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

What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

cspicenter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 972 posts

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#891

Post by colinmhayes »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #802
Dig1t wrote: post #382

I work at a different FAANG and it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate is related to DEI. Also a lot of hiring details are now hidden from ICs. It used to be that you would be apart of the interview panel as an interviewer and then you would get together with your team afterwards and everyone on the team would vote yes/no and that would pretty much be it. Now it’s made by a manager elsew…

> Now we’ve had the rug swapped from underneath us. Some state authorities and companies like Microsoft are racist. You have to call them that even if there are people behind these programs that just mean well. But you cannot compromise on that accusation. If you do, you will lose that discussion. Simple politics and management 101 and this is just a dirty political game. Yes, Microsoft is a racist company. Exposé 1…

I don't think this will be effective. Kendi explicitly admits that his prescription is racist, it's not some secret. His supporters have just decided that equity is more important than equality and (probably) rightly see that the only path there is racism.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#892

Post by feoren »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #862
feoren wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The very idea that, in a just world, outcomes along various lines of demarcation between groups of humans would be roughly even has zero evidence to support it. Actually it has as much evidence as you have time. Take a big bag of fair dice, and split them randomly into two groups. Actually, split them however you want, whatever "lines of demarcation" you choose. Then roll them and apply literally any measure of lit…

> Take a big bag of fair dice, and split them randomly into two groups. If you think human outcomes follow a simple normal distribution in a just world, then you are making the exact prime mistake I already pointed out; which is dramatically, and I mean dramatically , over-simplifying the world. Seriously: read some Thomas Sowell. Nothing about this world or this universe is normally distributed. > Are you asserting…

So many things in this response make it clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith. I thought you were actually trying to make a rational argument before, but this response belies that you are not.

Like this one:

> since leftists, namely, the democrat party, were primarily responsible for all of those things over the past 200 years

That is so inane it does not even deserve a response. You've given away that you're not arguing in good faith.

> Similarly, you assert that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome, yet fail to provide any scientific evidence

This comment illustrates this well. You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case. There is not a shadow of a doubt in your mind that that is obviously correct. But of course whoever you're arguing with must provide mountains of scientific evidence (at which point you would undoubtedly move the goal posts), whereas you're allowed to get away with "simply" making semi-rational arguments and quoting, over and over, literally one source, who (according to wikipedia):

> Sowell was an important figure to the new conservative movement during the Reagan Era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Oof. Double-oof. So this singular person you're relying on for all your backup was an important figure to the most awful presidency of the modern era, the start of an economic plague that has allowed the rich to loot and ransack this nation's prosperity and dramatically worsened the very racial and socioeconomic disparities at the heart of this argument, and a corrupt Supreme Court justice who is a major leader in a movement to destroy democracy in the U.S. and replace it with a peusdo-Christian Theology. Yikes.

I came here prepared to reply with more rational discussion, but like always, the longer you talk to racism-apologists, the more you see the facade unraveling, the bad-faith arguments, and the goalposts moving. It's not worth it.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#894

Post by colordrops »

topaz0 wrote: post #880
colordrops wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion is on the socially constructed nature of race. My comments directly address this with specific examples. Your final response is nothing more than "no, you are wrong". Not sure what I was expecting on a public forum, as this topic is sensitive and brings out a lot of deep seated irrationality, gaslighting, and binary thinking in people.

I have no objections to your claim that race is socially constructed. I agree. Where I disagree is in the logical leap that that means it doesn't exist. Your specific examples are irrelevant to this point. (Added: and for what it's worth, I don't necessarily disagree on the specific examples you give. They are just irrelevant.)

I think we are getting caught in what it means to "exist". Perhaps my language was not precise enough. My meaning wasn't that the idea and abstraction of race does not exist in my earlier comments - my point was that the abstraction (social construct in this case) is very leaky, and doesn't match reality, hence the several examples I provide where the idea of race doesn't make sense at all. My argument is that the abstraction is so far removed from the reality that it's more harmful than helpful. In our computerized data driven modern reality, there's no reason we couldn't deeply assess every individual's full history and situation to determine how underprivileged they are, rather than using superficial and inaccurate measures such as skin color.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#895

Post by mikkergp »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #851
mikkergp wrote: post #18

Posts like this seem reactionary and equally anti-intellectual. Sure I know that a lot of the DE&I stuff is frustrating for people. But it seems like if you really want to dig into this you need to take broader approach. Can you actually prove that people are in any way capable of measuring merit, especially for leadership decisions, which is pretty squishy to begin with? It seems to me like throwing some extra diver…

DEI is anti-intellectual to the core. Worse, it is codified racism. It creates problems where there were few to solve. Nobody can measure merit, but that doesn't mean you can hire people based on skin color and that is exactly what DEI did. And not much else, it remains plain racism. Without bias you can see it because racial quotas are the expression. People in the past also thought they had good reason for racial d…

DEI has an enormous surface area, I don’t think you can blanket describe it as anti-intellectual.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#896

Post by Manuel_D »

tremon wrote: post #500
ponow wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is incoherent for people to say that certain racial groups being over-represented doesn't mean the system isn't fair, blacks suddenly being hired is evidence the system isn't fair Incorrect, for these aren't the same thing: one has existed for a long time and the other is a sudden change. The latter begs an explanation, and it's there: deliberate management manipulation of the candidate pool. It's therefore unde…

it's there: deliberate management manipulation of the candidate pool In which direction was the manipulation? How do you prove that the pool manipulation was neutral before and is now favouring blacks, rather than it was disadvantaging blacks and has now moved to a more neutral postion? "has existed for a long time" is just an appeal to tradition. It says nothing about the validity or correctness of the previous situ…

> How do you prove that the pool manipulation was neutral before and is now favouring blacks, rather than it was disadvantaging blacks and has now moved to a more neutral postion?

Anonymize the applicants. You can determine what a neutral pool is by removing the ability to discriminate between applicants of different race, gender, etc.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#897

Post by ironcurtain »

ParetoOptimal wrote: post #789
nonethewiser wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skin color doesn't make you privileged.

Being white gives me the privilege of not being followed by security at department stores while I see my non-white friends be not so subtly watched or followed.

That’s not the privilege but the consequence of unfortunate experience with shoplifting and groups more likely to perpetrate it. Crime statistics is hateful and racist, no doubt. But it drives bias which serves as first order simplified decision making

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#898

Post by PathOfEclipse »

feoren wrote: post #892
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take a big bag of fair dice, and split them randomly into two groups. If you think human outcomes follow a simple normal distribution in a just world, then you are making the exact prime mistake I already pointed out; which is dramatically, and I mean dramatically , over-simplifying the world. Seriously: read some Thomas Sowell. Nothing about this world or this universe is normally distributed. > Are you asserting…

So many things in this response make it clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith. I thought you were actually trying to make a rational argument before, but this response belies that you are not. Like this one: > since leftists, namely, the democrat party, were primarily responsible for all of those things over the past 200 years That is so inane it does not even deserve a response. You've given away that…

You can call it insane but it doesn't change the fact that what I said about the democrat party is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo

"Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party."

Your resistance to my statement has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your own cognitive bias.

Here is another source: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-de...

"SJWs who go around browbeating Americans over a history of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow can’t then complain when we point out that it was actually the Democratic Party which was most involved in this history."

> You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case

The point is not what I believe or "know" to be true. The point is to actually test your beliefs empirically against reality. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing anything remotely scientific. You might as well be spouting your religious beliefs, which you have been, by the way.

Your views on Reagan and Thomas, along with your rejection of the truth about your own political party, reveal your extreme bias, ignorance, and mis-education. No one could claim the Reagan presidency was the worst in U.S. history, or that Thomas leads a movement to destroy "democracy in the U.S.", without a hefty combination of all three. And, If I am quoting one source, it beats your zero sources and your ridiculous comparison of humans to dice and economic outcomes to dice rolls. But, really, many, many others have said the same things as Sowell. He just says it best. Those include a host of other people you'll dismiss because you clearly only pay attention to leftwing sources that agree with your existing religion.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#899

Post by hbrn »

feoren wrote: post #889
hbrn wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> history which has led to you having a cushy, high-paying desk job doing whatever you do So when a white person gets a high-paying job, it's because of history of slavery. If a black person gets a high-paying job, it's because they worked hard. Did I get that right? No wonder Trump got elected when this is the agenda. > You don't get to ignore the history that has led to the life you currently live just because Geng…

> So when a white person gets a high-paying job, it's because of history of slavery. If a black person gets a high-paying job, it's because they worked hard. Did I get that right? Not quite. I said "led to", not "because", and everything that happens today was "led to" by history, including a black person getting a high-paying job. Remember this was all in response to this rather amazing comment: > My ancestors were…

> everything that happens today was "led to" by history, including a black person getting a high-paying job

Then why focus on the past at all? "everything led to everything" is meaningless statement, it adds no value. But we both know that the reason you made it is because it allows you to use emotions as an argument.

And I still don't understand it, is average income black male more deserving of a good job than poor white male? If you focus on the past, the answer is yes. If you focus on the present, the answer is no. Which is it?

> we can not say "it's not my problem because of who my ancestors are".

On it's own it's a terrible argument. But one can definitely use it in response to "this is your problem because of who your ancestors were".

> That's not even mentioning the fact that Genghis Khan died in 1227 and there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves

It's not the gotcha you think it is. You're the one who brought up Genghis Khan in the first place.

FYI slavery in Russian Empire ended in 1866. So yeah, there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves. And those people as white as it gets.

Not to mention that slavery still exists in many parts of the world.

So I'm still failing to understand why one group of ancestors of slaves is more deserving of inclusion than another group of ancestors of slaves. In fact, it seem to be more deserving than today's slaves. It is almost like slavery has nothing to do with those policies, and yet all your talking points are about slavery.

> What if your job posting was written poorly

Then it would not lead to the results and would not be considered optimal.

> By learning about it and understanding its effects on their society today?

Bad answer. Learning and understanding are not actionable.

> I'd rather have DIE / affirmative action as we have right now than nothing

That's a false dichotomy. Minorities well being has been improving decade after decade. That's not nothing.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#900

Post by raxxorraxor »

mikkergp wrote: post #895
raxxorraxor wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI is anti-intellectual to the core. Worse, it is codified racism. It creates problems where there were few to solve. Nobody can measure merit, but that doesn't mean you can hire people based on skin color and that is exactly what DEI did. And not much else, it remains plain racism. Without bias you can see it because racial quotas are the expression. People in the past also thought they had good reason for racial d…

DEI has an enormous surface area, I don’t think you can blanket describe it as anti-intellectual.

I haven't seen a single example where it can justify its racial discrimination, which of course would require some real hard evidence of its own necessity. I think we agree that racial discrimination is very negative.
Post reply on HN