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

Changes at Basecamp

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#841

Post by deanCommie »

thu2111 wrote: post #807
amzn-throw wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said a lot of things in your first 2 paragraphs but at no point did you say "And then we hired women at a lower bar than we hired men" "Women would fail interviews and be passed to the next stages anyway." sounds like it but the next stage isn't an offer - it's the onsite interview. If Google's process is anything like Amazon's, there is a screen-OUT stage and a screen-IN stage. The screen out stage is primarily…

You said a lot of things in your first 2 paragraphs but at no point did you say "And then we hired women at a lower bar than we hired men" You're interpreting this the way you want to. If given an identical interview a man would fail and the woman automatically gets interviewed more, that is bar lowering. If given identical behaviour the man is fired and the woman is promoted, that is bar lowering. What do you think…

I got halfway through your post counter-arguing point by point, but I had to give up because I realize I disagree with so much of what you say that my response will be unmanageable for you to discuss in return. I don't think we're going to agree, and I don't think we are changing any part of each other's minds.

I fundamentally live in a different world from you if you believe that men are second class citizens in our industry.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#842

Post by matchbok »

adamlett wrote: post #798
thu2111 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly: who cares? The point of classical equal rights is the MLK, "my children won't be judged by the colour of their skin". The moment you ask a question like that, you are deliberately rolling back his vision by implying that a 100% male engineering group is a severe problem that needs a solution. It's not. It's an entirely expected statistical outcome given the demographics of people who study the profe…

More importantly: who cares? There are many good reasons to care. Off the top of my head: * Having a diverse work force makes it less likely that you will be blind to problems caused by unintended side effects of your product that only affect certain groups. * Having no women (or people of color, or people with disabilities, or...) on the workforce, will make you less attractive as an employer to talented people in t…

Gender and disability ratios at companies already match that of most CS program graduates every year. There isn't a hidden pool of people that are being ignored.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#844

Post by CRConrad »

bmn__ wrote: post #834
CRConrad wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I don't see a down arrow; it's a minus sign. (Or a hyphen, but the minus makes more sense to me in this context.)

You do not have enough karma for the ability to downvote, hence the down arrow is disabled for you.

Aha, thanks!

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#845

Post by adamlett »

matchbok wrote: post #842
adamlett wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly: who cares? There are many good reasons to care. Off the top of my head: * Having a diverse work force makes it less likely that you will be blind to problems caused by unintended side effects of your product that only affect certain groups. * Having no women (or people of color, or people with disabilities, or...) on the workforce, will make you less attractive as an employer to talented people in t…

Gender and disability ratios at companies already match that of most CS program graduates every year. There isn't a hidden pool of people that are being ignored.

The talent pool extends a lot further than people with CS degrees. And even if your statement narrowly is true for the industry as a whole (I’m skeptical that it is – from what I’m told more women than men leave the industry), it isn’t necessarily true for individual companies.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#846

Post by adamlett »

asabjorn wrote: post #827
adamlett wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly: who cares? There are many good reasons to care. Off the top of my head: * Having a diverse work force makes it less likely that you will be blind to problems caused by unintended side effects of your product that only affect certain groups. * Having no women (or people of color, or people with disabilities, or...) on the workforce, will make you less attractive as an employer to talented people in t…

Generally talented people enjoy working with other talented people, and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason. The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individ…

Generally talented people enjoy working with other talented people

Everything else being equal, sure.

and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason.

Why would anybody who knew they were talented and got hired or promoted, assume it had to do with anything other than their talent?

The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individual.

It is possible to recognize that a certain groups of people on average face more obstacles and barriers, without equating individuals with the groups they belong to or vice versa.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#847

Post by asabjorn »

adamlett wrote: post #846
asabjorn wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally talented people enjoy working with other talented people, and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason. The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individ…

Generally talented people enjoy working with other talented people Everything else being equal, sure. and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason. Why would anybody who knew they were talented and got hired or promoted, assume it had to do with anything other than their talent? The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppre…

> Why would anybody who knew they were talented and got hired or promoted, assume it had to do with anything other than their talent?

Affirmative hiring, diversity quotas etc are actively aimed at identity based hiring and promotion. In addition to this a candidate in a favored identity group often go through different hiring and promotion procedures with involvement from the DEI officer.

> It is possible to recognize that a certain groups of people on average face more obstacles and barriers, without equating individuals with the groups they belong to or vice versa.

In a different working environment this may have been the case, but according to the silicon valley index more than 2/3[1] of silicon valley workers 20-45 are immigrants of asian descent so the woke assertion that its a white mans business is not accurate.

In addition to this there are official company policies that discriminate against white men, and there are policies actively working to give special consideration in hiring and promotion to BIPOC. Their aim is to create asymmetry between groups.

[1] https://jointventure.org/download-the-2020-index

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#848

Post by thu2111 »

deanCommie wrote: post #841
thu2111 wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said a lot of things in your first 2 paragraphs but at no point did you say "And then we hired women at a lower bar than we hired men" You're interpreting this the way you want to. If given an identical interview a man would fail and the woman automatically gets interviewed more, that is bar lowering. If given identical behaviour the man is fired and the woman is promoted, that is bar lowering. What do you think…

I got halfway through your post counter-arguing point by point, but I had to give up because I realize I disagree with so much of what you say that my response will be unmanageable for you to discuss in return. I don't think we're going to agree, and I don't think we are changing any part of each other's minds. I fundamentally live in a different world from you if you believe that men are second class citizens in our…

Well, I understand that feeling. I nearly gave up half way through my prior comment too for the same reasons. I hope at least you understand the experiences and reasoning behind the viewpoint, and see that it's not mere reactionism but motivated by things happening in the real world, even if it seems remote from your world or if you take away fundamentally different conclusions. That is perhaps enough.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#849

Post by cutemonster »

educaysean wrote: post #811
cutemonster wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should defer to the experts in the area There is not always such a thing as "the experts". People who look the same, grew up in the same place, have the same parents, can still have the opposite opinions. Then, who is the expert -- when they disagree with each other, the complete opposite. (Real world example from where I live.) I'm not in the US though, actually things seem a bit weird over there. The history look…

When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims, the bullied kids will beg and plead you to reconsider and listen to their voices instead. Not because everyone else's opinions are invalid, but because they are the ones who can speak the clearest about issues that others are blind to. I'm playing along with your analogy here, but I actually think it's a terribly weak ana…

> I'm playing along with your analogy here

No, I think not. Look here:

> When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims

That's, what's the right word, changing the analogy into madness.

I said like this: "Not only group X can have good ideas about something"

and you seem to believe that that means: "X must be silenced" -- that's weird, to say the least.

I never said that, and I don't think that, and I feel surprised, maybe a little bit ill, that you somehow misinterpreted what I wrote, that much.

> They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it

I suppose there are such people.

> have been silenced and told to shut up

I feel sad for the cases when that's happened to you and others

> our voices do weigh much more than yours

That's odd, you start writing "our" and "yours" as if you now believe that I'm in some antagonist group, just because I said "not only X can have good ideas".

I'm happy that my friends who look different than me, different skin color for example, don't think like that. We think about each other as "we" together, not as "us" and "them".

I think it's good to end the conversation here. In any case I'm probably not replying any further. And if you did reply to this, I think that that reply would misinterpret something I wrote, but I wouldn't reply and point out what that misunderstanding was about.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#850

Post by educaysean »

cutemonster wrote: post #849
educaysean wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims, the bullied kids will beg and plead you to reconsider and listen to their voices instead. Not because everyone else's opinions are invalid, but because they are the ones who can speak the clearest about issues that others are blind to. I'm playing along with your analogy here, but I actually think it's a terribly weak ana…

> I'm playing along with your analogy here No, I think not. Look here: > When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims That's, what's the right word, changing the analogy into madness. I said like this: "Not only group X can have good ideas about something" and you seem to believe that that means: "X must be silenced" -- that's weird, to say the least. I never said th…

As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page.

And for the sake of clarity - Yes, anyone can and will conjure up great ideas and solutions. No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong".

For your convenience, let me paste my original comment that you had a beef with:

> Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense.

I thought it was clearly implied that the voice of the discriminated be priotitized over others 'in the events of clashing opinions'. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize for my weak writing. English is obviously not my first language.

Lastly, when you engage in a discussion with a minority person in matters regards to treatment of minority groups, do not be surprised that terms like "we" "us" and "your" get thrown around. It's simply how conversations naturally flow around such topics, and not indicative of the speaker's bias towards identity politics. You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. And that's not even mentioning my wife and her family.

Have a good week mate!

Post reply on HN