become a no true scotsman argument. What's the difference between political correctness and anti-discrimination? Is saying "spouse" or "partner" (instead of "wife") to a man you know is married politically correct or anti-discrimination? Mostly PC is not about avoiding "offence", but about ensuring under-represented minority is not felt left out purely for being in that group. Despite what right wing tabloid…

Why should I be aware of everybody's likes and dislikes? I'm just living my own life and that's it. Are we going to call meat "animal-sourced food" next? Just to let vegetarians know we're aware of them...

Why should I be aware of everybody's likes and dislikes?

Because empathy towards your fellow human beings is a virtue and not giving two flying fucks about anyone except number one is not very nice. You may choose to live your life that way, but plenty of people in the world actually care about people aside from themselves.

Are we going to call meat "animal-sourced food" next?

Apples and Oranges. A more apt analogy is like a company having a meal outing and having no vegetarian options. It sends the signal to the veggies that they aren't fully welcome.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#66

Post by rmc » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

aes256 wrote: post #43

rmc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in a under-represented group seeing that "all people who do Ruby/Tech/IT/knitting/nursing/$ACTIVITY are members of $OTHER_GROUP" can be just another reminder that your group shouldn't be here, that you'll stick out, that you'll be the different one here. We have numerous expressions in the English language saying that lots of little things can build up: The straw that broke the camel's back, death by a thou…

I can't fathom why racial minorities would not feel welcome at such a conference. Do they think people are going to be surprised that they are in attendance, disapprove of them being there, or look down on them? It's a programming conference, not a meeting of the KKK.

Do they think people are going to … look down on them?

Yes that's what happens now.

Dell conference: comeidan brought on by Dell "The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out." http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2174903/dell-issues...

CouchDB "Perform like a porn star" http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/CouchDB_talk

Tech company organises a code jam. "Perks: Women" http://readwrite.com/2012/03/20/how-casual-sexism-put-sqoot-...

More here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Incidents

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#67

Post by obstacle1 » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 5:27 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #44

Wintamute wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the core thinking behind your definition of racism (that we should all self analyse and take affirmative action to fix problems), but I don't think it's necessarily helpful, or even logical to define racism in this way. If we all went around with highly specialised individual definitions for emotive terms then we're not communicating effectively, and probably needlessly annoying each other. I'm not sure I agre…

If we all went around with highly specialised individual definitions This is not my definition, there are loads of people with this definition. Rational discussion can only occur once terms have been agreed and defined Agreed, that's why I made this point. Too often people are only aware of the first definition.

Again, your 'second definition' isn't diametrically opposed to the first, it includes the first. Defining 'racist actions' presupposes a definition race and in turn racism that you can't just toss aside. Defining racism as a systemic disadvantaging of certain races takes as a given the definition of racism as -- you guessed it -- the dividing of people into races and ascribing them characteristics en masse.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#68

Post by obstacle1 » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #32

Wintamute wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the core thinking behind your definition of racism (that we should all self analyse and take affirmative action to fix problems), but I don't think it's necessarily helpful, or even logical to define racism in this way. If we all went around with highly specialised individual definitions for emotive terms then we're not communicating effectively, and probably needlessly annoying each other. I'm not sure I agre…

Actually, most modern academic work on racism goes by his latter definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological

That page includes a random sampling of definitions used by some sociologists. One of the definitions explicitly states that racism can only be committed by white people. When you get to the point where such a definition makes sense, you are outside of a reasonable discourse. Racism ceases to have any meaning as a term.

The other definitions are not redefinitions of racism, but appropriations of the more general definition to further the term. All depend on the notion that racism is dividing people into groups called races which contain people with identifiably similar traits.

As someone who has spent a significant portion of life in a humanities department, I'll say it's a stretch to say 'most' academic work goes by the vague definition posted above. Frankly that definition sounds like something I'd encounter in a first year paper rather than something a colleague would agree with, much less endorse. Further the academic world is much bigger than sociology, and even within the social sciences (e.g. economics) there is an insistence on using less fluffy and more logically consistent definitions.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#69

Post by obstacle1 » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 5:37 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #57

hugh4life wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So no, complaining about the lack of non-white people is not racist." Implying that all white people are the same and that there is no internal diversity within white people is racist.

No-one suggested that.

By definition complaining about a panel's being "100% white males" is suggesting the lowest common denominator of skin color and gender. The twitter complainers in this case did not care about the panel's nationalities, ethnicities, first languages, etc., just that they were white. The suggestion is clear.

Re: BritRuby cancelled due to a lack of racial and gender diversity

#70

Post by anewguy » Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 6:04 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #14

obstacle1 wrote: post #12

Out of curiosity, why are the complainers in this case not being called out for their own racism/discrimination? The fact that a panel consists of white males, straight males, or purple elephants is not in itself evidence of discrimination. It is entirely possible that these were the most qualified of all applicants to have submitted to this conference. Without knowing the details of the applicant pool, anyone scream…

There are several definitions of racism, one is essentially "making references to someone's race and implying everyone in that group is the same (in some attribute)", or more simply "anything based on race". Lots of people like this definition because it's a nice, simple and objective defintion and it means black people in the UK can be racist to white people, or that affirmative action is racist. I think this is the…

In popular discourse, "racist" is synonymous with "the-worst-thing-ever" because most real people believe in the first definition. They associate it with things like concentration camps, racial slurs, and vigilante violence.

Social Marxists are pulling a nice propaganda coup by using the popular term "racist" with their different class struggle definition. But once their definition gains ground, they will find that they have defeated themselves and that nobody cares about racism anymore.

How much do you think the man on the street cares that a disproportionate number of ruby experts are white/Asian? Or that most movie actors are white? Or that "nude" toned makeup in historically European countries matches white people's skin? Not a quantum of care will be given.